Budget Resolutions and Economic Situation

Stephanie Peacock Excerpts

Tuesday 9th March 2021 Commons Chamber

[Stephanie Peacock (Barnsley East) (Lab)]

Ten harsh years of austerity have had a huge impact on areas like mine. Barnsley Council has faced some of the worst Government cuts in the country, losing 40% of its income since 2010, so the concept of levelling up could be a very welcome one. The Government have described levelling up as their intention to address inequality and “level up” underperforming and left-behind parts of the UK, but this is simply not what we have seen; it is six days after the Budget, and the Government are yet to publish the criteria for the £4.8 billion levelling-up fund. The Chancellor has previously stated that the fund would be allocated

“based on an index of economic need.”

That is curious when we consider that the Chancellor’s own constituency of Richmond in North Yorkshire is among the top fifth of the most prosperous places in the country, and currently the 251st most deprived place in Britain, and yet it is placed in the uppermost level for funding. Compare that to Barnsley, which is the 38th most deprived area in the country, but has been placed in level 2—behind Richmond—in the queue for funding.

Given that the Government are yet to publish the criteria, I would like to consider for a moment what those criteria could be. Let us begin with child poverty. In Barnsley East, 25% of nought to 15-year-olds live in poverty; that is double the figure of 12% in the Chancellor’s constituency of Richmond. Let us move on to free school meals. There are over 3,000 eligible children in Barnsley East—double the figure of 1,500 in the Chancellor’s constituency of Richmond. Let us look at unemployment, which in Barnsley is 6.6%; again, that is double the figure of 3.3% in the Chancellor’s constituency of Richmond. Child poverty, free school meals, unemployment claimants—the list goes on. The statistics will continue to prove that Barnsley is clearly in greater need than the Chancellor’s constituency, yet Richmond is in line to receive funding ahead of Barnsley.

The fact is that, despite the slogan “levelling up” and whatever the criteria the Government eventually publish, they have chosen to allocate funding in a way that favours affluent areas over those of greater need. That is the simple reality, and it is not the first time. The towns fund was the same: 60 out of 61 areas picked by Ministers for the new funds were Conservative-held or Tory election target seats. The Government are pretending to give money to the communities that need it most when they are actually doing the opposite.

Areas such as mine have suffered greatly through this pandemic. An increase in unemployment and in-work poverty has led to a sharp rise in food bank use. The Government should admit that levelling up is no more than an empty slogan, or change the criteria and put the money where the need is greatest.

UK Internal Market: White Paper

Stephanie Peacock Excerpts

Thursday 16th July 2020 Commons Chamber

[Alok Sharma]

As I said in response to an earlier question, we have provided support to 2.6 million people through the self-employment income support scheme, and businesses have been able to make use of the bounce-back loan scheme and the other loan schemes the Government have made available. Small businesses have also been able to take advantage of the £10,000 to £25,000 grants that have been put forward.

[Stephanie Peacock (Barnsley East) (Lab)]

South Yorkshire has nearly 1.5 million residents, so what discussions have taken place with local and regional leaders across England to ensure their concerns about covid-19 support are addressed?

[Alok Sharma]

I do not know whether the hon. Lady asks that in relation to the White Paper we have put forward, but as she will know we have been speaking informally to businesses for a period about the UK internal market. Of course, there is now an opportunity for people to respond more formally to the consultation.

Oral Answers to Questions

Stephanie Peacock Excerpts

Monday 4th May 2020 Commons Chamber

The Secretary of State was asked—

[Stephanie Peacock (Barnsley East) (Lab)]

Whether the Government have collated statistics by region on the number of businesses that have had their coronavirus business interruption loan application (a) approved and (b) rejected.

[Miss Sarah Dines (Derbyshire Dales) (Con)]

What steps his Department is taking to ensure that all firms requiring assistance are able to access the coronavirus business interruption loan scheme.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Alok Sharma)]

As of 1 May, over £4.7 billion-worth of loans have been issued under the coronavirus business interruption loan scheme to 29,496 businesses. From today, businesses will be able to access our new bounce-back loans of up to £50,000 by filling in a simple, quick application. Those will be backed by a 100% Government guarantee.

[Stephanie Peacock [V]]

Since I tabled this question, the Government have taken action in this area, which I welcome, but can the Secretary of State respond to my constituents’ concerns that the application for the business interruption loan scheme is too complicated? Will he develop a simple, standardised application process for businesses looking to access loans above £50,000?

British Steel Industry

Stephanie Peacock Excerpts

Tuesday 10th March 2020 Westminster Hall

[Stephen Kinnock]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right; it is completely absurd to have a Government who on the one hand are committed to decarbonising our economy, but who on the other hand are failing to support Orb, which could play a major role in electric vehicles, which play a major role in decarbonising our economy. It seems that the left hand does not know what the right hand is doing.

The Government must recognise the strategic importance of steel to our country’s future. They must also recognise that steel must be front and centre of their so-called levelling-up agenda if they are at all serious about tackling regional inequalities.

[Stephanie Peacock (Barnsley East) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing the debate. Liberty Steel recently announced the loss of 350 jobs in south Yorkshire, due to a “challenging” market circumstances. Does he agree that is concerning, because those are traditionally well-paid manufacturing jobs, in comparison with the low-wage sectors that tend to dominate the local economy?

[Stephen Kinnock]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I have to mention today’s very bad news of 500 job losses announced by Tata Steel, which shows that we are back at square one. We do not seem to have learned anything from previous years. Industries need a Government who will proactively work in partnership to produce a policy environment and market environment conducive to investment and to those businesses thriving.

Leaving the EU: Workers’ Rights

Stephanie Peacock Excerpts

Tuesday 29th October 2019 Commons Chamber

[Andrea Leadsom]

My hon. Friend is exactly right: a very bright future awaits us as we leave the European Union in all circumstances. From the amazing innovations in areas such as healthier, longer living through our life sciences agenda, to areas such as clean growth through our commitment to net zero, there are massive opportunities for new skills, new jobs and new prosperity across the United Kingdom. This Conservative Government will maintain and enhance workers’ rights for all.

[Stephanie Peacock (Barnsley East) (Lab)]

As one of the Labour MPs who have worked in good faith to find common ground—a compromise, even—over Brexit, I was disappointed to read the leaked documents. Further to the answers that the Minister has given to a number of hon. Members, will she tell us exactly what workplace rights and protections would be introduced to prevent the Government from backtracking on the commitments that they have made?

[Andrea Leadsom]

Again, I have a great deal of respect for the hon. Lady’s position. I absolutely assure her that it is the Government’s intention to maintain all the workers’ rights regulations as we leave the EU and to ensure that Parliament has the opportunity, in every piece of primary legislation that comes forward in future, to understand—with a statement by the Government—how that might impact on workers’ rights, so that it can express its view. At the same time, the Government of the day will consult trade unions and businesses on whether the impact is positive or negative. There will be the opportunity either to align with those changes in legislation and improve on them, as the United Kingdom so often does, or not to implement them if they are not appropriate for the UK, but it should be for this place to make that decision.

Government Plan for Net Zero Emissions

Stephanie Peacock Excerpts

Tuesday 8th October 2019 Westminster Hall

[Sarah Newton]

There are regional industrial strategies in the modern industrial strategy. The Government are clear about going for clean and inclusive growth in our economy, and I absolutely support that. I welcome the fact that local enterprise partnerships all over the country, including in Cornwall, are coming together to produce plans for us to meet our net zero targets while growing our economy sustainably. I commend any region of the country working with the Government to enable us to do that.

All the businesses I speak with want clarity and certainty about what the Government want them to do, so that they can start pricing in the changes they will need to make. Many see this as an opportunity not just to do the right thing but to innovate and reach new markets. Government Departments and their arms-length bodies should lead by example by making their buildings more energy efficient and switching to low-emission transport. That will save money as well as carbon.

[Stephanie Peacock (Barnsley East) (Lab)]

The hon. Lady is being very generous with her time. Does she agree that we should call on local authorities, which have huge purchasing power and local influence, to take action? Last month, Barnsley Council declared a climate change emergency.

[Sarah Newton]

I welcome the fact that Barnsley has declared a climate emergency. Cornwall Council has done the same, as have most of the parish councils in my constituency. People want to play their part. The Government have recently brought in some very helpful new regulations that will help councils. For example, most councils sit on huge pension funds; the new regulations, which came into force last week, make councils think about the impact of their decisions on reaching that net zero target. There are many contributors to enabling people, councils and businesses to make changes so that we can meet the target.

As was mentioned, the climate change movement will fail if we fail to take people with us. As we saw in France, we must be clear about why action to tackle climate change matters, and ensure people are not left behind as we transition to new, cleaner industries. It cannot just be about distant international summits with acronyms that few people understand. When the UK hosts the UN climate change summit in Glasgow next year, we must ensure that every sector of society is involved in the conversation. With an issue as big as climate change, we need everyone’s collective brainpower to find the right solutions, and we must have everyone on board if we hope to implement those solutions.

British Steel

Stephanie Peacock Excerpts

Wednesday 24th July 2019 Commons Chamber

[Greg Clark]

My hon. Friend is right, and he is right, as his neighbour the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton South East (Mr McFadden) did, to call attention to the role of the Black Country. They have a phrase in the Black Country, “Made in the Black Country, sold around the world”, and that is a proud and accurate boast. However, there are opportunities in the UK for those products, and the Government have published a forward pipeline of infrastructure investments that require steel so that companies can gear themselves up to participate in procurement.

That is very important, and I would like to pay tribute to the Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, my hon. Friend the Member for Pendle (Andrew Stephenson), who has responsibility for industry. He has signed the steel charter and is promoting it across all public bodies. Again, it requires and encourages the use of British steel to be taken into account in all procurement decisions.

[Stephanie Peacock (Barnsley East) (Lab)]

Following on from the Secretary of State’s answer, he may recall the Defence Secretary saying that

“we can and must buy British.”

Does he agree that one way to do this would be to back a British bid to build the Navy’s new support ships, which could create 16,000 jobs throughout the supply chain in Barnsley and across the country?

[Greg Clark]

The hon. Lady makes a good point. We have published figures for each Department on their use of British steel. It is the case, and the House should be aware of this, that not all types of steel used are actually made in the UK. At least at the moment, it is not possible to supply all of our steel needs from domestic supplies; that is the reality. She mentioned the MOD, and my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State is working closely with the Ministry of Defence so that its support for the steel charter results in increasing levels of procurement of British steel.

UK Steel Industry

Stephanie Peacock Excerpts

Tuesday 9th July 2019 Westminster Hall

[Nic Dakin]

Procurement is a real challenge for the Government, and my hon. Friend makes an excellent point. I am sure that the Minister has picked it up, and I will return to it later in my speech.

[Stephanie Peacock (Barnsley East) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this important debate. On the issue of procurement, does he agree that we need more regional support? In response to a written question, the Government admitted to me that defence spending is only £40 a head in Yorkshire, which compares with £1,000 a head in the south-west. Surely such spending should be spread much more evenly across the north and the south.

[Nic Dakin]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. Certainly, steelmaking is predominantly in the north, and better investment in procurement pipelines would help to address the inadequacies to which she draws attention.

Sadly, British Steel is in liquidation, and Tata is determining the direction of its UK business in the light of the failure to progress the merger with Thyssenkrupp. We face serious questions about the sector’s future. Other steelmakers, such as Celsa and Liberty, also look to the Government to confirm their commitment to the steel industry.

Mineworkers’ Pension Scheme

Stephanie Peacock Excerpts

Monday 10th June 2019 Commons Chamber

[Stephanie Peacock (Barnsley East) (Lab)]

I am pleased to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Ashfield (Gloria De Piero), who has been a long-standing campaigner on this issue. I wish to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Grahame Morris) on his passionate speech in opening this debate, and I thank him for it. It is a pleasure to have the opportunity to be here fighting for an issue that matters so much to the lives of many of my constituents in Barnsley East. This debate on the MPS follows my Adjournment debate on the same subject in February, where we discussed the contribution made to this country by miners who toiled for decades, and the money the Government have unfairly taken from their pension scheme. Although I am pleased that this debate has been granted—I thank the Backbench Business Committee for selecting it—what we need now is action, not more words.

Since the scheme was established, following the privatisation of British Coal in 1994, the Treasury has pocketed more than £4.4 billion, with nearly half a billion more over the next three years planned. Yet since 1987 the Government have not paid in a single penny, and instead claim their undertaking as guarantor makes this a fair price worth paying. In return, the average retired miner must get by on about £84 a week, while some are forced to settle for much less.

[Luke Graham]

The hon. Lady is talking about returns. Does she recognise that a 40% return on an investment fund is extraordinary? One does not have to be a City hedge fund manager to understand that. A lot of that is down to the fact that the Government are a guarantor. Does she agree therefore that regular reviews should take place and that the percentage should be variable, based on the performance of the fund, as 50% or 90% of nothing will be nothing for the miners?

[Stephanie Peacock]

I will come on to talk about what split I think there should be, but I just ask the hon. Gentleman whether he could live on £84 a week. That is what a lot of retired miners in my constituency—

[Luke Graham]

rose—

[Stephanie Peacock]

I have taken an intervention and I am going to make some progress.

As I was saying, these staggering sums are born out of the 50-50 surplus-sharing arrangement. Let us not forget that, as has already been pointed out in this debate, this agreement was made without any actuarial advice—it is simply staggering. This agreement simply must be reviewed and amended to give miners a greater share of what I believe is fundamentally their money. It is patently unfair that these miners, who powered our nation, are left to fight for crumbs off the table.

Leaving aside questions of fairness, the sharing surplus arrangement no longer makes financial sense either. The Government claim the risk they undertake in underpinning the pensions in their role as guarantor justifies this huge price paid and they suggest that without their backing the current value of the pensions would be considerably less. That is certainly up for debate, but what is not is that the landscape has changed drastically since this original agreement was made. For instance, the risk they assumed in 1994 in acting as guarantor has decreased substantially since then. The membership of the scheme alone has fallen considerably, for example. In 2006, there were 280,000 members, whereas there are now fewer than 160,000—by 2026, there will be just 125,000. So the financial risk for the Government has decreased and will continue to do so, yet miners in the scheme are still essentially charged the same price for the guarantee as they were 25 years ago. From a financial perspective, the scheme is no longer proportionate or providing value for money, yet the Government are willing to ignore this in order to continue boosting the coffers of the Exchequer.

On that note, in my previous Adjournment debate the Minister further attempted to justify this income by stating the Government have spent about £1 billion in coalfield communities over the past two decades—but that still leaves billions taken from the miners unaccounted for. Surely, the Government should at least tell us where that money has been spent?

Rather than in the Treasury, money should be in the pockets of retired miners. Along with the scheme trustees, the Government have the authority to make that so, by amending the surplus sharing arrangement, providing genuine value for money and righting this injustice—so will they? Will they, like the Labour party, commit to an immediate review of the current scheme as it stands? As part of that review, will they consider the NUM-commissioned report that suggested a 90-10 split in favour of the miners? Will they meet me, other coalfield MPs and the NUM to discuss that recommendation further? Will they acknowledge that the benefits brought to miners’ pensions by the Government’s guarantee simply no longer provide value for money? These are good, hard-working people who toiled for decades for the good of our country. The Government should put right this wrong and give miners what is rightfully theirs: a decent pension that they have earned and paid for.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Andrew Stephenson)]

I would like to start by paying tribute to all hon. and right hon. Members who have contributed to today’s debate, and to the many emotional and passionate speeches reflecting the importance of this issue. This is a question about real people and their incomes. It is about real people who have done some of the hardest work in our country, and about the respect and loyalty owed to them by their Government.

This subject is really important to me because, like many of those who have spoken today, I have a strong family connection. My family worked in the pits in the north-east for generations. My grandfather, George Stephenson worked at the Windlestone colliery in County Durham, following in the footsteps of his father, John. My uncle Bert worked at the Dean and Chapter colliery and then at the Mainsforth colliery. My great aunt Daisy and great uncle Tom spent most of their working lives at the National Coal Board in Team Valley in Gateshead. I grew up with stories of hard work, tough times, soot black baths and three pints after a hard day’s work because you could not taste the first through all the coal dust.

The Whips are rarely mentioned in this place, but the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Whip, the Lord Commissioner of Her Majesty’s Treasury, my hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Rebecca Harris), is on the Front Bench this evening. Her grandfather worked in the mines and her great-grandfather was in charge of the pit ponies at Boldon colliery in County Durham, so we both have strong links with the mining industry. I know that the same goes for one of my predecessors in this role, the Minister for Energy and Clean Growth, my right hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Claire Perry). Her connections to mining communities were so strong that she had to pass responsibility for their pensions over to me.

[Stephanie Peacock]

The Minister refers to his predecessor. In my Adjournment debate back in February, she agreed to a meeting with me, coalfield MPs and the trustees, but unfortunately, despite several emails, that meeting never happened. Will the Minister commit today to a meeting with us?

[Andrew Stephenson]

I am always happy to meet anybody, and I am more than happy to meet people who have asked for meetings today. I believe that my predecessor, my hon. Friend the Member for Watford (Richard Harrington), who took on responsibility from my right hon. Friend the Member for Devizes, did have a meeting, but I am always happy to have further meetings on this topic or any other.

I was just going to clarify that the connections of my right hon. Friend the Member for Devizes were so strong that she had to pass over her responsibility for this topic. Her mother-in-law is a beneficiary of the scheme that we are discussing today. Her mother-in-law’s late husband, Bill O’Neill, was a leader of the coke workers union and I understand that he died very young as a result of his years of service underground. At the age of 16, my right hon. Friend’s husband turned down a job in the Keresley pit, but that did not stop him helping to organise port blockades to prevent Polish imports while he was a student, and getting into trouble with his university to protect—in his view—British coal. It is because we appreciate the importance of fairness to mining communities that my right hon. Friend the Member for Devizes, when she was in post, dedicated a considerable amount of time to this issue and instructed officials to do the same. She spent time understanding the arguments and concerns of all sides, thinking and talking through alternative proposals and weighing up the merits of the cases presented.

It has been four months since the last Adjournment debate on this matter. Since then, my right hon. Friend the Minister for Energy and Clean Growth has met the scheme’s trustees, and my predecessor as business and industry Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Watford, has met campaigners and coalfield MPs. Officials have also met the scheme’s trustees. For my part, even though I have been in post for only two months, I have taken an interest in this debate not just because of my family background, but because a number of the right hon. and hon. Members who have spoken today have collared me in the corridors since my appointment.

I have reviewed the trustees’ proposals, which my officials have been considering for some time, and I wrote to Her Majesty’s Treasury last week giving them my full support. I will be meeting the chair of the trustees, Chris Cheetham, on 24 June. Central to the trustees’ proposals is protecting existing bonuses. Under that option, if there is a deficit in the future, members will still see their guaranteed pensions continue to rise in line with RPI, and their current bonuses will not be eroded. Without that additional guarantee, members may not be able to get any increase in payment, possibly for many years. The proposals put to my predecessor by the trustees offer benefits to all pensioners, who will see their pensions secured into the future, even if the scheme was to go into deficit, by protecting the bonuses that have accrued to date. The trustees, who include former miners, believe that that is an important way of protecting future revenues for scheme members in the event of a future scheme deficit, because bonuses accrued at past evaluations could be eroded.

The trustees’ proposals would mean a significant additional liability for the Government. In turn, that creates an additional risk of a sizeable call on the public purse. However, I support the trustees’ aim to protect the revenues of individual pensioners. My officials have provided an analysis of the proposals, which I have now shared with Treasury colleagues. As I have said, I am dedicated to the best for miners across the country, which is why I am immensely proud of the scheme and of the investments that we are making to transform mining communities across the country.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Stephenson]

The trustees have made it clear that protecting bonuses already accrued is their priority, rather than renegotiating a greater share of future surpluses. I have not met the trustees, and I have already given the House the date when I will be meeting them. I have seen the six proposals from the trustees, which have been considered by my predecessor and his predecessor, and I acted swiftly in my first two months in office to ensure that my Department supports those proposals and will write to the Treasury encouraging their adoption.

[Stephanie Peacock]

The trustees’ proposals are important. However, speaking to that is a red herring and does not answer what this debate is about. Every single person who has spoken in this debate has talked about the 50-50 split. Will the Minister please get up and answer that point?

[Andrew Stephenson]

I certainly will. I think I have only two minutes left, and I was going to come on to exactly that point. I was addressing the question of what has been done to date.

I began by saying that we owe the miners loyalty and respect, which includes being honest. In this case, the honest answer is that the current position, whereby the Government guarantee arrangements and split the surpluses, is a fair settlement. It is reflected in the fact that successive Governments of all political persuasions have retained the split currently in place.

National Minimum Wage Naming Scheme

Stephanie Peacock Excerpts

Tuesday 4th June 2019 Commons Chamber

[Stephanie Peacock (Barnsley East) (Lab)]

(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy to make a statement on the suspension of the national minimum wage naming scheme.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Kelly Tolhurst)]

Enforcement of the national minimum wage and the national living wage is a priority for the Government, and we take tough action against the minority of employers who underpay. Last year, employers were ordered to repay over 220,000 UK workers a record £24.4 million of arrears. We have more than doubled the budget for minimum wage compliance and enforcement since 2015, and it is now at a record high of £27.4 million.

As part of our enforcement approach, we name employers who have breached the legislation, which raises awareness of national minimum wage enforcement and deters others who may be tempted to break the law. To date, the Government have named almost 2,000 employers who have underpaid the national minimum wage. The Government are reviewing the naming scheme to ensure that it continues effectively to support minimum wage compliance. This is in response to a recommendation made by the director of labour market enforcement, Professor Sir David Metcalf, last year.

In December 2018 we accepted both of the director’s recommendations relating to the naming scheme, specifically to review the scheme’s effectiveness and to consider how to provide further information under the scheme in future. The Government have sought to learn from other naming schemes and other regulatory approaches. We have also discussed the evidence with the director of labour market enforcement and have conducted further analysis to understand the impact that any changes to the scheme would have on the number of employers named.

Naming and shaming remains an important part of our enforcement toolkit, and the review will be concluded in the coming weeks. Any changes to the scheme will be communicated through the national minimum wage enforcement policy documents.

[Stephanie Peacock]

Thank you, Mr Speaker, for granting this urgent question, which finally forces a Minister to admit to the House that the Government have quietly dropped one of the few policies they had to protect vulnerable workers. The naming scheme had exposed nearly 2,000 employers who illegally underpaid nearly 100,000 workers by millions of pounds, including household names from TGI Fridays to Marriott hotels, but the last such list was almost a year ago.

As we now know, the Government have privately decided to suspend the scheme, despite the Department’s official guidelines maintaining that the scheme still operates. The Minister claims this was based on a recommendation of the director of labour market enforcement, made over a year ago, yet the director made no such recommendation to suspend the scheme; he simply called for an evaluation and specific improvements. The Government accepted those recommendations, so why have they not simply implemented them and continued with the scheme in the meantime? Can the Minister confirm that as this review has “no set completion date”, this policy has been effectively halted? Can she tell us what progress the review has made in the last year? What evidence has it taken, what research has been commissioned, what work has her Department done, and what proposals will come to the House and when? Or is the so-called review in reality just an excuse to let bad employers off the hook?

This is the latest in a long list of policies that would help working people, from fair tips to equality for agency workers, that have been delayed or dropped by the Government. Time and again, they crack down on the vulnerable and back down before the powerful. When will this capitulation to rogue employers over working people finally end?

[Kelly Tolhurst]

I have to say that the hon. Lady is incorrect: the scheme has not been dropped. Given the impact that being named can have on a business, it is right that we properly consider the effectiveness of the naming scheme. We want to make sure that our enforcement approach balances the need to crack down on the most terrible employers, who purposely and persistently break the law, with the need to be fair to and educate employers who try to do the right thing.

We are in no way going soft on employers. Last year, we issued record financial penalties to more than 1,000 non-compliant employers to the value of £17 million. That was part of our commitment to support workers’ rights. Our good work plan sets out a vision for the future of the UK labour market and includes an ambitious programme of work to implement 51 of the 53 recommendations Matthew Taylor made in his review of modern working practice.

I must point out, however, that it was this Government who gave the lowest paid workers the biggest increase in the national living wage in 20 years.