Competition Appeal Tribunal and Competition Service

Jo Swinson Excerpts

Friday 7th November 2014 Written Statements

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills (Jo Swinson)]

The triennial review of the Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT) and the Competition Service (CS) commenced on 21 August 2013 and I am now pleased to announce the completion of the review.

The CAT was established by the Enterprise Act 2002, which came into force on 1 April 2003, to hear appeals against certain decisions of the UK competition authorities and economics regulators. It is a specialist body with cross-disciplinary expertise in law, economics, business and accountancy. The Enterprise Act 2002 also created the Competition Service: a body corporate and executive non-departmental public body whose purpose is to fund and provide administrative and legal support services to the Competition Appeal Tribunal.

The review has concluded that the CAT has a vital role to play in determining regulatory and competition appeals, which have important consequences for the wider economy and the Government’s growth agenda; and should therefore remain as a specialist tribunal NDPB.

The review also concludes that the functions performed by the Competition Service should be retained but should be merged with those of the CAT to form a single body, a specialist tribunal NDPB with its own support functions. The merger should be taken forward as soon as parliamentary time allows.

Stage 2 of the review examined the governance arrangements for both the CAT and the CS to assess compliance with statutory accountabilities and confirm that appropriate governance arrangements were in place. The review concluded that overall compliance with recognised principles of good corporate governance was good and should be rated green. However, the review also identified a number of recommendations to improve how the governance functions will operate in the context of the new merged body.

The full report of the review of the Competition Appeal Tribunal and the Competition Service can be found at: https://www.gov.uk website and copies have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

Agency Workers Regulations (Review)

Jo Swinson Excerpts

Monday 3rd November 2014 Written Statements

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills (Jo Swinson)]

As part of the red tape challenge, Government committed to examining the paperwork obligations of the agency workers regulations (AWR). The purpose of the review was to ensure that the practical arrangements for employers were as simple as possible. While the review was completed late last year, Government delayed an announcement of findings until after the publication of the European Commission’s review of the implementation of the agency workers directive. This was published on 21 March this year.

The review focused on the record-keeping requirements of the AWR. The AWR are not prescriptive as to what records should be kept by either a recruitment business or a hiring business––it is up to the businesses themselves to determine their own approach. However, in the course of the review it was clear that businesses needed to record information about agency workers in order to demonstrate compliance with the regulations.

Views were collected from temporary work agencies, business, and trade and employee representative organisations.

The review found that, while temporary work agencies reportedly invested much time and resource in updating their processes and systems to ensure they were compliant when the AWR were brought in, there was consensus that the AWR work relatively well.

The most significant obstacle experienced by temporary work agencies was obtaining information from hiring businesses about employment terms and conditions of comparable workers who are hired directly by the hirers. Without this information agencies found it difficult to ensure temporary agency workers receive the same basic working and employment conditions after completing the 12-week qualifying period.

But temporary work agencies were clear that they did not want the main guidance on the regulations to be changed. Amending the guidance would risk being perceived as changing the AWR, and thus create confusion among temporary work agencies and hiring businesses.

They did, however, suggest that additional guidance should be issued on the regulations specifically targeted at hirers to explain what information agencies would require from them and why. This will reduce the administrative burden on temporary work agencies which is brought about by having to make repeated requests to hirers.

Officials will now work with interested parties to simplify the existing guidance into three distinct sections––one for workers, one for temporary work agencies and additional guidance specifically targeted at hirers.

Street Trading and Pedlary Legislation

Jo Swinson Excerpts

Thursday 16th October 2014 Written Statements

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills (Jo Swinson)]

I am today publishing the Government’s response to the consultation on reform of the street trading regimes in England, Wales and Northern Ireland and the pedlary regime across the UK. This will ensure compliance with the EU services directive. A joint consultation with the devolved Administrations was published on 23 November 2012¹ seeking views on draft regulations to:

repeal the Pedlars Acts 1871 and 1881 (which apply to the whole of the UK) because the certification process set out in the Acts does not comply with the requirements of the European Union services directive 2006/123/EC (the services directive); and

amend the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1982 (LGMPA) in England and Wales and the Street Trading Act (Northern Ireland) 2001 to ensure compliance with the services directive.

The need to make these changes followed the consensus reached by EU member states in 2010 that the retail sale of goods is generally a service activity which falls within the scope of the services directive.

The consultation closed on 5 April 2013, having been extended twice to allow as many stakeholders as possible—particularly pedlars—to respond.

The responses from pedlars showed that they regard the Pedlars Acts as the source of their legitimacy and they were adamant that they should not be repealed but, instead, the certification process amended. Local authorities, police forces, market traders and their associations all thought it essential that pedlars should continue to be certified. The Government therefore intend to make the minimum changes required to bring the regime into compliance with the services directive.

The Pedlars Acts, which apply across the UK, will be retained with the existing definition of pedlary. The certification process will be amended to remove a requirement for prior residency in an area and to make the required good character check an objective one that can be applied consistently across the UK. The Scottish and Northern Ireland Governments are content for these changes to apply in those nations and the Association of Chief Police Officers, Police Scotland and Police Constables Northern Ireland are working to develop a new good character check.

Street trading in many parts of England and Wales is controlled, either because a local authority has chosen to adopt schedule 4 of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1982 (LGMPA) or because it has its own local legislation. In these areas there are restrictions on what can be sold where and licensing regimes which allow particular traders to set up their stalls, usually for a fee.

Schedule 4 of the LGMPA contains an exemption for certified pedlars and the consultation proposed that if the Pedlars Acts were repealed, a new definition of pedlary should be included and the exemption made to refer to that. While recognising that the existing definition is out of date and accepting the principle of the proposed new one, most respondents disagreed with the descriptions of how it would apply, from two opposing points of view. Pedlars thought that the proposed descriptions would unduly hamper their ability to trade freely. Local authorities thought the proposed descriptions were too “generous” and would be unworkable in practice. The market trading associations, other organisations and individuals that commented were also opposed. In retaining the Pedlars Acts, the Government are therefore not making any changes to the definition of pedlary or to the exemption in schedule 4 of the LGMPA.

The consultation set out other changes to schedule 4 of the LGMPA that were necessary to bring the regime into compliance. These concerned the application process, the duration of licences and the grounds for refusing or revoking a licence or consent as well as consequential changes to other parts of the schedule. There was general acceptance from local authorities of these changes and support for the Government’s proposals. I am therefore proposing to take these forward where they are necessary to ensure compliance.

The consultation contained two additional proposals—for an additional power to designate streets for established traders only and for new discretionary grounds for refusing a licence based on the suitability of the street—for which the consultation provided insufficient evidence to proceed, and accordingly I do not propose to pursue these.

These changes mainly affect England, Wales and Scotland because Northern Ireland has a separate street trading regime which effectively negates the pedlary regime in Northern Ireland. The Northern Ireland Government have requested that the necessary changes to their regime are made at the same time.

In Scotland, the Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982 provides local authorities with the power to license street traders and it exempts certified pedlars from that regime in the same way as schedule 4 of the Local Government Miscellaneous Provisions Act does in England and Wales. The Scottish Government will issue a separate response to their consultation.

Secondary legislation to effect these changes will be brought forward as soon as the parliamentary timetable allows.

^1. https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/street-trading-and-pedlary-laws-a-joint-consultation-on-draft-regulations-to-repeal-the-pedlars-acts-uk-wide-and-make-changes-to-the-street-trading-legislation-in-england-wales-and-northern-ireland

Oral Answers to Questions

Jo Swinson Excerpts

Thursday 16th October 2014 Commons Chamber

[Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)]

2. What steps she is taking to ensure equal pay in the workplace.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Women and Equalities (Jo Swinson)]

The gender pay gap is falling steadily over time, and the full-time pay gap has now been almost eliminated for women under the age of 40. We are promoting pay transparency through the Think, Act, Report initiative and encouraging girls and young women to consider a wider range of careers, including better-paid jobs in science, technology and engineering, through the Your Life campaign.

[Andrew George]

I am grateful to the Minister for that reply, but how can we judge what progress is being made without the hard data? What can she do to ensure that employers, particularly larger employers—surely it is within their capacity—publish the data so that we can make those kinds of judgments?

[Jo Swinson]

My hon. Friend is right to point out that transparency is a really useful tool in being able to make progress on the pay gap. As I have said, with the Think, Act, Report initiative, to which more than 250 companies are now signed up, two thirds are now publishing more information on gender equality, and we are encouraging more and more to undertake equal pay audits. He might also be aware that Grazia magazine—I am sure that he is an avid reader—has been campaigning for further progress on pay transparency, particularly in relation to section 78 of the Equality Act 2010. I think that there will be a significant debate on that in the months running up to the election. As he will know, our party has signed up to that campaign, as I hope others will in future.

[Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)]

As the Minister indicated, one of the reasons for the pay gap is the under-representation of women in high-paying careers such as IT. Wednesday was Ada Lovelace day, celebrating the world’s first computer scientist. In the intervening time, we have gone from 100% female to only 17% female in this area. What progress is the Minister making in changing that?

[Jo Swinson]

The hon. Lady is absolutely right to raise this issue. I praise her for the work that she has done in highlighting the importance of women in engineering, science and technology careers. I mentioned the Your Life campaign. We are working alongside the different professional bodies within these industries to encourage more young women to study these subjects at school, because that is absolutely crucial if they are to be able to go on to study them at university and go into such careers. We are focusing particularly on significantly boosting the number of girls taking physics and maths A-level. This is work in progress—there is a lot more to do—but we have significant projects under way to deliver it.

[Gloria De Piero (Ashfield) (Lab)]

Equal pay for people with disabilities is a well-established right. If Lord Freud’s views on this matter do not represent the views of the Government, why is he still a Minister of the Government?

[Jo Swinson]

As I said in yesterday’s debate on the national minimum wage, great shock has been expressed in all parts of the House about Lord Freud’s remarks, which in no way reflect the opinion of the Government. It is therefore quite right that he has apologised in full for those remarks. It is right to set out on the record that people in all parts of the House believe that the minimum wage should be paid to anybody in work, whether they are male, female, disabled or not disabled. Whatever their characteristics, it is absolutely vital that that is the case.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

The Church of England measure that we are going to consider in this House on Monday provides in clause 2 for an amendment to the Equality Act 2010 that says:

“The office of diocesan or suffragan bishop is not a public office.”

Why on earth are the Government allowing the Church of England to bring forward a measure that would carve it out of equality measures just at the time when it is finally allowing the ordination of women bishops?

[Jo Swinson]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question; he is an avid campaigner on these issues. I think there is great joy about the new measures on women bishops that will come forward for debate on Monday. We need to look at what requirements are needed by religious organisations, as there may well be some cases where they need particular provisions to be made. I will happily look into the issue and write to him.

[Julian Smith (Skipton and Ripon) (Con)]

3. What steps she is taking to increase representation of women on the boards of public institutions.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills (Jo Swinson)]

The Government want half of new public appointments to be women by the end of this Parliament. The Cabinet Office has established the Centre for Public Appointments, which is supporting Departments in modernising recruitment practices, removing long-standing barriers, and emphasising skills and ability over previous experience. This has attracted a more diverse field of candidates to these important roles. The proportion of new female appointments stood at 39% last year, but there is clearly more to do.

[Julian Smith]

Does the Minister agree that as well as board appointments, it is vital that we have more women chief executives in public sector roles? Will she pay tribute to Ros Tolcher, who has become the chief executive of Harrogate hospital, which serves part of my constituency, taking to 100% the female leadership of NHS hospitals supporting Skipton and Ripon?

[Jo Swinson]

I certainly support the hon. Gentleman in congratulating the excellent senior women delivering public services in his local health care system. It is important that we have women on boards but also in executive roles. We have been making progress on this in the private sector, although there is clearly a lot more to be done there as well. The executive challenge has perhaps been a slightly more difficult nut to crack at the same speed at which we have been able to improve the numbers of women on boards more generally. The work we are doing to improve the pipeline support for women in the workplace is absolutely vital.

[Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op)]

Yesterday Google and Facebook announced that instead of pursuing family-friendly practices, they were offering women a chance to freeze their eggs for 10 years, in essence saying, “If you want to get to board level, you should have frozen your eggs.” Is not this the worst case of institutional sexism, intimidating women into not having babies at the time of their own choosing? Will the Minister unequivocally condemn those companies?

[Jo Swinson]

It is up to individual companies to decide which policies they want to offer and, indeed, up to women employees whether they provide any kind of incentive or otherwise. What is important is making sure that there are genuine choices that women in the workplace can make so that they do not feel under any kind of pressure to delay starting a family, if that is what they want to do at a particular point in their career. The Government’s changes to make the procedures for maternity leave and shared parental leave much more modern are essential in making sure that women and men can make the parenting choices that work for them.

[Peter Aldous (Waveney) (Con)]

4. What recent discussions she has had with the Secretary of State for the Home Department on tackling violence against women.

National Minimum Wage (2015 Report)

Jo Swinson Excerpts

Wednesday 15th October 2014 Written Statements

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills (Jo Swinson)]

I am pleased to announce that the Government have written to the Low Pay Commission setting out what we would like the Commission to consider on the national minimum wage. The document contains the Government’s interim evidence on economic and non-economic issues, including the minimum wage rates, the youth labour market and apprenticeships. An updated version of the evidence will be published later when the latest information on earnings and economic forecasts will be included.

A copy of the evidence will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses and will be available from the BIS website at: http://bis.gov.uk.

National Minimum Wage

Jo Swinson Excerpts

Wednesday 15th October 2014 Commons Chamber

[Dr Whiteford]

I want to dwell on equality, because we must remember that the vast majority of people in minimum wage jobs are women. Issues of ethnicity and disability often compound those of gender inequality. Minimum wage jobs are overwhelmingly done by women who are in part-time positions because of their caring responsibilities. Such women are often in sectors with far too much gender occupational segregation, such as cleaning, catering and cashiering. They often have temporary and insecure jobs, and they often work antisocial hours. Other Members have mentioned the problems of exploitative zero-hours contracts.

We cannot separate from this debate the huge impact of gender inequality on wages in this country or dissociate it from child poverty and its long-term impact on our society, which was discussed earlier. We know that children who grow up in deprivation are likely to need the heath service more, to have lower educational attainment and to have much worse job prospects in the long term. Unless we are prepared to recognise that people deserve a living wage to support their families, we cannot begin to tackle the inequality that so dogs our society.

I want to touch on the difficulties of enforcing the minimum wage, which other Members have mentioned. This year, the Low Pay Commission has taken evidence in my constituency, where a significant number of people are in low-paid jobs. Although unemployment is very low in Banff and Buchan—about 1%—a very high proportion of people earn less than the living wage. The vast majority of employers respect employment law and pay at least the minimum wage, but people have nevertheless brought me reports of being paid less than the minimum wage. That issue is extremely difficult to address.

I have been made aware of cases of people involved in the so-called informal economy, as well as in the service sector. They may not have a contract and may not have received pay slips. They know that they are being short-changed and that, in relation to national insurance, they could be losing out on their pensions in the longer term. They are also short-changing Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs and the rest of us. However, they are reluctant to put their heads above the parapet because they need their job and do not want to jeopardise what little income they have. In a close-knit rural community, they also do not want to be labelled a troublemaker.

Beefing up local authorities’ powers might help, but that is not a real solution. In theory, employees who are being paid less than the minimum wage can pursue legal action against their employer or take them to a tribunal with every likelihood of success, but the reality is that somebody paid less than £6.50 an hour is very unlikely to have the financial means to access the tribunal service or take on the associated legal costs. That is wholly unrealistic, and I hope that the Minister will address that issue and suggest ways round it when she responds, particularly given the changes that the Government have introduced.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills (Jo Swinson)]

I just want to say that any constituent of the hon. Lady, or indeed of any other Member, who finds themselves in such a situation should ring the pay and work rights helpline on 0800 917 2368. They do not need to access the tribunal system; HMRC enforces the national minimum wage on behalf of workers.

[Dr Whiteford]

I am grateful to the Minister—it is very helpful to have that phone number on the record—but my experience, having helped constituents in such a way, is that nothing changes. The Government need to do more on this to make people feel confident about asserting their rights.

I want to wind up quickly by saying that we have reached a situation in the UK where people in low-paid work—

--- Later in debate ---

[Andy Sawford (Corby) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Bedford (Richard Fuller). He made some important points. I will return to some of them, such as the one about procurement and the supply chain.

My constituency has been fighting for better wages for more than a century. I dare say that the struggle goes back even further. In 1905, Raunds boot and shoe workers marched to London. [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman is smiling because he knows Raunds well. The workers might even have gone through his constituency. They marched to London to demand a fair rate of pay from the War Office, because they were making boots for the British Army. They rallied in Parliament square and then came into the Strangers Gallery of the House of Commons, where they caused a disturbance, such was the strength of feeling that they needed to be heard. They then marched up to the War Office, where they had a meeting. The War Office agreed to pay a fair rate. It accepted the principle that people should be treated with dignity and respect, and should be paid a wage that is commensurate with the work that they do and that enables them to exist and to have decent lives.

People in my constituency have campaigned long and hard for better wages. People in the steel industry, which used to be a major employer alongside the boot and shoe industry, campaigned for better wages and good jobs. They were incredibly let down in 1980 when the Government closed the steelworks, leaving many people out of work. That has shaped the story of my constituency, which is one of hard-working people, of a great spirit of enterprise and of some very good employment opportunities and good employers. However, there is a darker side to our local labour market.

Today, many people in my constituency have very insecure employment. Many people work through employment agencies, have zero-hours contracts and are paid at the minimum wage. Indeed, some people, as the Minister is well aware, have been paid below the minimum wage. I will come on to that later. The combination of low pay, contracts that lock in insecurity and the role of agencies in our local labour market means that, although people who work for the better employers, such as Tata Steel and RS Components, have good lives, many people struggle to lead the lives that they should be able to lead, given the work that they do, day in, day out, when they have the opportunity to work.

There has been a conversion on zero-hours contracts from the Government. They now seem to accept that they are a problem. For a time, they denied that they caused a difficulty in our local labour market. I campaigned on the issue, as did many others, and persuaded the Office for National Statistics to revise the way in which it surveys employers to identify whether people are being employed on zero-hours contracts. Its revised figures show that almost 1 million people are employed on zero-hours contracts.

The Conservative party has made the argument that some people want to be on zero-hours contracts. In the end, this issue is about economics and power. There are different kinds of casual employment where there are no fixed hours. For a long time, my local authority swimming pool has offered seasonal work. It often suits students to be employed during the summer months on a fair rate of pay and not to have a long-term contract or fixed hours. It is common to combine working in the Co-operative funeral business with being a retained firefighter. There is a long-standing tradition of that. Again, it might suit such individuals not to have fixed hours and not to be on a permanent contract. There are also examples among higher paid jobs. There are hospital consultants and lawyers who do not have fixed hours or permanent contracts, and that might suit them. That is their choice.

However, when I talk about zero-hours exploitation, I am talking about people who would much rather have a proper contract of employment; know where, from week to week, their money will come from; know what hours they are able to work so that they can plan; and, frankly, be in a stronger position with their employer to demand fairness and respect in return for the work that they do. That exploitation is not just characterised by the narrow issue of exclusivity that the Government have belatedly said they will tackle. We have not seen the legislation on that and I hope that the Minister will tell us how urgently the Government will act. Such exploitation is also about employees being required to be available for work when there is no guarantee of work, and being employed on such contracts on a long-term basis.

Others might say that people can move about in the labour market and look for better opportunities. However, if my constituents cannot get a loan to buy a car to get further afield in the area of the country that has the lowest public subsidy for public transport, how can they break out of the trap? I come across young people who cannot get into the housing market. They cannot get a rental contract, let alone a mortgage. People therefore cannot lead the life that they want, such as starting a family, because they are trapped on zero-hours contracts.

This is therefore a much bigger issue than the Government acknowledge. They have been dragged into beginning to accept that there is a problem, but they have only a very partial, narrow understanding of it. I hope that they will legislate soon. If they do not, I will support the steps that my hon. Friend the Member for Streatham (Mr Umunna) said the next Labour Government will take to address the scandal of zero-hours contracts. There is also the problem of employment agencies. My constituency has the highest concentration of employment agencies anywhere in the country. There is a legacy back to the 1980s and the make-up pay that was offered to the then steelworkers, and to the types of industries that located in Corby. To some extent, those were labour-intensive industries where the work could not be shipped abroad. That is why we have a strength in the food sector, with perishables. The work is still labour intensive and it needs to be done in the UK.

Agencies are keeping people in insecure employment on a long-term basis. Some are better than others, and some have signed our local agency code of conduct. The hon. Member for South Derbyshire (Heather Wheeler) entreated us to be positive about what we can do, and we have sought to take a local initiative and to work with the local authority and some of the best employers and agencies. We have got them to sign up to a code so that if, for example, a permanent job opportunity becomes available, they will offer that job to an agency worker who has proven themselves over time. They will, of course, always follow the law and make known to employees the law on, for example, not charging for personal protective equipment, and they will not tell people that they have to attend unpaid training as a pre-condition for work; that is illegal, but it often happens in the labour market.

I am grateful for the support that the Minister has given locally to that initiative. She met me and other local representatives, including the council leader, and helped to initiate a series of inspections by HMRC in our local area. We found that more than £100,000 was owing to local workers in fines, and as I understand, those fines have been agreed with some employers. In February the Prime Minister promised me that he would name and shame those employers, despite some Treasury objections. I hope that the Minister will name and shame them today, or if not, that she will tell me when they will be named and shamed. We have heard repeated assurances and local people want to hear those companies named and shamed.

[Jo Swinson]

On that specific point, the new naming and shaming policy, which is much more comprehensive, came into being for investigations that began from 1 October 2013 onwards. It may be that the investigations the hon. Gentleman mentions were under the previous scheme, which was obviously not adequate and that is why we have changed it. That may explain the challenge.

[Andy Sawford]

That is the kind of bureaucracy that does not work for working people, and which the hon. Member for South Derbyshire deplored. The Prime Minister gave me a personal commitment at the Dispatch Box that those companies would be named and shamed. He is Prime Minister of the United Kingdom and I do not believe that he does not have the power to do that. It would set a real example.

I support the motion. I am looking forward to hearing my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton West (Julie Hilling) so I will draw my remarks to a close by saying that there are good ideas across the Chamber and good will on this issue. It is absolutely clear, however, that we need a Labour Government again to continue the work of the Raunds strikers in 1905, and of those Labour Members who pushed the minimum wage through in 1997.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills (Jo Swinson)]

We have had a good debate. There has been a lot more agreement than the political to and fro or the very politicised wording of the motion might suggest. The hon. Member for Dumfries and Galloway (Mr Brown) gave us a welcome reminder of the history of the national minimum wage and his experience on the Bill Committee, which had two overnighters to make the legislation happen. When he was doing that in 1997, I was working in McDonald’s on £2.70 an hour. I was fortunate, however: one of my friends was working in a local greengrocer on £1.90 an hour. The National Minimum Wage Act 1998 was a landmark piece of legislation. I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his role, and I congratulate the previous Government on introducing it.

Incidentally, it has been suggested in some quarters that the Liberal Democrats did not support the Bill. I would like to correct the record. Hansard shows clearly that Liberal Democrat MPs voted in favour, with not a single one voting against. Indeed, the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, who became our spokesperson on the issue shortly afterwards, has made it clear that he supported it throughout.

This month, the national minimum wage for adults rose to £6.50 an hour—a 3% rise and an above-inflation rise. To people working full-time on the national minimum wage, that means an extra £355 each year. That is a significant increase and one that is very welcome. There is, rightly and understandably, enthusiasm for more from both sides of the House, which is why my right hon. Friend the Business Secretary has asked the Low Pay Commission for forward guidance to consider how we can further increase the national minimum wage. In response, the LPC has said clearly that we are coming into a period when there will be faster real increases in the national minimum wage.

The hon. Member for Bolton West (Julie Hilling) and others referred to the apprentice rate of the national minimum wage, which is only £2.73 an hour. In the evidence to the LPC that we publish today, we have made clear our intention to increase apprentice pay rates by £1 an hour to align them with the 16 to 17-year-old rate. We are putting that suggestion to the LPC and look forward to its response.

Various Members have put forward views and made understandable points about the living wage. Indeed, my hon. Friend the Member for South Derbyshire (Heather Wheeler) made a very good case, pointing out that companies do well if they pay their employees well. That is an important point to remember.

My hon. Friend the Member for Redcar (Ian Swales) reminded us that much depends on take-home pay and that therefore the interrelationship between the minimum wage and the tax threshold is also important. As he pointed out, at the beginning of this Parliament, people on the minimum wage were paying £1,000 a year in income tax, and we have reduced that by £800. They say that imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, so I am delighted that my Conservative colleagues now agree with Nick that we should raise the tax threshold further.

[Andy Sawford]

If imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, will the Minister imitate me in saying that Lord Freud should be sacked for his disgusting comments?

[Jo Swinson]

I will come to those remarks in a minute. I understand the very real concern that has been expressed.

The hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Jack Dromey) talked about the money the Government spend to support people on the national minimum wage and suggested that a higher minimum wage could reduce that expenditure. The Institute for Fiscal Studies has analysed that suggestion and is not sure that that would be the result. Nevertheless, he made a powerful and passionate contribution, particularly given his experience over many years dealing with these issues. His point at the end was perhaps the most important: this is about the moral cause of ensuring people are properly rewarded for their work.

Members on both sides of the House have been understandably shocked by Lord Freud’s remarks, which, I stress, absolutely do not reflect the Government’s position and are clearly offensive and unacceptable. I am glad he has issued a full apology. Of course, my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon) rightly expressed his dismay that the shadow Education Secretary mistakenly accused him on television of supporting a lower minimum wage for disabled people. I hope that my hon. Friend’s intervention will have helped to correct the record, not just here, but more widely.

The hon. Members for Westminster North (Ms Buck) and for Bolton West and my hon. Friend the Member for Bedford (Richard Fuller) raised the issue of travel time in the social care sector, and it is important—[Interruption.]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Dawn Primarolo)]

Order. There are too many private conversations going on in the Chamber, and it is disrupting my ability to hear clearly what the Minister is saying. If Members are in the Chamber, they are here to listen to the Minister. If they want to have a private conversation, they could step outside to continue it.

[Jo Swinson]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.

Travel times are a genuine issue. If somebody is expected to travel—during the day as part of their work, rather than to and from work—that time should be included for minimum wage calculation purposes. I shall repeat the number for the pay and work rights helpline, which investigates these complaints: 0800 917 2368.

HMRC did a major piece of work on the social care sector and found that of the 224 employers investigated between 2011 and 2013, 104 were not paying the minimum wage properly, and identified £1.2 million of arrears for more than 6,300 workers. So there is a way that people can get what they are due, but we need to look at the wider issues as well, which is why the Department of Health recently consulted on statutory guidance for local authorities to make that crystal clear. The final guidance is expected soon. It is vital that we have proper enforcement, which is why we have increased the enforcement budget by 15% to £9.2 million. The extra money will help to employ extra compliance officers to ensure that complaints can be properly investigated and proactive work undertaken to investigate non-compliance. Indeed, just last year, 22,600 workers were paid back arrears of £4.6 million as a result of HMRC’s work.

The hon. Members for St Albans (Mrs Main) and for Elmet and Rothwell (Alec Shelbrooke) mentioned interns. On this point, we already have clear rules: if somebody is expected to turn up and undertake specific tasks, they should be getting the national minimum wage, whether they are in the House of Commons or anywhere else. It is right that somebody highlighted the excellent Speaker’s parliamentary placement scheme, set up by the right hon. Member for Salford and Eccles (Hazel Blears), along with my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood (Eric Ollerenshaw). I was involved in making that happen before I became a Minister. It is a good scheme and one that I hope will continue to be successful.

Zero-hours contracts will be discussed in more detail in the Small Business, Enterprise and Employment Bill, but the Government are taking action, through a code of practice, to ban exclusivity and improve standards for people working on such contracts.

In conclusion, the Government support the national minimum wage setting minimum standards in the labour market and encourage employers to pay more. We do not agree with the Opposition’s flawed prescription on the best way to achieve this, and we do not support the motion, but we will continue to support the national minimum wage and protect the most vulnerable people, making sure that we have more jobs in the economy and lower taxes, so that people can keep the benefit of their hard work.

Question put.

Prevention and Deterrence of Undeclared Work (EU Opt-in)

Jo Swinson Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd July 2014 Written Statements

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills (Jo Swinson)]

The European Commission has proposed the establishment of a European platform to enhance co-operation in the prevention and deterrence of undeclared work. The Government consider that the activity against which the co-operation is directed—failure to declare work—is treated as a criminal matter in many member states, and that the proposal requires law enforcement authorities to collaborate with the platform. The Government have therefore asserted the United Kingdom’s opt-in in respect of this proposal, to the extent that the proposal requires law enforcement authorities to collaborate with the platform, and have decided to opt in.

National Minimum Wage Regulations

Jo Swinson Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd July 2014 Written Statements

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills (Jo Swinson)]

Today, I publish a consultation document and draft consolidated national minimum wage (NMW) regulations for public consultation.

The NMW regulations, which set out the detailed NMW rules, came into force on 1 April 1999. Since then, the NMW regulations have been amended over 20 times. As well as the annual changes to the NMW rates, there have been a number of substantial changes to the rules over the years.

As part of the red tape challenge, we concluded that the NMW regulations and subsequent amending regulations should be consolidated into a single set of regulations.

We have also taken the opportunity to update the drafting to reflect current drafting practice, such as making the provisions gender-neutral, and to try and ensure that the rules are set out as clearly and accessibly as possible.

This consultation seeks views on whether the draft consolidated regulations 2014 are clear and workable. It is not intended to reopen the policy decisions behind the detailed rules.

I am placing copies of the consultation document in the Libraries of both Houses.

Universal Postal Service

Jo Swinson Excerpts

Thursday 17th July 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Brian Binley (Northampton South) (Con)]

I bring the quiet voice of the other party of the coalition.

I congratulate the hon. Member, and my friend, for North Ayrshire and Arran (Katy Clark), on securing the debate. I also thank the Backbench Business Committee. This is a timely debate, one that those on the Front Bench would do very well to listen to. There were some deep concerns when we supported this measure and I am sad to say that some of them have reared their heads earlier than we might have thought. I therefore agree wholeheartedly that we need action and a review very quickly indeed. I hope this debate will prompt the regulator to pursue that review.

The starting point of this debate is my belief in fair competition. That was one of the reasons I decided, in the first place, to support the original move to privatise the Post Office. However, fair competition does of course have parameters.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills (Jo Swinson)]

I thank my hon. Friend for giving way. I think it might be helpful to correct that point. The Post Office has absolutely not been privatised. Royal Mail has been privatised. They are two quite separate companies.

[Mr Binley]

I thank the Front Bench spokesman for that rather pernickety interjection. I will now continue. Of course it has not been privatised—only 70% of its shares have been sold off. We all recognise that point. We know where we are, so there are more serious questions that I would wish the Front Bench spokesman to address, quite frankly. Let us hope we can move on to them.

Fair competition has parameters that need to be well understood. Fair competition needs to take place with a focus on the public interest first of all. That is a consideration we need to hold very closely to our hearts. It is about making sure that the predatory exploitation of a dominant market position does not harm consumers or undermine others who seek to participate in a competitive environment. There are dangers that cherry-picking does, in truth, undermine that. The context of this debate is making sure that the end-to-end postal services in an urban and suburban setting do not undermine the financial sustainability of the universal service obligation, where in my view the overwhelming public interest can be found.

The truth of the matter, and this is a pretty heavy warning that I hope those on the Front Bench will take note of, is that if we are not careful and if action is not taken, we will be driven to the point where the universal service becomes a much more limited service, or is driven to the point where prices are so high it puts itself into a state of extinction. I believe there is enough evidence in the marketplace to suggest that those fears need to be taken seriously.

I believe in the decency of people and especially the decency of the great majority of Royal Mail workers who serve households in every part of the United Kingdom very well. I would like especially to pay tribute to those Royal Mail workers who work, live and provide service in my own constituency of Northampton South. I talk with them very often. I visited them during the passing of the Bill and had sizeable discussions with them—even with Mr Billy Hayes. I pay tribute to him for the way he undertook those discussions. I believe in the basic decency of Royal Mail workers. They are a much-valued part of our national infrastructure. We should give no thought to being anti-union in any way at all, bearing in mind that they have acted in a proper manner and have in many respects taken some pretty heavy knocks from their own specific political point of view. We should pay tribute to them and I am perfectly happy to do so. I repeat that they are a much-valued part of our national infrastructure, especially in the most remote areas.

It is not just in the rural and remote areas where we should be grateful for Royal Mail. There are many outlying areas in places other than the wilds of Dartmoor and the highlands of Scotland. In fact, near to my town of Northampton, many outlying and very small communities rely totally on the postal service. Very often, the postie fulfils a much more important role in terms of social connection than many of us really understand. I am not sure that the companies that are cherry-picking at the moment understand that point of view. Some of the reports we have had back show that the sorts of workers they are beginning to employ perhaps do not fulfil the criteria that most of us would want our postal service workers to fulfil.

I have a firm belief in the universal service obligation, underpinned as it is by statute in the Postal Services Act 2011. Indeed, I sponsored an amendment in the Committee stage to secure the obligation for 10 years, rather than the Government’s original proposal of 18 months. I am very proud of having helped to secure that amendment. However, it seems probable that other players in the postal market will, as they have so far, cherry-pick the operations that offer soft opportunities for profit, leaving the Royal Mail with the relatively less attractive deliveries. The question for the Government is the extent to which the goal of competition in the postal services market should be allowed to undermine the viability of the Royal Mail’s balance sheet. If that viability is allowed to be undermined, that would bring the whole question of the USO into serious danger.

We need to respect the spirit of what was enshrined in the Postal Services Act, as well as the letter of the law. Ofcom needs to ensure that competition in the postal services market does not in any way undermine the USO. That is its task—it is the regulator. I call on it to carry out its duty as we originally intended, both in law and in spirit. The two are not always coincidental. This House is clear that, where a conflict between competition and the USO arises, it is the obligation that should take priority. I hope we will impress that on Ofcom as a result of this debate and in other ways as time passes.

Royal Mail workers, like our constituents, were clear in what was given to them as a clear undertaking in the 2011 Act. An unequivocal restatement of that commitment from the Dispatch Box would be a very welcome response to this debate. I have a number of questions to put that I hope the Front Bench spokesman will answer in her summing up. First, will the Minister confirm that the USO is enshrined in statute in the 2011 Act? On that basis, would it not require a further Act of Parliament to repeal the obligation?

Secondly, the market in which Royal Mail operates is subject to cherry-picking from other operators not bound by the USO. The Government have stated that their policy is that competition should not undermine the USO. What discussions has the Minister had with Ofcom on that and on the precedence of the USO contained in the 2011 Act?

Thirdly, does the Minister accept that the USO rests on the principle of cross-subsidy from the cheaper urban areas towards the greater cost of delivery to rural areas? What change has taken place in the market in the last few years that could alter the balance of competition between Royal Mail and its competitors?

Fourthly, one factor affecting the distribution of power in the postal market is the price of stamps relative to the prices charged by other deliverers. What assurances can consumers expect in future years that Royal Mail’s pricing will reflect the response of postal service users, so as to protect the universal service obligation?

Fifthly, Ofcom has promised to produce a full assessment of the impact of the universal service obligation and competition in the market for the end of 2015. As it is now four years since the passing of the Act, what assessment has the Minister made of any changes that might compromise the universal service obligation, and what impact does she anticipate Scottish independence would have on the economics of the postal services market? Does the Minister recognise that we need a review sooner rather than later? The whole question of competition has moved on much more quickly than we might have thought when we passed the 2011 Act.

In conclusion, let me repeat that I supported the 2011 Act, and I still do. However, I also support the need of the regulator to do its job according to law and the spirit of what the Act was trying to do. I therefore call on the Government to ensure that a proper review takes place much sooner rather than later, and to give us an undertaking that the universal service obligation will remain at the forefront of postal services in this country, even though that might mean laying conditions on those who operate competitor services and even, to a certain extent, an understanding that those services need to provide a levy to subsidise the universal service, if that is necessary to retain it.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills (Jo Swinson)]

It is a pleasure to respond to today’s constructive debate. I very much congratulate the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Katy Clark) on securing it. As a fellow proud Scot, I am pleased that so many Scottish Members have contributed to it, but I am also pleased that all four nations of the United Kingdom have been represented.

The issues I wish to touch on in my summing up are: the importance of the USO; the concerns raised by various hon. Members about competition; and the Ofcom review, which is the main subject of the motion. We have heard from Members from all parts of the House about how vital the universal service is for rural areas. The hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Albert Owen), my hon. Friend the Member for Argyll and Bute (Mr Reid), and the hon. Members for North Ayrshire and Arran and for Angus (Mr Weir) all made points about that eloquently. We were reminded by my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton South (Mr Binley) that this is not purely a rural issue, as the universal service is vital to many towns and suburban areas. It is right that postal workers are held in great esteem in many communities, as the service is hugely important not only to our local economies, but more widely, in society and in communities. That is why, as my hon. Friend the Member for Argyll and Bute pointed out, we have set out the USO in primary legislation—my predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr Davey), made sure it was written into the Postal Services Act 2011.

I appreciate that the right hon. Member for Neath (Mr Hain) is no longer able to be in his place, but I am sure he will read my remarks in Hansard in order to follow the reassurances I can give about his concerns on the definition of the delivery of a six-day-a-week service to every address. He seemed to take the view that that was not a significantly well-defined definition. Section 31 sets out what must, as a minimum, be included in the USO. On the delivery of letters and other postal packets it states:

“At least one delivery of letters every Monday to Saturday—

(a) to the home or premises of every individual or other person in the United Kingdom, or

(b) to such identifiable points for the delivery of postal packets as OFCOM may approve.”

Clearly there are very few addresses that are, for whatever reason, inaccessible and for which Ofcom can, in those extreme cases, approve a collection point. That definition is very clear, we should be reassured by it, and it is right that this House and the other place have prioritised it by making sure it is in primary legislation.

[Mr Weir]

I understand what the Minister is saying and I acknowledged that this was the first time the USO was in legislation. Let us consider one thing that Ofcom can do in a review. I believe that section 43(8) states that its

“recommended action may consist of one or more of the following—

(a) the carrying out of a review under section 33 (review of minimum requirements)”.

So if Ofcom does carry out a review under the Act, it could recommend a reduction in the minimum requirements. Will she assure us that she will not accept any such reduction?

[Jo Swinson]

I am delighted to do so. I have given such assurances from this Dispatch Box, as colleagues have done. Speaking for my party going into the next general election campaign, I can say that that will be our position, and I am sure that other parties can also give their assurances on that. I think that there is absolute consensus across the House that that is vital and should be protected. So it is not something that would be changed. In addition, as we have discussed in the debate, to do so would require a vote in both Houses of Parliament, and that is a significant protection. I hope that that reassures the House on the importance the Government attach to the USO.

Members also raised concerns about cherry-picking and end-to-end competition. Of course competition is not new in postal delivery. It has been more than 10 years now since the EU postal services directive opened up the market. At the beginning, the effect was felt much more significantly in the collection and sorting of mail, with Royal Mail still being responsible for the final mile. That is the area in which there has been more competition.

The right hon. Member for Neath was right to highlight the fact that the expensive parts of postal delivery are to the address not in central London, central Swansea or central Glasgow but in those much more inaccessible, remote locations, where the costs are significant. Of course the principle of cross-subsidy, which was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton South, is a crucial part of how the universal service can be delivered. One of the ways in which the structure is created so that that cross subsidy can continue is for Royal Mail to have a lot of flexibility—much more than it used to have—to charge different prices to different operators. It can also use zonal pricing so that it can charge more for delivery to remote rural areas when it is being used for that final mail delivery, which accounts for the vast majority of competition that exists within the mail delivery market. That enables it to recoup the costs that it incurs from providing that universal service.

Competition can clearly help to drive efficiency, which I am sure people would agree is a positive thing, but it stands to reason that if that competition took a significant portion of the market, especially in terms of end-to-end competition, it could have an impact on the universal service. That is because zonal pricing is particularly related to the competition that exists when Royal Mail is still delivering the final mile. That is why we have put in place a regime in which Ofcom monitors both the situation and what is happening in the postal market. If necessary, it has further powers to act to level the playing field.

I just want to touch briefly on the quantum that we are talking about today. Members have mentioned TNT delivery, but in the last full year, in 2013, 14.6 billion items were delivered—that is the size of the mail market. Of those 14.6 billion items, 14.544 billion of them were delivered by Royal Mail. I am not saying that Members are wrong to be concerned, but I want to put the matter in context. We are talking about a very small portion, 0.38%, of the overall mail market. Members were right to say that it has grown quickly. In 2012, it was 0.11% of the market. Within the space of a year, the volume of items delivered in end-to-end competition more than tripled. It is important that this issue is looked at closely by Ofcom and that it is kept under review.

My hon. Friend the Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Sir Robert Smith) pointed out that perhaps Royal Mail needs to have time to adapt to changes. It is clear that we need to keep our eye on the rate of growth, but we are not yet talking about a level or a volume that would cause concern about the impact on the profitability of Royal Mail. Even Royal Mail accepts that the concern is more to do with the potential for that to happen rather than the situation as it is at the moment.

I just want to clarify which review we are talking about today. Two different reviews are being talked about. Some Members have mentioned section 44. I think that the hon. Member for Angus was looking at a copy of the Bill, because by the time that Bill became an Act, it was section 44 rather than 43. That is the review of the financial burden of the universal service on the provider that Ofcom can be directed to undertake by the Secretary of State. That is not the same as the review that Royal Mail is currently asking for, which is about end-to-end competition. That review is something that Ofcom has said that, as part of its wider monitoring regime, it will do in any event by the end of next year, but it is happy to bring it forward if necessary. This is an area in which there is no specific Government power to direct. I hope to reassure the House on this point.

There is a clear desire for Ofcom to keep a close eye on the impact of competition on the universal service. It seems that there is almost an assumption that that is not currently being considered, but I can tell the House that that is absolutely not the case. I have spoken to Ed Richards, who is in charge of Ofcom, and, as it happens, I will be meeting him later today, which is good timing. Ofcom is clear that it is monitoring the situation in the mail market carefully and intensely. It is not waiting until the end of next year; it is doing so on a monthly basis and is very much on the case, ensuring that it has the information. It also has the power to get access to much more detail than any individual player in the market, having access not only to the details of Royal Mail’s financial position, but also to the business plans of TNT and any other providers, so its visibility is excellent. The review will be started by the end of next year at the latest, but Ofcom has said that it is happy to start earlier if it sees any reason for market changes or any financial impact on the universal service that would mean that it needs to be started earlier.

I am conscious of the time, so I will not stray into the Scottish independence issues, tempted though I am to do so. The exchange between the hon. Members for Edinburgh South (Ian Murray) and for Angus set out that the matter is relevant and that there would be consequences in an independent Scotland for deliverability and the price of the postal service.

I want to finish by picking up on the point made by the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell), because he made a sensible and constructive suggestion that, given the level of interest in the House, which is clear from the debate’s attendance and from the correspondence that I receive as a Minister, it would be helpful for Ofcom to be able to meet MPs to discuss the issue. It is clear that the appetite is there and it would be useful for the regulator to hear MPs’ concerns directly and not just through Hansard. It would also be useful for hon. Members to be able to have a frank discussion with Ofcom about its approach, which I believe would lead to a great deal of reassurance. As I said, I will be meeting Ofcom later this afternoon and so will have the perfect opportunity to put that request. I look forward to hearing the response of the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran to the debate.

Oral Answers to Questions

Jo Swinson Excerpts

Thursday 5th December 2013 Commons Chamber

[Graeme Morrice (Livingston) (Lab)]

6. What recent estimate he has made of the number of apprentices being paid below the apprenticeship minimum wage.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills (Jo Swinson)]

The Government have overseen one of the most successful expansions of apprenticeships, with about 1.5 million apprenticeship starts since 2010. However, we are concerned that the level of non-compliance with national minimum wage rules, which the 2012 apprenticeships survey shows to be 27%, remains too high. The Government have zero tolerance for employers who break the law. That is why we have introduced a range of enhanced enforcement measures to crack down on such rogue employers.

[Graeme Morrice]

I thank the Minister for her answer. It is certainly worrying that the proportion of apprentices who are not receiving the apprenticeship minimum wage has increased and that one in four apprentices do not receive it. What firm and decisive action is she taking to clamp down on the rising non-compliance of employers with the apprenticeship minimum wage, especially given that the number of young people aged 16 to 18 who are starting apprenticeships has fallen?

[Jo Swinson]

The hon. Gentleman raises an issue that the Government are concerned about and are acting on. From 1 July, Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs has prioritised complaints about the apprenticeship minimum wage to ensure that it brings proper enforcement against employers who are not paying it. Further, we have made it much easier to name and shame employers who do not pay the minimum wage. We have also announced that we will increase the maximum penalty fine to £20,000. That tough programme of enforcement action should help to ensure that businesses pay their workers properly. That is what the public expect and it is what most responsible businesses already do.

[Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)]

Is my hon. Friend aware that the number of apprenticeships in my constituency of Harlow has increased by more than 80% in the past year? Will she congratulate the Harlow and district chamber of commerce and the businesses who are hiring apprentices and paying them proper apprenticeship wages? Will she also welcome the new university technical school, which is, in essence, a pre-apprentice school that will provide young people with skills?

[Jo Swinson]

I happily offer those congratulations, and I add to them my congratulations to my hon. Friend for the unfailing way in which he has championed apprenticeships, not just in his constituency, but in this House by encouraging many Members to take on apprentices in their offices. It is important to ensure that young people have such opportunities. That is why the Government have invested significantly in expanding apprenticeships so much.

[Mr Ronnie Campbell (Blyth Valley) (Lab)]

Does the Minister accept that companies such as Wetherspoon, which will open shortly in my constituency, are taking on young people on zero-hours contracts?

[Jo Swinson]

The hon. Gentleman is right that many workers are employed on zero-hours contracts. In some cases those can work well, but in other cases there are concerns about abuse. That is why the Department has undertaken a fact-finding exercise, and we will shortly launch a consultation on what action can be taken to ensure that such contracts are not abused.

[Nigel Mills (Amber Valley) (Con)]

8. What steps he is taking to encourage more people to become engineers.

--- Later in debate ---

[John Cryer (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab)]

12. If his Department will make an assessment of the main causes of insecurity in the workplace.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills (Jo Swinson)]

The 2011 workplace employment relations study found that employees’ feelings of job insecurity were related to three factors: whether their workplace had been subject to any recent redundancies; the perception among managers of the effect of the recent recession; and the number of changes at work experienced by employees.

[John Cryer]

An increasing proportion of the work force is subject to zero-hours contracts. Does the Minister think that they have anything to do with job insecurity? Do they contribute to insecurity or do they contribute to security?

[Jo Swinson]

We have of course been looking at these issues and there is a range of evidence out there. The hon. Gentleman might be interested in the survey published last week by the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development, which found there was no difference in the level of job security experienced by zero-hours workers compared with the average employee. We have looked at a range of problems that have been identified, such as exclusivity, the information available and the uncertainty over earnings. We will be publishing a consultation shortly.

[Sir Tony Baldry (Banbury) (Con)]

Is not the greatest cause of insecurity for those in work the nightmare prospect of the shadow Chancellor ever getting anywhere near the door of No. 11 Downing street, given that he has been proved wrong in every single economic prediction he has made?

[Jo Swinson]

My hon. Friend makes an important and powerful point. We want to ensure job security by having falling unemployment and a growing economy. That is exactly what the Government are delivering. [Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. It is a bit unsatisfactory if one Minister is heckling another. You yourself, Mr Hancock, are undergoing an apprenticeship to become a statesman, but I think there are some years to run.

[Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)]

20. Hundreds of workers across north-east England joined the millions across the country in fearing for their future when npower decided last week to export hundreds of jobs to India and force Thornaby-based workers to travel to a new location nearly an hour away. Does the Minister now understand why half the working population fear for their jobs and feel insecure? What is she going to do about it?

[Jo Swinson]

The hon. Gentleman understandably raises a constituency case, and I am sure the whole House feels for people in that position. Insecurity in that kind of circumstance, where jobs are lost or people fear for their jobs, is something we all understand. The best way to deliver the security that everybody wants to see for their constituents in work is to continue the recovery that the Government have started, ensure that we keep interest rates low, have a thriving economy and support the small businesses up and down the country that are the engine of growth. That is what the Government’s plan for recovery is delivering.

[Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab)]

One of the main contributors to the rise in the number of people feeling insecure at work is their inability to seek justice through the employment tribunals system. Data announced last week by solicitors Pinsent Masons showed that in some regions the number of employment tribunal claims had fallen by almost 80% since the introduction of fees, despite the Government’s impact assessment measuring it at just 20%. In the light of these figures, does the Minister agree that the level of fees is fundamentally restricting access to justice, and does she agree with the Scottish Women’s Convention that fees are disproportionately affecting women and they are discriminated against in the workplace?

[Jo Swinson]

The hon. Gentleman needs to be careful with his use of statistics, because we have introduced a range of changes to the tribunals system aimed at getting employers and employees to resolve disputes outside the tribunals system, which I would have thought everybody would welcome, given that tribunals are costly in terms of time, stress and money for everybody involved on both sides of the dispute. Our proposals, which we are implementing, on early conciliation and making it easier for disputes to be resolved should be working to reduce the number of tribunals, but the Ministry of Justice has committed to keeping these issues under review, particularly the equality aspects and whether there is any disproportionate effect on one particular group.

[Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)]

14. If he will make it his policy to increase investment in higher education.

--- Later in debate ---

[Julie Elliott (Sunderland Central) (Lab)]

15. What progress he has made on his review of zero-hours contracts.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills (Jo Swinson)]

During the summer, the Department undertook a fact-finding exercise to explore how these contracts are used and to identify the issues involved. We found that this type of contract worked well in some circumstances, but could be open to abuse. As a result, we have committed to publishing a consultation seeking views on zero-hours contracts and proposals to address the concerns raised. It will be published shortly.

[Julie Elliott]

Does the Minister accept that job insecurity has nearly doubled since 2010 and will she support Labour’s policy, which would stop zero-hours contracts that require workers to work exclusively for one business and end the misuse of zero-hours contracts where employees are, in practice, working regular hours over a sustained period?

[Jo Swinson]

I commend the hon. Lady for her consistency on his issue and for raising this concern on behalf of her constituents and others. Exclusivity was one of the issues we found in the fact-finding exercise over the summer to be of real concern, so that will be one of the issues that we will look at further in the consultation. We will also consider whether the transparency of information can be improved between employers and employees, so that there is a bit more certainty about what is expected on both sides of the contract. Used well, these contracts should provide flexibility in our labour market that can benefit both employers and employees.

[Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)]

I am grateful to the Minister for her written replies to my questions of 21 November, but will she ensure that the consultation addresses the parallel abuses where employees appear to be engaged as subcontractors as a way of masking the fact that they are being paid below the national minimum wage so that Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs find it difficult to enforce the national minimum wage regulations?

[Jo Swinson]

My hon. Friend raises an issue about subcontractors. Clearly, we have robust enforcement processes in place for the national minimum wage, but I know that there are concerns in some industries about false self-employment as well. The Government are well aware of that. I hope that my hon. Friend will have just a little more patience before hearing more about what we might do about that. I definitely agree that we must ensure that people are not exploited in the labour market by being forced on to contracts that deny them their basic employment rights.

[Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)]

16. What steps he is taking to support small businesses in Newcastle upon Tyne Central constituency.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)]

T4. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for her earlier reply in respect of the review of zero-hours contracts, but does she agree that driving out shady employment practices and improving wages, including the national minimum wage, would have the additional advantage of reducing the welfare benefits budget?

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills (Jo Swinson)]

My hon. Friend is right. That is one of the reasons why my right hon. Friend the Business Secretary asked the Low Pay Commission to identify the conditions that are necessary for an increase in the minimum wage. I think that we would all like wages to increase: things have been very difficult for households over the last few years following the economic crisis, and encouraging businesses to pay good wages encourages staff loyalty, motivation and productivity. It is, of course, important to balance that with the fear of unemployment, which we want to keep down.

[Jonathan Reynolds (Stalybridge and Hyde) (Lab/Co-op)]

T2. On Monday the Government announced substantial changes in the ECO energy efficiency scheme, including significant scaling back of the component that insulates solid walls. Most of the large-scale local authority and social landlord energy efficiency schemes depend on that component, and there will obviously be a correspondingly negative impact on the insulation industry. What discussions is the Department having with the industry about the likely number of job losses, and what are they doing to mitigate it?

[Greg Mulholland (Leeds North West) (LD)]

Two hundred and three MPs across this House now back the solution proposed by the Select Committee on Business, Innovation and Skills to pubco overcharging: the market rent only option. Will the Department do the right thing this time, back the Select Committee, deal with this crony capitalism and listen to the voice of small business? Both the Federation of Small Businesses and the Forum of Private Business support our approach.

[Jo Swinson]

My hon. Friend has been a stalwart campaigner on this issue, which, as he rightly points out, is of great interest to Members on both sides of the House and to the Select Committee. He will be aware that we undertook a consultation earlier this year, and we are reviewing the responses. He is also right to highlight the important contribution that organisations such as the Federation of Small Businesses have been able to make in putting forward further research reports. We hope to be able to publish that kind of information very shortly so that more people will be able to look at the responses.

[Rushanara Ali (Bethnal Green and Bow) (Lab)]

T3. In the light of the revelation that the Government have failed to act to close a tax loophole that has cost the public some £500 million a year, what discussions has the Secretary of State had with Treasury Ministers about the concern that some large firms are failing to pay the correct amount of tax while smaller ones are making their contribution?

[Mr David Heath (Somerton and Frome) (LD)]

The Gangmasters Licensing Authority does terrific work in dealing with one particular vulnerable group of employees. Is there any scope for extending that way of working to protect other sectors, such as the care and hospitality sectors, in which there is at least the implication of abuse of employees and very low wages?

[Jo Swinson]

My hon. Friend is right to point out the importance of protecting vulnerable workers. Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs has recently carried out a two-year investigation into practices in the social care sector, particularly in respect of payment of the national minimum wage, where some non-compliance was found and was absolutely acted on. We need to ensure that such behaviour is cracked down on, which is why we are delighted to be able to put more resources into cracking down on abuse of the national minimum wage, increasing the maximum penalty fines and making it much easier to name and shame employers who deliberately do not pay their workers the right amount. That is the right approach.

[Andy Sawford (Corby) (Lab/Co-op)]

T5. Is the Secretary of State aware of the latest scam hitting agency workers in my constituency and around the country, whereby £2.50 a week is deducted for personal accident insurance, even though the cost to the agency is a fraction of that and the worker is already covered by employer’s liability insurance? Will he look into that and put a stop to it?

[Jo Swinson]

The hon. Gentleman has raised issues relating to agency workers on a number of occasions, and I know that in his constituency there is a particular concentration of them. We are always happy to look at whether workers are treated as they should be. I am happy to look into the specific issue he raises and get back to him.

[Mr David Nuttall (Bury North) (Con)]

One of the biggest and most important decisions that any sole trader has to make is whether and when to take on their first employee. Will the Secretary of State set out what steps his Department is taking to make that process as easy as possible?

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Ruane (Vale of Clwyd) (Lab)]

T8. The number of workers who feel insecure in the workplace has gone up from 6.5 million to 12 million since this Government came to power. That has a knock-on effect on the physical and mental health and productivity of workers. Will the Minister make an assessment and do some research into the effects of insecurity on the work force?

[Jo Swinson]

The hon. Gentleman is right to highlight the downsides of job insecurity. We already have robust data from the workplace employment relations study, which gives us a strong base of research on which to draw to understand those issues. However, I gently point out to him that an increase in job insecurity is related to the fact that we had a massive economic shock on his party’s watch in government. High unemployment and unfortunate economic circumstances are the price that everyone is paying. The least his party can do is apologise.

[Dr Julian Huppert (Cambridge) (LD)]

For many years, Mill Road winter fair has celebrated one of the most diverse shopping areas in Cambridge. This year the fair coincides with small business Saturday. Will the Government congratulate those who have been running the fair and encourage its spread so that we can see real diversity? We also want a road closure so that people can walk easily to the shops.