Equality and Human Rights Commission

Chris Stephens Excerpts

Wednesday 1st March 2017 Commons Chamber

[Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)]

I wish to raise the issue of the funding of the Equality and Human Rights Commission. I thank the Minister for agreeing that the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Jack Dromey) can also address the House. He has valuable experience not only in the trade union arena but in this arena, having served on the board of a predecessor body.

It is pertinent that we discuss this issue today. Not only is it Ash Wednesday and the day when we celebrate the patron saint of the great nation of Wales, but as my good friend Ryan McMullan, a former colleague on Glasgow City Council, told me, it is also Disabled Access Day. Perhaps we can touch on those issues later.

I have been pursuing a debate on this urgent issue, but I am profoundly disappointed at the actions that have created the need for one. As a result of cuts to the funding of the commission, workplace relations have suffered and individual employees have been unfairly treated. This morning I visited the picket line of PCS and Unite members in London who are on their sixth day of industrial action.

That a Government-sponsored, Government-funded body with a remit set by this Parliament with the specific mandate to

“challenge discrimination, promote equality of opportunity and to protect and promote human rights”

should on 9 February 2017 callously sack 10 PCS and Unite members by email while they were on strike and give them less than one day’s notice to clear their desks is unheard of in the public sector.

[Mr Stephen Hepburn (Jarrow) (Lab)]

I am attending tonight’s debate after I was made aware of this very serious situation. Is the hon. Gentleman really telling the House that the body established by the Government to look after, safeguard and monitor the rights of the citizens of this country is acting in such a scandalous way? If it is, does he not think that this is a clear road map of where this Government are taking the trade union movement and its rights in this country?

[Chris Stephens]

Yes, I do have concerns about how the Government are conducting industrial relations across the board and about their attacks on the trade union movement, as we saw during the passage of the Trade Union Bill.

The treatment of the workers concerned is not only harsh, but I would argue potentially discriminatory and contrary to everything the organisation is tasked by this House with delivering. By imposing pay in lieu of notice and terminating the employees’ contracts, those employees can no longer actively search for redeployment within their existing organisation or within the civil service where they would get priority access to vacancies.

[Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this debate. Does he agree that this will also be expensive for the public purse? For six months, we will be paying these people to stay at home while, as I understand it, the EHRC will be plugging staffing gaps with expensive consultants.

[Chris Stephens]

The hon. Lady serves with me on the European Scrutiny Committee, and she is quite correct in her analysis.

Continuous service has been broken, so if the employee were to secure a job in the civil service, the break would have a directly negative impact on their pension and any future severance pay. I note that two directors were also served notice, but pay in lieu of notice was not imposed and they remain on the payroll. To date, the commission has not offered any of those at risk of compulsory redundancy alternative employment, which is a statutory requirement. I hope that the Minister will confirm today whether he will intervene on this matter and ensure that all those employees, now numbering 12, will be reinstated.

[Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)]

The organisation was set up in the first place through pressure from the trade union and labour movement on human rights and workers’ rights. We have seen two good examples of where the Government are going with Brexit. We have had the Trade Union Bill, which had to be modified through pressure from the Opposition. What do we now expect when the Government come back with their Brexit package and we pull out of Europe? What is going to happen to workers’ rights then, bearing in mind that the Government have done away with legal aid in certain instances?

[Chris Stephens]

The hon. Gentleman is correct that concessions were given to the Opposition, but I think the Government are backtracking on them, as we saw in a Delegated Legislation Committee, with trade unions now being forced to have additional conferences to meet requirements in the new legislation.

[Owen Smith (Pontypridd) (Lab)]

I, too, congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing the debate. Will he confirm that another thing on which the Government are backtracking is the funding for this organisation? During a year in which hate crime has doubled in this country, we have seen the funding and staffing of the commission cut by 25%. Does he agree that it is extraordinary that the body that is supposed to be the watchdog on behalf of the Government in respect of disabled people’s rights—it is one of this country’s most important watchdogs—is sacking disabled workers at a day’s notice?

[Chris Stephens]

I agree wholeheartedly, and I shall come back to these points in detail later. If the hon. Gentleman would like to intervene again then, I would be more than happy to give way.

I invite Members to look closely at who was chosen for compulsory redundancy and who was then sacked by email, as highlighted in early-day motion 944. Of the 10 sacked members, seven are black or minority ethnic, four are Muslim and six are disabled. I hope that no one will challenge the arithmetic on that, as it is possible to have overlapping identities.

As I understand the situation, one of the dismissed staff members was an Army veteran whose motorised wheelchair was taken away the day after he received his redundancy notice. Three of the sacked members held elected roles on their union’s branch executive committee and one was a trade union negotiator who was leading talks to protect employees from compulsory redundancy.

This issue raises concerns about blacklisting and trade union victimisation throughout the ongoing restructuring process. It is also not difficult to conclude that certain types of employees have been targeted and potentially discriminated against. Not only is that utterly wrong in and of itself, but astonishing that it should come from the Equality and Human Rights Commission.

[Kate Green]

rose—

[Owen Smith]

rose—

[Chris Stephens]

There seems to be a choice. I give way to my fellow member of the European Scrutiny Committee.

[Kate Green]

The hon. Gentleman is making a really powerful case. Will he comment on the impact that this is likely to have on other employers’ behaviour when they see the body charged with upholding the highest of standards getting away with this kind of conduct?

[Chris Stephens]

That is an excellent point. When the commission is seen to be conducting itself in this way, it sends out a very dangerous message to rogue employers.

[Owen Smith]

Will the hon. Gentleman also comment on the impact of these sackings on the Government’s stated aim of halving the disability employment gap in this country, given that five of the sacked people are disabled?

[Chris Stephens]

It shows that the Government say one thing in public and do another thing in private. That is the only message that we can take from this.

This is in the realms of “you really couldn’t make it up.” The Government cannot absolve themselves of any responsibility for this surreal situation. Increasingly, ministerial responses on this issue are becoming a little tetchy, and along the lines of, “This isn’t really anything to do with us.” As I have said before, something that is Government sponsored and Government funded is publicly accountable. That is what we are doing today—giving parliamentary scrutiny to an organisation that is not acting in the spirit of its own ethos and stated aims.

The strike was called because people were at risk of compulsory redundancy, even though more than 30 commission vacancies remain unfilled. A restructuring process has been driven by severe budget pressures: a 25% cut over the next four years comes on top of a 70% cut in real terms since 2010. That was confirmed by House of Commons Library research, which was commissioned by the hon. Member for Brent Central (Dawn Butler). The Equality and Human Rights Commission has been described as facing collapse.

[Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)]

Does the hon. Gentleman share my concern that, with 25% cuts, there is a risk that human rights legislation will, in all honesty, exist only on paper and that, in fact, human rights will effectively be hollowed out? Will he be pressing the Government to give evidence on that?

[Chris Stephens]

I agree with the hon. Lady. It comes back to the point of whether legislation can be enforced. Looking at this in context, we can see a rise in hate crimes and a dramatic reduction in the number of people taking cases to employment tribunals. There has also been a 71% drop in the number of cases challenging sex discrimination, a 58% drop in race discrimination cases, and a 54% drop in disability discrimination cases. Surely that all adds up to a mismatch between workload and resource. When the commission is only employing three caseworkers to provide advice and representation to the victims of discrimination and human rights abuses in England, Scotland and Wales, it calls into question the ability of the organisation to tackle discrimination and enforce the law.

Although the stated strategic aims and objectives of the commission are sound—I particularly agree with the aim of improving capability through investing in its people—there is a huge question mark over organisational capacity, particularly in the light of confirmation of the funding picture for the future. On 24 February, the Government Equalities Office confirmed funding for the remainder of the spending review period until 2019-20. It confirmed that the cuts are to continue and that year-on-year funding is to decline from £20.4 million in 2016-17 to £17.4 million in 2019-20. As the need for support for individuals experiencing discrimination in all its poisonous forms grows, this Government have cut deeper into an already challenged organisation.

I was curious to test the Government’s support for ensuring a sustainable future for the commission, so I tabled a written question last December as to how and whether the Government are publicising the existence of the organisation. The ministerial response was:

“My Department promotes the EHRC’s functions where appropriate in the normal course of its own activities but since 2010 has not spent anything on advertising its services.”

A more suspicious person than myself might suspect the Government of seeking to suppress demand for the commission’s services, making the case for further funding cuts. Will the Minister confirm that the Government will now advertise the commission’s services publicly?

In response to the publicity and scrutiny given as a result of poor handling of its workforce and trade union relationships, it is interesting to note that the commission in its briefing note to Members has stated:

“It would enhance the Commission’s independence if we were able to table reports directly in Parliament”,

and that

“we consider that Parliament should be afforded a greater role in setting the Commission’s budget, as is the case for other independent bodies such as the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman and the Electoral Commission.”

I welcome the news that the organisation is open to being held to account for its use of public money by a parliamentary Committee and am interested to hear what the Minister thinks of that proposal. This could provide a way forward, and if the Government were also to take responsibility for resolving the hasty and unorthodox manner in which hard-working, dedicated public servants have been treated, a more positive outcome for the organisation and the individuals concerned could be achieved.

It will be disappointing if the “arm’s length” rationale is deployed again today. It is often used by another organisation I am very familiar with, Glasgow City Council, where all too often the administration’s councillors claim that poor industrial relations and resolving disputes are somehow outwith their control. Budget decisions and damaged employee relations as a result of poor consultation, communication and negotiation are ultimately the responsibility of elected members, whether local or national. Claiming that these issues are decided on and actioned by forces that cannot be held to account, or directed by those of us who are elected by the people, is an exceptionally weak argument.

Fundamentally, what is at stake here is whether equalities and human rights issues are at the heart of the Government’s ethos or not. Actions at the moment are at variance with stated aims and objectives, and many more people in this country stand to be affected if the commission’s capacity to deliver is being run down, whether by accident or design. I look forward to the Minister’s response.

--- Later in debate ---

[Owen Smith]

rose—

[Chris Stephens]

rose—

[Joseph Johnson]

If hon. Members give me some time, I will supply some context for the reduction, most of which we did not hear from the hon. Gentleman.

[Joseph Johnson]

The context that I am about to provide will help hon. Members understand in more detail why cuts of that magnitude were appropriate. If the hon. Member for Glasgow South West bears with me, I am sure that I will answer the question that he was about to ask.

First, when the EHRC was set up in 2007, it had an extraordinarily high budget to facilitate the merger of three previous bodies—the Equal Opportunities Commission, the Commission for Racial Equality, and the Disability Rights Commission—into a new body. The budget was simply not right for the organisation during its infancy. In 2007, the EHRC had a budget of £70 million, which was an astonishing £20 million more than the combined budgets of the three previous commissions. The EHRC never managed to spend more than £62 million in any year. Indeed it often struggled to spend its allocation, reporting significant and repeated underspends. In June 2010 for instance, the EHRC budget was reduced in-year from £62 million to £55 million. However, the EHRC’s actual expenditure in 2010-11 was £48 million, of which £16.3 million, or 35% of its budget, was spent on its corporate costs.

Secondly, those with longer memories will acknowledge that the organisation was poorly managed at the time and had poor spending controls, as a result of which its first three sets of accounts were all qualified. That inevitably called into question its financial controls and the amount of funding that it should be given.

Thirdly, Members should be aware that the EHRC’s budget reductions have simply reflected changes to its range of functions. A number of significant functions have been repealed, or are no longer funded, to help it concentrate on its core remit. Most notably, the EHRC has stopped its large grants programmes, which had been mismanaged and cost several million pounds. The EHRC also lost its helpline, which cost £2.5 million a year, and its conciliation role in service provision. Those functions ceased in 2012-13 and were costed at £10.1 million or 21% of the EHRC’s budget at the time.

Those changes were considered in the review of public bodies conducted by the Government in 2010, and it was decided that the EHRC should be “retained but substantially reformed”. In March 2011, the coalition Government accordingly set out plans to reform the EHRC in the consultation document “Building a Fairer Britain: Reform of the Equality and Human Rights Commission.”

The current Prime Minister, who at the time was Minister for Women and Equalities along with her Liberal Democrat coalition partner Lynne Featherstone, set out proposals

“to transform the Equality and Human Rights Commission into a valued and respected national institution.”

A comprehensive budget review was set up in 2012 to identify the minimum level of funding needed for the commission to discharge its statutory functions effectively, in accordance with the provisions of the Equality Act 2006. The review concluded that steady state funding of £17.1 million would be adequate for the commission to continue to fulfil its statutory functions.

[Chris Stephens]

The Minister seems to be suggesting that the £17.4 million budget for 2019-20 is only to support the commission’s core statutory functions, which I understand is the direction of travel. Will he confirm that, in previous years, the commission received up to £7.8 million of funding to support its wider functions?

[Joseph Johnson]

The EHRC is receiving money in excess, although modestly so, of the minimum amount regarded as necessary to support its statutory functions. The hon. Gentleman is correct.

[Joseph Johnson]

Work was undertaken in the last Parliament to assess the minimum level of adequate funding necessary to ensure that the commission is in a position to discharge its statutory functions. As I said earlier, the review concluded that steady state funding of £17.1 million would be adequate.

The hon. Member for Glasgow South West mentioned staffing reductions, which I recognise is also a concern of other hon. Members. As an independent body, it is for the EHRC to determine the level and structure of its staffing, which includes defining the appropriate grading and staff numbers. The commission has had to make difficult decisions in order to deliver value for money in its use of public funds while also ensuring that it is furnished with the right complement of skills and experience. Once the commission has concluded its restructuring under the target operating model, the total number of posts will be 179.

The hon. Member for Pontypridd (Owen Smith) asked about the impact of the EHRC’s restructuring on the Government’s goal of halving the disability employment gap. In terms of actual redundancies, the restructuring affects six disabled staff members. More widely, the EHRC retains good links with disabled groups, is continuing its work on disability issues and is working with disabled groups specifically to improve its enforcement work on disability discrimination cases.

The Government are also working generally to combat hate crime. Other hon. Members asked about the impact of the restructuring on the commission’s ability to deal with instances of hate crime. The Government are working generally with the police to provide a breakdown of data on religion-based hate crime to help them target resources and increase understanding. We recently published the hate crime action plan, in July 2016, and are now delivering locally based projects to tackle hate crime. We have announced additional funding for communities to increase reporting, with £2.4 million to protect places of worship and £900,000 to support community projects. We are engaging with groups to ensure we understand the public’s experience of hate crime and make it easier for victims to come forward.

Let me turn specifically to points made by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Jack Dromey). Although the EHRC needs to have due regard to fostering good relations, it is not a criminal enforcement agency, as he knows, and it has no role in prosecuting offenders or ensuring compliance with the law in this area. Therefore there will be no impact on the Government’s ability to tackle hate crime.

[Chris Stephens]

The Minister is saying that the commission does not have duties in terms of dealing with criminal behaviour, but he has yet to comment on how staff were treated. They were dismissed with one day’s notice and told to clear their desks. Does he believe that that is appropriate?

[Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)]

rose—

--- Later in debate ---

[Joseph Johnson]

The hon. Gentleman needs to look at the EHRC’s restructuring in the context of its ability to carry out its broader work to support people with disabilities and to ensure that their rights are not affected by their disabilities in terms of their ability to access opportunities in the workplace.

As the National Audit Office notes, the EHRC

“has responded to its budget reductions in a number of ways”,

and it is increasingly working in partnership with other organisations and being more selective in the legal cases it takes on, taking on cases with the potential for the most impact and thereby enhancing its overall effectiveness. We are working with the EHRC to increase its effectiveness further. We share the view that members of the Women and Equalities Committee expressed in January: the EHRC should play to its unique strengths and powers, as provided in its legislative framework, by making more selective legal interventions and leaving the research to other bodies that can already fulfil that function.

[Chris Stephens]

The Minister is being very generous in giving way. He must appreciate the anger felt by Opposition Members about how staff were treated—they were effectively sacked by email. Will he confirm that the commission will be given some human resources and personnel advice and expertise by Government Departments? Is he going to intervene regarding the concerns we have about those staff who have been sacked?

[Joseph Johnson]

We are satisfied that the EHRC has conducted its restructuring in an appropriate manner. It has consulted all the relevant partner bodies, as required.

I understand that the EHRC chair, David Isaac, shares the objective of the commission sticking to its legislative framework—

Motor Neurone Disease/Gordon Aikman

Chris Stephens Excerpts

Monday 20th February 2017 Commons Chamber

[Ian Murray]

I am delighted that the hon. Gentleman was able to intervene to emphasise the good work that MND associations, including MND Scotland, do across the country. I pay tribute to him for highlighting that good work in the House and I ask him to pass on our best wishes to his constituents who are stricken by this dreadful disease.

Gordon Aikman was only 29 when he was diagnosed with MND. He was given 14 months to live but, as was usual with Gordon, his dedication and determination made sure he doubled that to 28. Gordon died leaving behind a loving husband, Joe, who is with us this evening, a doting mother, Nancy, and a devoted sister, Lorraine. He has become a twinkling star in the sky for his young niece Ailidh and young nephew Murray, who would describe Gordon as “Uncle Gordon with wheels” when he was in his wheelchair. He leaves behind friends whose lives will forever have a Gordon Aikman-shaped hole in them. All our thoughts at this time go out to everyone who knew him.

Gordon leaves a legacy that few of us will ever be able to match. Gordon was an inspiration: dedicated, intelligent, meticulous and simply a lovely person to be around. He touched the lives of everyone who had the pleasure of getting to know him and spend time with him. He was a graduate of the University of Edinburgh and a former gymnast who represented Scotland. He was working as director of research for Better Together, the campaign to keep Scotland in the UK, during the Scottish independence referendum in 2014 when he fell ill. He had gone to the doctors with recurring numbness in his hands. He was beginning to find it difficult to tie his shoelaces and button his shirts. He anticipated, as we all do, that a pack of pills and a bit of rest would do the trick. How wrong could he be?

I cannot do justice to what happened to Gordon, so I will let Gordon tell his own story in his own words, quoting from the moving Scotland on Sunday article he wrote in the week he was given the sad news. He wrote:

“I am lying on a cold hospital bed, stripped down with electrodes stuck all over my skin. A doctor quietly takes notes as pulses race through my body. After almost an hour I get back into my suit, ready for a packed day of calls and meetings.

The doctor steps out to speak to my consultant. I flick through the morning’s headlines on Twitter and quickly check my email as I wait. In my job as director of research at Better Together, I have got to be up to date. The doctor is gone some time. My appointment has already overrun. I’m irritated. He returns and says: ‘Your neurologist would like to see you at 1.15 tomorrow.’

‘Tomorrow won’t work. I have meetings. Meetings I can’t miss.’ He tilts his head to one side, holding my stare for what seems like an eternity, before stressing: ‘Your neurologist will see you tomorrow. 1.15.’ The penny starts to drop. Suddenly that conference on the economics of independence seems far less important. Fast-forward 24 hours and I am back at Edinburgh’s Western General. This time I sit opposite my consultant neurologist; a young, caring face looks back. He speaks softly, but this time the atmosphere is different. He talks slowly. He pauses. I know it isn’t good news, but nothing could prepare me for what he is about to say.

Tears form in his eyes as he explains that all the diagnostic tests point to something called Motor Neurone Disease or MND. I’m confused. ‘That doesn’t sound good,’ I respond awkwardly, thinking to myself: ‘I don’t have time for this.’ He asks what I know about MND. ‘Very little,’ is my honest answer.

‘It is a rare, progressive and debilitating disease,’ he explains, ‘that attacks the brain and spinal cord.’ I don’t believe what he is telling me. I shake my head in disbelief. ‘In time,’ he says, ‘it will lead to weakness, and muscle wasting,’ affecting how I walk, talk, eat, drink and breathe. How could this be? My symptoms seemed so innocuous. ‘Why me? Why now?’ I ask. He bites his lip, before replying candidly: ‘We just don’t know unfortunately.’ 

When I press further, he concedes: ‘There is no cure.’ I cut to the chase: ‘What is the prognosis? How long will I live?’ Hesitant, he prefixes his answer with ‘everybody is different’ and ‘it is difficult to predict’. He then wells up before admitting that we are talking ‘just a few years’. My head is a mess. I stand up, walk across to the window, run my hands through my hair and stare out into the middle distance. My mind goes blank. I don’t know what do. I’m 29 years old and I have just been given a death sentence.”

Gordon went on to write:

“When you are told you are dying you face a choice: you can wallow in self-pity, or you can make the most of what you’ve got”.

And, my goodness, Gordon certainly made the most of what he had. He married his husband Joe and travelled extensively. As we heard at the funeral and the celebration of Gordon’s life on Saturday, he travelled to New York, Boston, Amsterdam, Dublin, Stockholm, Madrid, Tenerife, Prague, Tuscany, Newquay, Paris, Cork, Munich, Orkney, Fort William and California, as well as Israel, South Africa, Switzerland, and had a trip on the Queen Mary II and a break in Iceland to see the northern lights. If I have missed any, I apologise. He also spent as much time as he could with his family and his friends.

With all of that, Gordon was determined to ensure that those who suffered from MND got the best care, the best deal and the hope of a cure in the future. Understanding lies at the root of all human endeavour. In order to defeat something, we must find out what it is first, so here is what we do know and, most importantly for tonight’s debate, what we do not know about MND.

[Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this debate. I agree with him that Gordon Aikman was indeed an inspiration. Does he agree that his campaigning work, particularly with the First Minister of Scotland, ensuring changes to the law around voice therapy, for example, and doubling the number of specialist nurses, was important to his campaign?

[Ian Murray]

I do agree, and I am delighted that the hon. Gentleman was able to make that point, but as the First Minister said on Saturday at the celebration of Gordon’s life, all the credit for those changes to care in Scotland goes to Gordon and his campaign. There is a need for us all now to take that campaign and make sure that the rest is delivered.

Researchers have yet to discover how or why people develop the disease. In Gordon’s case and in around 95% of diagnoses, there is no family history of the condition. MND is a fatal, rapidly progressing neurological disease that affects the brain and spinal cord. It can leave people locked in a failing body, unable to move, talk or, eventually, breathe. It kills a third of people within a year and more than 50% within two years of diagnosis. It affects up to 5,000 adults at any one time in the UK and kills six people every day in the UK.

Construction Industry: Blacklisting

Chris Stephens Excerpts

Wednesday 8th February 2017 Westminster Hall

[Mr Chuka Umunna (Streatham) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered blacklisting in the construction industry.

This debate relates to a secretive, insidious and shoddy practice that has brought shame on our construction industry. As shadow Secretary of State for Business, I initiated a lengthy debate in the main Chamber on the issue in January 2013. I return to it publicly today because it is my strong view that those who were responsible for it have yet to be properly held to account for their actions and the matter has fallen off the radar in this place. My intention is to put it firmly back on the national agenda.

[Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)]

Does the hon. Gentleman support early-day motion 47, which calls for a full public inquiry into the blacklisting practice in the construction industry?

[Mr Umunna]

The hon. Gentleman must be telepathic because he pre-empts what I will come on to. I will address that issue later.

First, it is important to state that although the issue has brought shame on the construction sector, there is still much to be proud of in the sector—look at the Olympic Park venues, Heathrow Terminal 5 and the new buildings that we see springing up around us on time and on budget in so many different communities. Let us also never forget why the sector is the success it is: primarily because of its construction workers. They build the offices and factories we work in. They build the homes in which we live. As a nation, we owe them a huge debt of gratitude, particularly when we consider those who have lost their lives working on construction sites in this country.

There is also a dark side to the sector—anyone who has worked in it knows this only too well—that leads to good people being subject to the most terrible injustices. As a result, lives have been ruined, families have been torn apart and many have been forced out of the industry.

What am I talking about? What is blacklisting? For the record, it involves systematically compiling information on workers, which is then used by employers or recruiters to discriminate against them, not because of their ability to do the job, but because they have raised health and safety issues or been active trade union members. It has meant that people cannot find work and therefore cannot support their families—they cannot put food on their children’s plates—and the result is all the stress and upheaval that come with that.

--- Later in debate ---

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Alan. I congratulate the hon. Member for Streatham (Mr Umunna) on securing this debate and on speaking with such knowledge and passion about this terrible blight—this terrible indictment of companies in the construction sector, particularly during the 1990s.

I share the hon. Gentleman’s view that the blacklisting of trade union members and activists is an indefensible practice. What I have heard today really horrified me. However, I think we have an appropriate legislative framework for dealing with any further attempts at blacklisting, which is why we are not in favour of a public inquiry at the moment. Such an inquiry would perhaps have had an effect 20 years ago, and I regret very much that one was not held then.

The Information Commissioner intends to undertake a call for evidence later this year to develop her understanding of the underlying issues, building on her office’s observations from its extensive investigations into blacklisting complaints. In an area where there have been many allegations, that is an important step forward in establishing a true picture of the level of blacklisting that may or may not take place now.

Following the 2009 investigation of the Consulting Association—a case that Members are all too familiar with, thanks to the hon. Gentleman—the Government strengthened the legal protections in this area. The Employment Relations Act 1999 (Blacklists) Regulations 2010, which the hon. Gentleman referred to, make it unlawful for an individual or organisation to compile, sell, use or supply a blacklist of trade union members or those who have taken part in trade union activities. Individuals can enforce the rights contained in the regulations through employment tribunals or the county court, as the hon. Gentleman said.

I am not aware of any evidence that the blacklists regulations are not doing their job, but should any new information come to light to suggest otherwise, we will certainly consider it.

[Chris Stephens]

In July 2016, the Minister told me in a written answer that the Information Commissioner was investigating some allegations of blacklisting. She committed to consider any further action that might need to be taken as a result. Will she give me an update, please?

[Margot James]

There is no further update. The Information Commissioner’s Office is undertaking such inquiries and when it reports to me I will consider the contents of what has been found.

The Information Commissioner’s Office is an independent regulatory body that was set up to investigate breaches of the Data Protection Act 1998. It has the power to take enforcement action, including searching premises and issuing enforcement notices and fines. Since April 2010, it has also had the power to issue a civil monetary penalty of up to £500,000 for serious breaches of the Act. That is a significant deterrent and a vast improvement on the previous rules, which allowed a maximum penalty of only £5,000. Data protection law is undergoing reform as a result of the general data protection regulation, which is to take effect on 25 May 2018. The powers of the Information Commissioner’s Office to impose fines will substantially increase as a result.

In 2009, the Information Commissioner’s Office established a fast-track helpline for those who thought that they might have been affected by the Consulting Association case. I congratulate the trade unions mentioned by the hon. Member for Ashfield (Gloria De Piero), which campaigned for and won compensation, and the Blacklist Support Group, members of whom are in the Public Gallery today, on their work on this matter.

When the Information Commissioner’s Office considered that a person might appear on the Consulting Association list, they were asked to provide further documentation. It has continued to run that service and to respond to written requests for information. To date, the helpline has received and responded to about 5,700 calls and 3,000 written requests. The nature of blacklisting is that it is secretive and discriminatory, however, and it can be difficult for individuals to know whether they have been affected by the practice. If people suspect that they have been blacklisted, they can report their concerns to the Information Commissioner’s Office, which will provide advice on how an individual may choose to take the matter further. The Information Commissioner has also attempted proactively to contact individuals who might have been affected, although that is only possible where up-to-date contact details are available.

--- Later in debate ---

[Margot James]

We are now in a position where compensation and redress are available, and there is an absolute law against anything similar happening again. For the time being, we are not considering a public inquiry because action was taken back in 2010, as I mentioned. The Information Commissioner has also now announced a call for evidence. Pending the outcome of that, we will consider the framework and whether it is still appropriate. For now, no public inquiry is under consideration, but we will see what happens after the Information Commissioner’s call for evidence and its subsequent report.

I encourage anyone who thinks that they might have been blacklisted by the awful Consulting Association and who has not already done so to get in touch with the Information Commissioner’s Office through its helpline. Furthermore, the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 prohibits an employer from refusing employment because someone is a union member, so that is illegal. Individuals who believe that they have been discriminated against can, as I said, bring a claim at an employment tribunal. Dismissal for such a reason would automatically be unfair.

I understand the desire for the blacklists regulations to be applied retrospectively, but in 2010 the Government decided that that was not appropriate. The compensation package is available, blacklisting is now against the law and the Government’s response to the consultation was clear about a new, specific criminal sanction not being proportionate. The Government will ensure that any allegations of blacklisting are investigated by the appropriate authorities.

[Chris Stephens]

Will the Minister say something about potential changes to procurement, as was asked for by the hon. Member for Streatham (Mr Umunna)? Are the Government minded to look at the procurement rules in that regard?

[Margot James]

We already have procurement rules that allow the Government not to enter into a contract with a company found guilty of a criminal offence or found wanting in ethical standards. It may well be that blacklisting can be shoehorned into that. Certainly, any company guilty of a criminal offence would not be considered for a public contract under the public contracting guidelines.

I think that I have answered the other points, so if there are no further interventions, I will sit down.

Question put and agreed to.

Draft Important Public Services (Health) Regulations 2017 Draft Important Public Services (Border Security) Regulations 2017 Draft Important Public Services (Fire) Regulations 2017

Chris Stephens Excerpts

Wednesday 1st February 2017 General Committees

[Margot James]

I can confirm that Ministers in what was the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills did have discussions with their counterparts in the Scottish Government.

As I was saying, strike action in important public services in the health, border security and fire sectors can have a significant impact on the public. That is why we have introduced a 40% approval threshold, which is to apply to important public services such as health, border security and fire, in addition to the requirement for a 50% turnout threshold.

[Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)]

Have the Government considered that part of the role of public sector workers—because of their role profiles and job descriptions—may be covered under the regulations, whereas some aspects of their work may not be? If so, how do the Government seek to address that with the trade unions?

[Margot James]

This is not a blanket coverage of every worker and every job description in the public service categories that we are debating. The regulations pertain to listed job descriptions within those important sectors. They do not encompass every single worker; they encompass workers whose work has a direct impact on the public in those sectors. If the hon. Gentleman wants a more specific answer on exact job categories, I can provide that, but not at this juncture.

During the passage of the Trade Union Bill last year, the Government consulted on the services within the public service categories set out in the legislation that should be subject to the 40% threshold and on how the threshold should operate in practice. We analysed more than 200 responses, reviewed the available evidence on the impact of strike action across different public services and listened to stakeholders’ views. The Government response to the consultation was published in January last year, when we also published the draft regulations. The substance of those draft regulations was discussed in Parliament during the passage of the Trade Union Bill. The regulations limit the application of the threshold to those services in the health, border security and fire sectors where there is the most compelling evidence of the impact of strike action. The regulations will ensure that the scope of strike action is proportionate.

What does that mean for the sectors affected? The pressing social need that we are addressing in the health sector is the risk to life or injury to the public in the event of industrial action. We have therefore focused the impact of the threshold where reduced service levels can have the most immediate impact on the lives and safety of patients and the public. That is why the regulations cover emergency and urgent health services. That includes—this goes some way to responding to the hon. Member for Glasgow South West’s question— ambulance staff, accident and emergency medical staff in hospitals, services that are provided in high-dependency units and intensive care in hospitals, and psychiatric, obstetric and midwifery services provided in hospitals for conditions that require immediate attention to prevent serious injury, illness or loss of life.

In the fire sector, our aim again is to protect the public against the risk to life or injury. In the light of that, we have focused on firefighting services, including co-ordination of the emergency response, because those services are critical to ensuring that fires are dealt with promptly and effectively to protect the public.

--- Later in debate ---

[Adam Afriyie (Windsor) (Con)]

I will just say a few words. I welcome the regulations, which are made under the Trade Union Act 2016, which passed through the House with a majority. We are talking about the right of people to live—to survive and live their daily lives—versus the right of a small group in a union to withdraw their labour. We all respect and value the trade union movement, as I have often said. However, there must be circumstances pertaining to important and essential public services when rights must be expressed with a clear voice, as opposed to what happens in instances such as the teachers’ strike in 2014, when just 22% voted to strike. There have been many occasions like that.

We must take heed of the sector we are talking about, and the impact on people’s right to enjoy their lives.

[Chris Stephens]

The hon. Gentleman mentions the teachers’ dispute, and claims that 22% voted in a particular way. Surely the education trade union involved must have made an assessment of whether enough people would take part in industrial action. Did 22% of teachers go out on strike, or more than that?

[Adam Afriyie]

I do not know the figures for how many came out on strike, but I know that 22% expressed the desire to strike, which means that the overwhelming majority did not. The question at that point is whether it is right that one in four or one in five people can force a strike on others while disrupting people’s education and the entire education system for a time.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Stephens]

It is a privilege to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Bailey.

There will probably be six main themes to my remarks this afternoon, which will probably be in a similar vein to those I expressed yesterday. Just like yesterday, the debate in the main Chamber today is about the proposal to trigger article 50 and leave the European Union. As the hon. Member for Walthamstow has said, we have calculated whether the leave vote in the UK reached the 40% threshold and the answer is no. Some 37.4% of the UK population voted to leave the European Union—to apply the same test to the referendum as the Government wish to apply to trade unions—so it seems to be double standards all round from some on the Government Benches.

[Michael Gove]

rose—

[Chris Stephens]

Perhaps this is a good time to accept an intervention from the right hon. Gentleman.

[Michael Gove]

Speaking as someone who was involved in a successful referendum campaign, may I point out that, had a 40% threshold been required, I am absolutely certain that people would have been more than enthusiastic enough to vote? However, we recognise that, with the economy of effort that is appropriate to the task in hand, we got just enough votes to win.

[Chris Stephens]

I remember the right hon. Gentleman’s ashen-faced performance at the press conference after the referendum result. He will be aware that Scotland was trapped into a 40% vote in an earlier referendum, which caused great upset and anger at the time.

[Mark Field (Cities of London and Westminster) (Con)]

As a slightly more serious riposte to the point being made, surely there is a distinction? Union membership is generally a voluntary matter, but being on an electoral register is compulsory. Therefore, the 40% threshold for union members is somewhat different from thresholds for other elections.

[Chris Stephens]

I do not accept that distinction, because it is not quite compulsory—we are not in Australia, where everyone has to register and everyone has to vote. I do not accept the distinction, because an industrial action ballot with a 49% turnout could have wider support than one where turnout is over 50%, but the result is just a narrow win. It makes no sense in those circumstances to apply a threshold.

The difficulty we have on the Opposition Benches is that we are seeking assurances from the Government on workers’ rights as we exit the EU. These regulations do not fill those of us in the Opposition with confidence that workers’ rights will be safeguarded as we exit the European Union. There are a number of other difficulties, one of which relates to the question I asked the Minister.

[Adam Afriyie]

I am not sure I follow the hon. Gentleman’s point. Is he saying that the Trade Union Act 2016 was against European legislation? That is what he seems to be implying.

[Chris Stephens]

No, the point is the trend of the Government, who say one thing and do completely another thing. I remember writing an article in the Morning Star, with which the hon. Gentleman may be familiar, in which I described being in this place and the arguments being presented by the Government as “bizarre”, “surreal” and “Orwellian”, and I think we have seen evidence of that today. This is a general problem, because the Government are suggesting that they wish to protect workers’ rights, but what we see with the Trade Union Act 2016 and now these regulations is an entirely different matter.

[Stella Creasy]

I am not a regular reader of the Morning Star, because I prefer fact to fiction. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that as Government Members have already suggested that they would like to extend the 40% threshold to other industries but cannot clarify what the bargaining units might be, or whether they have considered other proportionate ways to resolve industrial disputes so that people’s rights are not curtailed, and given that we have no guarantees that any of the legislation on employment rights that they claim they will bring back from Europe will remain in UK legislation, this is a very worrying time for working people? That is why these regulations should be treated with extreme caution.

[Chris Stephens]

I agree. The point is well made, and there is a distinction that must be made clear. The Government always seem confused in these debates, and about trade unionism in general, because they seem to think that after a ballot result is announced, whether the turnout is low or not, trade union activists, including full-time officials, develop Jedi-like powers to persuade other workers. It is as if the trade union officials wave a hand and say, “This is the strike you are looking for.” That is not what happens in trade union organised workplaces; I can say that as someone who was a trade union activist for 20 years before my election.

[Neil Gray]

Following on from the point made by the hon. Member for Windsor about days lost to strike action in these areas, although he used the word “alarming”, my understanding is that those figures have improved. Given my hon. Friend’s extensive experience in this area, does he think that these regulations will go any way towards improving workplace relations between trade unions and employers?

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Stephens]

I, too, was surprised to hear that the statistic for the number of days lost, which has been as low as it is for a long time, was “alarming”. That was a rather strange comment to make. There is a real sense that these thresholds will undermine constructive employment relations because trade unions will need to spend time ensuring that they meet these regressive regulations rather than entering into constructive discussions. There does not seem to be any incentive for employers to seek early resolution of a dispute.

Another concern I have relates to the question I asked the Minister: who exactly is covered by the regulations? For example, as I said earlier there are workers in what have now been described as “important public services” who have multiple duties, different role profiles or different job descriptions. Some will have administrative duties. Will admin workers in the ambulance service, for example, be covered by the regulations? What about admin support in the Border Force? It would be handy to know that.

Another concern is about the discrimination aspect of the regulations and their disproportionate effect on women workers. The figures presented to me suggest that more than 70% of workers in what have been classified as “important public services” are women. There seems to be a complete disregard for that, and while I would certainly like to see the equality impact work done on these regulations, there is no question in my mind but that they have a discriminatory effect on women workers.

I have two final concerns. First, there are other regulations and statutory instruments that we have not yet considered, and the first concerns e-balloting. As the Minister announced yesterday, the e-balloting consultation ends in December but the Government want to push through this statutory instrument from 1 March. We went through the process on the Trade Union Act, and as someone who led for the Scottish National party right from the start, it was clear to me that the Government accepted, I thought in good faith, Lords amendments that made it quite clear that e-balloting had to be considered before we considered introducing thresholds. We need to discuss at the same time how we can make it easier for trade union members to participate in ballots, particularly industrial action ballots, if we are going to meet thresholds. If e-balloting were introduced or—I would like to go further—secure workplace balloting, which is allowed for trade union recognition ballots, these thresholds would be met every time; there would not be a concern about that. Our concern is that under the current Trade Union Act, it is a postal ballot only. The number of post offices and post boxes has reduced sharply in the past five years, making it difficult for trade union members to participate in a ballot.

My last concern is that the Government have yet to introduce a statutory instrument on the check-off arrangements, which will equally impact on these ballot mechanisms. The trade unions will now be asked to pay a proportion for the check-off arrangements, and it will take a considerable time for them to meet that regulation.

My final point is that the Minister confirmed that, at the time, the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford (Nick Boles), the then Minister for Skills, had discussions with the devolved Administrations. I hope that the hon. Member for North East Cambridgeshire has passed on my good wishes to the former Minister for Skills for a speedy recovery. There should really have been discussions with the devolved Administrations since then about the impact of these statutory instruments on the devolved services that they concern. I have very deep concerns about the Government’s direction of travel. It is a pity that they rushed through the statutory instruments that were discussed yesterday and will be considered in the Chamber later today, when so many questions are outstanding. I will therefore vote against these regulations today.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Timms]

I hope the hon. Gentleman also shares a passion that many in the House have for freedom and for being reluctant to legislate to curtail people’s freedoms and rights. As parliamentarians we are obliged to protect the rights of individuals and to be extremely reluctant to legislate to reduce and curtail those rights. Sadly, that is exactly what we are being encouraged to do this afternoon.

[Chris Stephens]

Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that in his experience, after a ballot result has been provided a trade union will then make an assessment of the likelihood of successful industrial action? On occasion, for ballots with low turnouts, trade unions have decided not to proceed further.

[Stephen Timms]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right; that is the normal practice. When opening the debate for the Opposition, my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough gave the example of the Royal College of Midwives. I think I heard her correctly when she said that it recently had its first strike since its creation in 1880-something. Why on earth are we legislating to make it harder for them to strike in future? Unless we believe a huge zeal for industrial action that we have not seen in the past is about to hit us, why on earth are we legislating? I am genuinely puzzled.

--- Later in debate ---

[Gill Furniss]

No, I will not. What most people want is meaningful negotiations, where they can get issues resolved, and that is what is wanted by the management of most organisations, and required by the workforce. We do not have workforces crying to go out on strike; we have workers who want to be respected, who have good working conditions and are not at the mercy of zero-hour contracts or having to have three jobs at once just to support themselves. If we provide good working arrangements for people that would eradicate strikes, would it not? However, there must always be a fundamental right to withhold one’s labour. That is the right of everyone wherever they are from.

[Chris Stephens]

I agree with everything that the shadow Minister has said. Can she also confirm that trade unions play a vital welfare role in the workplace? For example, my trade union, Unison, has a welfare fund that has helped many low-paid workers across the UK.

[Gill Furniss]

My hon. Friend makes a good point. I was a health and safety representative for many years, and it is a vital role to work alongside management to point out any hazards and actually prevent accidents from happening in the workplace, which could be costly to any organisation in compensation.

--- Later in debate ---

[Margot James]

I thank hon. Members for their contributions. Positive industrial relations are the backbone of a productive economy, and the Government believe that trade unions can play a constructive role in maintaining such relations. The Government are equally clear that modernising reforms were required to ensure that strikes only happen as a result of a clear, positive decision. The regulations implement the provisions of the Trade Union Act in relation to the 40% threshold alone. A number of specific points have been raised, which I will go through as quickly as I can. First, the shadow Minister mentioned e-balloting. That review, under the chairmanship of Sir Ken Knight, should be published by December this year. I trust that the hon. Lady, bearing in mind that these provisions will not be implemented until 1 March, will not think that that is too long. In answer to the right hon. Member for East Ham, the last strike to take place in Border Force was in October 2014.

The advice that the Government have is that the provisions are not inconsistent with our international obligations under the European convention on human rights and the International Labour Organisation. That is because they do not undermine the right to strike, but merely redress the balance of rights between people taking industrial action and the public who depend on those vital services.

The hon. Member for Glasgow South West raised the issue of a grey area in some sectors where jobs are covered by these provisions. The alternative would be to take a more blanket approach, automatically including all workers in each of these three sectors, irrespective of the impact of their work on the public, to which Opposition Members would probably object even more. The Government have consulted on the distinctions between different groups of workers in this context and have provided guidance, which I trust unions and employers will find useful.

I cited in my opening remarks a strike that would have been averted had this legislation been in place—the strike by health unions in 2014. If the right hon. Member for East Ham wants another example, I draw his attention to a strike by the NUT in 2014 that led to the closure of 3,000 schools. That strike cost children their education and disrupted the lives of many parents on a turnout of just 27%, with the support of just 22% of those eligible to vote. I have explained that the purpose of the 40% ballot threshold is to rebalance the ability of union members in the three sectors under discussion to strike with the interests of the general public, non-striking workers and employers.

The pressing social needs we want to address in these regulations are to ensure the maintenance of public safety and security and the protection of life. Strike action in important public services in the health, border security and fire sectors can have a significant impact on those social needs. The regulations support the Government’s commitment to delivering a modernised industrial relations framework, better to support an effective and collaborative approach to resolving industrial disputes. I believe they are fair and appropriate, and I commend them to the Committee.

[Chris Stephens]

rose—

[The Chair]

Order. The Minister’s speech does not have to be the last one, so if the hon. Gentleman is standing in order to speak, he may.

[Chris Stephens]

The Minister has not covered a number of points. I hope she will do so, because it is important she is given that opportunity prior to a Division.

I ask the Minister to check the records. I am clear that the House of Lords passed amendments on e-balloting in direct response to the Government’s wish to implement thresholds. Thresholds seem to be being implemented seven or eight months before we even know the outcome of the review on e-balloting. The Minister needs to explain why that is the case. Many Opposition Members have new fears that e-balloting will fall as a result. I hope she will also reflect on the fact that there has been no discussion with the devolved Administrations since the Trade Union Act was passed. Finally, I say to her that there is one alternative to introducing blanket bans to cover other workers: not doing this at all.

[The Chair]

Minister, do you wish to reply?

Draft Important Public Services (Education) Regulations 2017 Draft Important Public Services (Transport) Regulations 2017

Chris Stephens Excerpts

Tuesday 31st January 2017 General Committees

[Margot James]

I will come back to that point, if the hon. Gentleman permits.

The Act received Royal Assent in May 2016. Today we are debating two statutory instruments that implement a 40% threshold for ballot mandate approval for important public services in the education and transport sectors. As well as the requirement that 50% of union members who are eligible to vote do so, 40% of all eligible members will have to agree with the proposed mandate. We propose that the 40% threshold for the two sectors comes into force on 1 March.

[Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)]

The Minister will know that during the passage of the Trade Union Bill, there was some debate on other aspects of balloting, such as electronic balloting. What is the Government’s direction of travel on e-balloting and secure workplace balloting?

[Margot James]

I can certainly deal with the issue of e-balloting. The Government committed to undertake a review of the potential for e-balloting in advance of strike action. A review has been established under the chairmanship of Sir Ken Knight and it will report by the end of the year.

We propose that the 40% threshold comes into force on 1 March. At the same time we will bring into force a number of other provisions in the 2016 Act, including a 50% turnout threshold for those who are eligible to vote, as I mentioned; additional information to be provided about the result of any ballot; two weeks’ notice of industrial action to be given to employers; new requirements to manage picketing and new reporting requirements. That ensures that the key changes to the way official industrial action is decided on and implemented are prioritised and come into effect as a package.

The purpose of the ballot thresholds is to rebalance the ability of union members to strike with the interests of the general public, non-striking workers and employers. The 2016 Act takes proportionate action to redress the balance and ensure that unions in the education and transport sectors have a strong democratic mandate before they take strike action. The impact of strike action is most severe when it takes place in the important public services that people and businesses rely on every day, particularly when people are left with no real alternatives. That is particularly unfair when strike action goes ahead with no evidence of strong support from a unionised workforce. That is why we have introduced a 40% approval threshold to apply to important public services such as education and transport, in addition to the requirement for a 50% turnout overall.

--- Later in debate ---

[Margot James]

The hon. Lady makes a very good point. The legislation does not purport to condemn all strike action as anathema. It is merely about a requirement to better balance the interests of the travelling public with the rights of people, including her father, to take strike action. There is no concerted effort by the Government to undermine a person’s or a union’s right to take strike action; we are merely requiring that right to be tempered by a strong democratic mandate.

Our aim is to rebalance the ability of union members to strike with the interests of the general public, non-striking workers and employers. In introducing thresholds, we have taken proportionate action that does not ban strikes, but simply redresses the balance by ensuring that unions have a democratic mandate before they take strike action. International bodies have persistently been asked to consider whether UK legislation is compliant, but the UK courts, the European Court of Human Rights and the governing body of the ILO have accepted that UK legislation strikes the right balance between the rights of union members and the legitimate interests of others affected by their actions. That is precisely what the Trade Union Act and the regulations continue to do.

We have taken account of the guidelines on essential services that some of the ILO’s supervisory committees have referred to in respect of services where it may be legitimate to limit or prohibit strike action, but our objective is not the same and that is why we have deliberately used a different term. As I have explained, we want to protect the public from the immediate and adverse consequences of strike action taken with the support of a minority of union members. We are not stopping strikes that have a reasonable democratic level of support, such as those the hon. Lady just mentioned.

[Chris Stephens]

Why are the Government seeking to rush ahead with these statutory instruments today, rather than wait until the outcome of the e-balloting review? I say that specifically because of the Government’s assurances to the House of Lords and hon. Members of this place during the passage of the Bill.

[Margot James]

The report of the e-balloting review is not far off and the matter is separate from the requirement to secure a proper democratic mandate for strikes in these important public services.

In relation to the regulations, the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee pointed out that the Government had committed to issue guidance to clarify which workers will be captured by each of the important public services listed, in order to assist unions and employers when they are assessing how a ballot should be conducted. The Committee’s view was that the need for such guidance raises the question whether the regulations are sufficiently clear and understandable for those affected. Furthermore, the Committee expressed regret that the Government had failed to publish that guidance in early December when laying the draft regulations in Parliament.

I am grateful for the Committee’s scrutiny. I can confirm that the Government have now published guidance to provide advice for unions on applying the 40% threshold in practice, with examples of workers who will be covered by each of the regulations. In drafting the guidance, we engaged with key stakeholders affected by the provisions to understand how the guidance can be most helpful. We listened carefully to their views and have reflected those in the guidance.

In conclusion, the Government believe that the regulations are proportionate and strike the correct balance between the interests of unions and those of members of the public.

--- Later in debate ---

[Gill Furniss]

It is up to the management negotiating with trade unions to prevent strikes from happening. This legislation will be more acrimonious and will let the hon. Gentleman’s Government off the hook when it comes to strikes.

[Chris Stephens]

Given that only postal votes can be used, is it not difficult for trade unions running industrial action ballots by post that the number of post boxes in the UK has reduced sharply in the past five years?

[Gill Furniss]

The hon. Gentleman makes a very good point. We see with the closure of many post offices how the Government’s policy affects all walks of life.

The Government have also strived to give the appearance of a democratic process in the formulation of the Act and the associated regulations. The consultation on ballot thresholds in important public services received 205 responses from a variety of sources. As I will outline, those responses by no means gave a green light to the Government’s ideas, either on the definition of important public services, or on the restrictions on the ability to carry out proposed strike action.

These regulations must be seen within the wider context. They are part of a slew of regulations that limit trade unions. I thank the Government for listening to reason on the transition period before the rule change for political funds and await their new proposal. I welcome their changes to the initial proposals on the inclusion of ancillary workers in these categories, but make no mistake, the Act is an unnecessary, unjustified and disproportionate restriction on the right to strike for millions of working people.

Strike action in the UK is already at an all-time low. Figures from the Office for National Statistics show that 2015 had the second lowest annual total of days lost due to strike action since records began in 1891. What is more, the mechanisms already in place in the UK to deter or avoid strike action mean that most disputes are settled without strikes. There are more than four times as many strike ballots than there are actual stoppages. As Cathy Warwick, chief executive of the Royal College of Midwives, wrote shortly after the college’s first ever strike since its foundation in 1881,

“women needing urgent and emergency maternity care were getting it because midwives had sat down with management in advance of the day to ensure that a safe service would still be running, staffed by midwives, regardless of the strike.”

Unions are always careful in taking industrial action to offer essential cover and never to put at risk life and limb.

Asking members to take industrial action is always a matter of last resort. The priority for unions is to improve mechanisms for dispute resolution and is evidenced by the TUC initiative in the Southern rail dispute. The Government are pushing an image of trade unions as selfish organisations that threaten public safety, but that could not be further from the truth. Not only are new laws and regulations on strike action unnecessary, but they threaten to aggravate and unsettle the industrial relations we have in this country. The new laws set an unrealistic benchmark for industrial action, undermining the right to strike for many public sector workers. For example, in the sectors covered by the draft regulations, in a ballot where 50% of members take part, unions will need an 80% vote in favour before any strike action can go ahead. This is an unacceptably high threshold.

It is in the interests of workers, employees and the public for disputes to be resolved quickly and amicably. However, the new restrictions will undermine constructive employment relations in the UK, by forcing unions to put more effort into driving up ballot turnout and less into amicable settlements. The British Institute of Human Rights, Liberty and Amnesty International UK said of the then Trade Union Bill, now the Act:

“The government’s plans to significantly restrict trade union rights—set out in the Trade Union Bill—represent a major attack on civil liberties in the UK.”

The right to strike is protected by a number of international and European provisions, including the International Labour Organisation convention 87, the European social charter and the European convention on human rights.

The ILO defines essential services as those the disruption of which would endanger lives. In their response to the Department Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy consultation, Tonia Novitz, Alan Boggs and Ruth Dukes, professors of labour law at the universities of Bristol, Oxford and Glasgow respectively, said:

“Many of the government’s proposed ‘important’ services do not fall under this definition (for instance, education and transport).

We are concerned that the drafters of the Bill have introduced a term, ‘important public services’, which has no precedent under international or British law. This does not accord with the UK’s treaty obligations under the ILO Constitution or Conventions and is inconsistent with the established ILO jurisprudence regarding treatment of ‘essential services’.”

The Government have sought to defend the 40% threshold by citing decisions of the European Court of Human Rights that relate to cases from France and Spain, but those cases deal with the restrictions on the rights of police officers and military personnel. They do not justify restrictions on strike action by public sector transport workers or teachers.

On education, I note that the National Union of Teachers said in its consultation response:

“The ILO Labour Relations (Public Service) Convention 151 also provides that public servants must enjoy the same political and civil rights as other employees. The NUT would argue that any interference with this right must be fully justified and that the Government has failed, as yet, to provide any such justification.”

I have heard nothing from the Minister to convince me that the Government have provided any such justification for why teachers, as public servants, should have their political and civil rights in the form of their ability to organise strike action hampered in this way compared with other workers.

The Government seem to ignore the fact that strike action by teachers often carries significant sympathies from parents, who recognise that adequate conditions for teachers and a good teaching environment are in the interests of their children. It should not escape anyone’s notice that fee-paying schools are exempt from the regulations, as they are not public services. The regulations will ensure that public sector school workers have less capacity to strike than those working in schools that charge fees. The right to strike is a fundamental human right that should be applied equally to all workers.

In the consultation responses on education, 47% of respondents disagreed with the proposed list of bodies and workers. Although that contained a mixture of views, only 17% were in agreement. Some respondents felt that strike action in education services poses no significant risk to the public. Evidently, the Government disagree, but unless they can put forward a coherent case, we should go no further with the regulations.

As for transport services, out of 119 responses, 23% agreed and 38% disagreed with the proposed list, with respondents feeling that strike action in transport services was unlikely to pose risks to the public. The Prime Minister talks of the Tories as the party of the working class, yet in a country where trade unions are already heavily regulated, she wants further restrictions to rob workers of their right to take industrial action, leaving workers badly treated and essentially powerless. For all the reasons given, I cannot support the regulations and will press them to a Division.

[Chris Stephens]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Evans. I refer Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests: I am chair of the Public and Commercial Services Union parliamentary group and a proud member of the Glasgow City branch of Unison.

I have led for the Scottish National party on all stages of the Trade Union Act. I see some familiar faces on the Government Benches who have been with me through that long process. They will know that there remains strong opposition from my party to the passage of the Act and these statutory instruments.

It is somewhat ironic that, at this moment, Members in the main Chamber are discussing the outcome of a referendum that would not have met the 40% threshold that the Government wish to impose on the trade union movement. The outcome was based on 37.4%. Under the rules that the Government wish to place on the trade unions, the UK would not be leaving the European Union if the 40% threshold the Government wish to impose on the trade union movement were applied.

Members in the main Chamber will, I am sure, discuss workers’ rights and the rights of the trade union movement as part of the process of leaving the European Union. Those who are suspicious about the Government’s commitment to maintain workers’ rights need only come here, to this Committee, to find out what really is going on and what the Government’s true motivations are.

My real concern is this. Throughout the passage of the Trade Union Act and during the ping-pong exercise, the former Minister for Skills, the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford (Nick Boles)—as I said last week, I hope that he is recovering well—gave the House an assurance that he was taking seriously the implementation of e-voting and e-balloting for trade unions. If that review is to take place by the end of this year, it surely makes sense for these statutory instruments to be placed before the House then, once we know the outcome of that exercise, because the Act will only allow postal balloting for industrial action.

The Minister suggested that it is a modernising Act, but it is not—far from it. These Orwellian phrases we have heard so often during the passage of the Act need to stop, because members of the public and trade union members across the UK see right through it.

The response regarding what discussions have taken place with the devolved Administrations is rather unconvincing. The Minister was asked quite clearly what ministerial-to-ministerial meetings have taken place since the passage of the Act and before these statutory instruments were placed before us. It would appear that there have not been any from the Government. We need an answer to that question, because the Scottish Government and the Scottish Parliament are rightly opposed to the Act and are opposed to any attempt to gerrymander ballots with a 40% rule.

We in Scotland have bitter experience about 40% rules being passed into Scotland, when the Scottish Parliament was delayed by 20 years thanks to the imposition of a 40% rule in the Scottish referendum in 1979. I am fast coming to the conclusion that, just like last week, the Government are doing things in their own order, and I suspect that the Government will have to go away and think again about the application of these regulations.

The trade union movement already meets onerous legal conditions for industrial action. Indeed, the only reason the Act was passed in the first place is that the former Mayor of London, now the Foreign Secretary, had a unique approach to industrial relations in this country. Indeed, the industrial actions that are often referred to in support of the Act met every threshold the Government wish to place upon them.

Additionally, no equality impact assessment has been carried out for the regulations. I will tell the Committee who they will harm: the majority of trade union members who are often low-paid women who have had to undertake industrial action to secure equal pay, for example, and better terms and conditions.

As the shadow Minister has outlined, real concerns have been expressed by the ILO committee of experts, which is very concerned that primary and secondary education have been added to the Act, and we now see that further education has been added as well. I look forward to the Minister’s response, but my hon. Friend the Member for Airdrie and Shotts and I will oppose the regulations today.

[Alison McGovern]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Evans. I intervened before to ask the Minister, for the purposes of the Committee’s information, if she could tell us what the genuine level of support for her candidature in her constituency at the last general election was. I am sure she will be thrilled to know it was a big 30%. The hon. Member for Dartford, who intervened before, did slightly better, reaching the dizzy heights of 34%. I imagine the Committee has now had its appetite whetted, to know what my own level of support in Wirral South was.

The people of Wirral South are extraordinarily fair-minded, passionate about social justice and get up every morning thinking, “I really hope my MP is speaking out on behalf of the myriad issues we care about,” but only 35% of them committed their vote to support me. None of us on the Committee can claim the true, justified mandate that the Minister seems to think is legitimate to require of public service unions. That is a ridiculous position for us to get into. It is a strange situation for us as democrats, as we no doubt all are in this House, to find ourselves casting forth our judgment on the levels of support that organisations must command for their positions, when we have found ourselves incapable and not up to the task of meeting this test ourselves. We have found it too hard.

There is a lot of discussion about hypocrisy in politics at the moment. I would never dream of accusing anybody here of being guilty of such a thing. At least, we must worry about the appearance of hypocrisy when we are unable to command the levels of support that we would ask of railway workers, tube workers, nurses, teachers and other public servants. They will understand the change that the Government are bringing in and fail to see how we could vote for it.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough said, the idea, which has absolutely no precedent in our democracy, is that such a threshold should be applied with a justification of protecting important public services. The Government seem to have plucked that definition out of thin air. The regulations would apply such a test in a way that has never been done before. I never thought that I would have to lecture the Tory party in government about the importance of tradition and precedents in our constitution, yet here we are: strange things are indeed happening in this Committee today, are they not?

There is no democratic precedent for this manoeuvre; the Government are completely making it up as they go along. The Minister did give a justification: she said we need to rebalance the interests. I look at the economy in our country today and think that if a rebalancing of interests is needed, it is a rebalancing towards working people, not away from them. The reality is that wages have not grown over the past decade. Since just before the economic crash, people have been doing steadily worse and their wages have continued not to grow.

It is a simple truth in our economy that there are only two things that successfully raise wages: one of them is the law and the National Minimum Wage Act 1998 introduced by my party, and the other is a trade union membership card in the back pocket. Those are the things that raise wages in this country—that is what all the evidence says.

[Chris Stephens]

Is that not the real game here? The Government have been caught out. They think the best way to stop teachers deciding to take national industrial action on pay is by imposing the 40% rule.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Stephens]

Will the Minister give way?

[Alison McGovern]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Margot James]

I will not give way, because I am merely responding to the hon. Lady’s—

[Chris Stephens]

On a point of order, Mr Evans. For the record, I was on strike in 2011 to protect my occupational pension, which was being attacked by the Government.

[The Chair]

That was a point of information, not a point of order.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Stephens]

I have heard what the Minister has to say. The first thing I would say is that in the industrial actions that have been referred to, the thresholds would have been met, so I do not understand why they have been cited.

There is a very real issue regarding the impact the measures will have on the devolved Administrations, particularly in Scotland. The UK Government have determined that employment law is entirely reserved. I am totally dissatisfied that no explanation has been given as to what discussions have taken place with the Scottish Government. That is a very real issue, where tensions can easily arise. Finally, it would be useful if the Minister told us what penalties would be applied to any local authority or devolved Administration that ignored the thresholds and allowed industrial action to take place.

Question put.

Draft Trade Union Act 2016 (Political Funds) (Transition Period) Regulations 2017

Chris Stephens Excerpts

Wednesday 25th January 2017 General Committees

[Margot James]

We conducted a consultation and took it seriously. We listened to people’s views and arrived at a judgment. I remind the hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members that this is not news to the trade unions concerned. It passed into law last May, following intensive debate on the Floor of the House and a great deal of publicity. In effect, the unions have had more than 12 months to introduce the necessary changes to their systems.

[Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)]

I, too, declare my membership of Unison and refer to the Register of Members’ Financial Interests and my post as chair of the Public and Commercial Services Union parliamentary group. Why was 1 March 2018 chosen as the specific date, when we know from trade union feedback that that will cause considerable problems? Trade unions discuss rule changes at their conferences, but many of them are held biannually.

[Margot James]

If trade unions hold conferences biannually, they will surely have at least one conference opportunity between now and March 2018. As the hon. Gentleman probably knows, under the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992, it is not necessary for unions to amend their rules in this regard at a conference. They can apply to the certification officer for the acceptance of any form of union ballot on such a change of rules. Although many unions would prefer to give effect to the changes at a conference, there is no obligation on them to hold a conference to achieve that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Margot James]

I have not finished responding to the hon. Lady. She correctly referred to a reliance on rules to provide proper accountability to members, and we respect that. However, the hon. Member for Glasgow South West said in an earlier intervention that many unions hold biannual conferences. There is therefore an opportunity between now and March 2018 for the vast majority of those unions with political funds to agree the rule changes at a conference. As I have said, if they cannot meet at a conference to introduce the new rules, they can at least ballot their members in consultation with a certification officer.

I am sorry that the hon. Member for Wallasey is frustrated and disappointed by my response, but I think that it is reasonable. The Government believe that a 12-month transition period is adequate for unions to ensure that they comply with the statutory requirement under the Trade Union Act. That balances the need to provide unions with sufficient time to implement the changes with the Government’s view that the measures are delivered promptly.

Once the regulations have received parliamentary approval, they will come into force on 1 March 2017 and the formal 12-month transition period will run from that date. The Government’s view is that unions have known about these changes for some time and it is not unreasonable to expect them to have already done some planning to meet the requirement. We are also grateful to the certification officer, who has consulted unions and issued model rules and guidance, which should assist them in complying with the new requirements.

[Chris Stephens]

I am grateful to the Minister for giving way again. It is important to note that the certification officer has indicated that there will be a period of at least five weeks for him to sign off the changes to a trade union’s rule book. Does the Minister agree that that means that, in effect, trade unions have only 11 months?

[Margot James]

The hon. Gentleman quibbles about weeks and months. We are approaching the end of January and the measure will not come into force until 1 March, from which point the unions will have 12 months in which to comply.

--- Later in debate ---

[Gill Furniss]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right.

Several unions, including USDAW, have set out their response to the BEIS consultation, conducted in August 2016, and to the certification officer’s consultation on the new models, conducted on 22 November 2016. The latest they needed to receive the final model rules from the certification officer in time to make a rule change in a 2017 conference was by 6 January 2017. Those rules were not received from the certification officer until Monday 16 January, and therefore it is not possible for the unions to make the rule changes until April or May 2018.

The Government’s summary of unions’ responses to the August consultation even states:

“A number of Unions said they have conferences scheduled for April/May 2018.”

That is where rule changes can be made, which is a different procedure, so why are the Government rushing to implement the legislation on 1 March 2018, just weeks before unions are due to hold their conferences to change their rules to comply?

[Chris Stephens]

Is there not another practical application? Under the proposed changes to the check-off arrangements, trade unions will have to discuss with employers an increase in subscriptions to comply with the terms of legislation, but the required statutory instrument has still not come before the House.

[Gill Furniss]

The hon. Gentleman makes a very good point. As a result of that legislation, unions will need to renegotiate check-off arrangements with hundreds, and in some cases thousands, of employers across the public and private sector. According to the recently issued model rules, securing approval from the certification officer alone could take up to five weeks.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Stephens]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. I wish everyone a happy Burns day, in memory of Robert Burns, a man who incidentally argued for workers to be represented in Parliament 100 years before the formation of the Labour party and argued for women to be represented in Parliament 150 years before the suffragette movement began. It is frankly an affront that the Government are seeking to restrict the activities of trade unions on this day of all days.

[Daniel Kawczynski (Shrewsbury and Atcham) (Con)]

I have listened with great interest: every Member on the other side of the Committee has declared being a member of a trade union—

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

That is a matter for individual Members, not the Chair. I call Chris Stephens.

[Chris Stephens]

The hon. Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham can check my register of interests—it makes it quite clear what that means for me. I would say to him that I am a proud member of the trade union movement. I became a steward in 1996 and for 20 years, before coming to this place, represented workers on a daily basis. I have to say to him that I am not ashamed that I did that. I am not ashamed of providing welfare help for people who needed it. I am not ashamed to have represented members to make sure that they got pay, many of them women who got equal pay.

[Daniel Kawczynski]

I know it is registered in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. It is just interesting that this is the first time I have been in a debate in which everyone has declared a certain type of interest, which is obvious in the context of the matter we are discussing. In the hon. Gentleman’s case, how much is it worth?

[Chris Stephens]

The hon. Gentleman is more than welcome to read my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, and he will then have that information. All hon. Members of this House can see by looking at my entry what that interest means and how much it is worth.

[Stephen Doughty]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that one of the reasons why we are all pleased to declare our membership of a trade union is that we are proud of it and proud of our association with the trade union movement? We are entirely transparent regarding donations and other matters. If the hon. Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham wants to go down that route, I am sure we would be interested to hear about all the donations and declarations of interest of Government Members, including him.

[Chris Stephens]

It comes as no surprise to me when we are discussing a piece of legislation that has an impact on trade unions that Members declare their membership of a trade union, and that they are all proud to do that. I notice that not one Government Member has yet declared that they are a member of a trade union, which I think is quite interesting.

I have a sense of déjà vu as I stand in this room, as I served on the Trade Union Bill Committee with Conservative Members including the hon. Member for North East Cambridgeshire, who I see in his usual place, and the hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth. The then Minister for Skills, the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford (Nick Boles), who I hope is recovering well, said that the purpose of this part of the Bill was not to punish trade unions in terms of costs, nor was it designed to trip people up. Unfortunately, that is exactly what the proposal before us is designed to do. The Government appear to be ignoring the quite reasonable submissions by trade unions regarding the practical difficulties, some of which have been mentioned. I am aware that Unison traditionally has its annual conference by June. It is not really good enough to say that trade unions should be preparing when they submitted to a Government period on how to implement the measures. The answer on that point is not good enough.

This is not just a Labour party issue. It is about political funds, which have funded some great campaigning work on equal pay, health and safety, anti-racism and anti-austerity, as the hon. Member for City of Chester pointed out.

[Stephen Doughty]

The hon. Gentleman is listing the important types of campaign that have been funded. We were talking earlier about the campaign by USDAW—the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers—against violence against shop workers, which I have been proud to promote in shops in my constituency. Does he agree that such campaigns are vital?

[Chris Stephens]

They are vital. The political funds help trade unions to raise public awareness, and stopping violence against shop workers is an important issue. That does not just affect trade unions; there is a wider society awareness role for that sort of campaign, which is welcome.

Another practical question is: why are we discussing this now, when the check-off arrangement statutory instrument has still to come before us? The two are related. Trade union branches will have to discuss with employers how to facilitate the changes to subscription rates that this legislation will require. It seems to me rather foolish of the Government to introduce the SI before us today but not the associated check-off arrangements SI. It seems to me that the date of 1 March 2018 has been set deliberately either to trip up the trade unions, or to burden them with additional costs.

The Government are all for deregulation in every other part of the economy, but not in relation to the trade union and labour movement. Mr Stringer, I too will seek to divide the Committee. I urge all hon. Members to vote against the statutory instrument.

--- Later in debate ---

[Christian Matheson]

I am grateful for your guidance, Mr Stringer. Forgive me if my concern about the ignorance of Government Members prompted me to go a little beyond the instrument.

Let me talk instead about my own experience of having to implement procedures of the sort set out in the instrument. I used to work for a trade union—it was called Manufacturing, Science and Finance, then Amicus, and then it became Unite—and rose to a position where, as well as industrial responsibilities, I had to manage, for example, trade union ballots when we had ballots every 10 years—the Better Regulation Task Force at the time said such ballots were onerous and unnecessary—in which 80% to 90% of members, right across the trade unions, always voted in favour of having a political fund. The Minister talked about online membership, and I believe that more members join online now, but in my time on our membership forms there was a clear tick-box to allow the individual to opt in to or out of the political fund. The idea that we sneaked those things through is incorrect.

[Chris Stephens]

Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that some trade unions, such as Unison, have two sections of the one political fund, and that members therefore have a choice as to whether they want to give to an affiliated political fund or a general one?

[Christian Matheson]

Unison’s affiliated political fund is an important part of its union operations, but so is its non-affiliated fund to which members can choose to contribute. Later in my time at Unite, I was asked to manage its complaints process, because we received complaints from time to time. In the two and a half years I managed that complaints process, I received not one complaint about the management of either the political fund or the opt-out process. There was not one complaint, so quite why the Government went down this line in the first place I do not know.

The Minister made a point about conferences that are coming up this year. She again misunderstands the nature of those; different unions operate in different ways, but conferences tend to be constituted differently for different purposes. Some unions—Unite is one—have a rules conference every four years and a policy conference every couple of years. Those conferences are constituted differently according to the union’s rules. Unfortunately, if the Minister expects unions to convene special conferences, she perhaps might consider whether there will be Government compensation for the huge costs of having to convene those additional conferences—or maybe that is the point.

My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff South and Penarth made the point earlier that this is about piling further regulatory burdens and financial costs on unions, so that they cannot do their essential work of campaigning and representing working people everywhere. The original Bill is shabby; the terms of the statutory instrument are mean-minded and, I believe, politically motivated. In common with other Opposition Members, I will certainly be voting against it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Doughty]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. I joked with the hon. Member for Glasgow South West that this has been almost like getting the band back together, to quote “The Blues Brothers”. We have been joined, thankfully, by hon. Friends who have made excellent contributions, including of course the shadow Minister, who has clearly set out the unreasonableness of the statutory instrument and some of the wider issues around it. Unfortunately, as has been said, it reflects the pattern of the Government’s shabby behaviour to not only trade unions but civil society and alternative voices more generally. We saw what the Government attempted to do during the progress of the gagging Act, and their attempt to shut down the arguments of charities and lobbying organisations. We have seen attempts to reduce judicial reviews and many attempts to diminish the reasonable work of trade unions, which act as a voice for many millions of working people up and down the country.

This is not just about unions that have a close relationship with the Labour party. This is about the TUC expressing serious concerns about this statutory instrument and about the Trade Union Act more generally, yet those very reasonable concerns have been ignored, as have the voices of devolved Administrations. I am pleased that the Welsh Labour Government have introduced the Trade Union (Wales) Bill to repeal the parts of the Trade Union Act that they believe go far too far and cross into the devolution settlement and their rights as a devolved Administration. I am proud that we have a Government in Wales who are standing up for trade unions and working people.

As I have said, there is a pattern of behaviour here. Yesterday, we saw an attempt by Conservative Members to restrict the rights of workers massively. The attempt was defeated, but the measure was supported by many Government Members, including some who have in the past burnished their alleged working-class credentials. I am very pleased that the measure was defeated.

We can talk about the politics, and the ideological games that the Government are playing—that would underline the intent behind this statutory instrument and other legislation that they have introduced—but in the end, this comes down to reasonableness. The question is whether it is reasonable for trade unions to comply with a law that has been passed, whether I agree with that law or not—and it is very clear that I do not. We were told all the way through the passage of the Trade Union Bill and in many other discussions around it that it was all about listening and improving democracy and transparency, yet the Government have made attempts to ignore the democratic structures in trade unions and frustrate their operation.

[Chris Stephens]

The hon. Gentleman was on the Trade Union Bill Committee and would have heard the then Minister for Skills, the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford, saying that the measures were not about passing on additional costs to trade unions. Does he think that claim is fulfilled in this statutory instrument?

[Stephen Doughty]

No, I do not. Indeed, I fear that costs are a consequence of many other parts of the legislation. Fines can be introduced for non-compliance, and there are many other restrictions. Many of the unions we have talked about, particularly USDAW, have been clear that they are trying to comply with the legislation within a reasonable time, yet the Government are not listening to their very reasonable concerns. The unions are suggesting that this be delayed not by years or decades, but by months, given their pre-existing and very reasonable democratic structures and processes.

I go back to the TUC’s key concerns about this statutory instrument. It has been clear that it believes that the proposed 12-month transition period is inadequate and fails to take into account the complexity involved. As I have said, a financial penalty of up to £20,000 can be imposed by a certification officer.

On revising the rulebooks, the changes need to be agreed through union democratic structures—a lengthy process that differs greatly from union to union. They need to consult branches, as has been mentioned several times, and there are rule-making conferences where union democracy can be conducted, with full transparency for the public and members. Why would we want to undermine that by suggesting that unions could go through a secondary process and have a little meeting of the executive committee under the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992?

--- Later in debate ---

[Margot James]

I will not give way for a little while. I want to go back to our purpose, and remind Opposition Members that when we concluded the Act’s Public Bill Committee sittings, the shadow spokesperson, the hon. Member for Cardiff West (Kevin Brennan), said on the record:

“we recognise that the Government’s new proposal”—

that is, that only new members should be required to opt into the political funds—

“is a substantial improvement ?on the original Bill, which would have required all members to opt in within three months and to renew that opt-in within five years.”––[Official Report, Trade Union Public Bill Committee, 27 April 2016; c. 1510.]

Hon. Members are making a great deal of something that really ought to be happening already, and is a modest advance.

[Chris Stephens]

I thank the Minister for giving way; she has been most generous. As the right hon. Member for West Dorset pointed out, there is a real problem with the date given in the statutory instrument—1 March 2018. Is the Minister indicating that she is amenable to moving that date by a couple of months, as the right hon. Gentleman suggested?

[Margot James]

I am not going to proceed down that path at this point. As required by the Act, we have consulted and sought views on the length of the transition period.

Exiting the EU and Workers’ Rights

Chris Stephens Excerpts

Monday 7th November 2016 Commons Chamber

[John Redwood]

There is absolutely no point in having a referendum on the exit package. By the time we get to that point, we will already be leaving. The people have decided to leave. If we had a vote on the exit package and decided that we did not like it, the rest of the European Union would not say, “Oh, we’re very sorry, United Kingdom. We’ll improve your exit package.” Absolutely no way! They would say, “We are absolutely fed up with you, United Kingdom. You can’t make up your mind, you mess us around and you dominate the agenda with things we don’t want to talk about. You are out!” We have to understand that some of our partners have only a limited amount of patience. Some of them do not have very much patience already.

I regard my views and my vote as being those of a good European. I have always understood the full nature of the European project. It is a noble ideal to unite countries around a united currency, a political union and much more collaborative working. I also know that the British people, including myself, do not wish to do that. It is too close for us. That is why the British people have made the bold, heroic and sensible decision, as good Europeans, to say, “We don’t want to join the currency. We don’t want to join Schengen. We don’t want to join the next bit, which will be the political union.” So is it not good that Britain has honestly said—

[Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. As much as I am enjoying the right hon. Gentleman’s dissertation on the Brexit vote, it has been some time since we have spoken about workers’ rights. Is there anything that we can do about that?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for drawing that to my attention. I am listening carefully to the speech of the right hon. Member for Wokingham (John Redwood) and he began by speaking about workers’ rights. The title of this debate is “Exiting the EU and Workers’ Rights” and I know that the right hon. Gentleman will strike a balance between the two parts of the motion. I am quite sure that he will remain in order, but I am grateful to the hon. Member for Glasgow South West (Chris Stephens) for ensuring that I am paying attention.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)]

Does the right hon. Lady not appreciate that many of us had to argue that case because trade unions used EU law to get victories for their workers in court?

[Anna Soubry]

Yes, but the unions did not need to use EU law—that was the point. This country has rights through common law and in statute; it was just not a problem. I am somewhat concerned and slightly agitated about this matter. The very firm words from our excellent Secretary of State—I was delighted when he was appointed to his job—could not have been clearer. He said that all the rights that we have by virtue of our membership of the EU will be transferred into substantive British law. Which part of that do Opposition Members not understand? My right hon. Friend could not have been clearer. I absolutely do take his word, and indeed the Government’s word, on this. In many ways, this is a bit of an otiose debate—if I can put it in those terms—because I have no fear that any of the rights that have been accrued over decades by virtue of our membership of the EU will be diminished.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Melanie Onn), a Unison colleague.

I have to say from listening to some of the Government Members that the debate so far has been a bizarre, surreal and Orwellian experience—or should I say a Dickensian experience, given that reference has been made to the Conservative party’s glory days in 1802? Let us remind ourselves that Ebenezer Scrooge was a boy and children were sent up chimneys in 1802, the Conservative party’s glory days. As for the Conservatives being the workers’ party, I can only assume that Comical Ali is working in Conservative central office.

On the real issue about workers’ rights, I disagree with the right hon. Member for Broxtowe (Anna Soubry), because I do not think we emphasised workers’ rights enough during the EU referendum. I say that because of the legal advice issued by Michael Ford QC to the TUC, which states that

“employment rights in the UK are guaranteed by EU law. These rights include: protection against discrimination…; protections of workers on transfers of undertakings and in insolvency; health and safety…; rights to collective information and consultations on transfers and redundancies; working time rights; protection against discrimination of fixed-term…workers”—

I have had to use that very key EU law as a trade union representative before I came to this place—and, indeed, “data protection rights.”

Workers’ rights need to be protected if the UK—or even part of the UK—leaves the European Union. As others have said, those of us on the Opposition Benches have every reason to fear for workers’ rights if the Government are freed from the constraints of the EU. Our real fear is that there would be a war on workers’ rights from this Government. As others have noted, the Secretary of State for International Development said in a speech to that advocate of workers’ rights, the Institute of Directors:

“If we could just halve the burdens of the EU social and employment legislation we could deliver a £4.3 billion boost to our economy and 60,000 new jobs.”

I do not accept that economic illiteracy. It is a bit like the claim that the national minimum wage would cost £1 billion a year, when in actual fact it did the opposite. Who argued that position? It was the so-called workers’ party, the Conservatives. Viewed from working people’s end of the telescope, those so-called burdens are protections that we should be very keen on.

Which rights coming from the EU must be protected? The first is surely the EU equal treatment directive, which underpins equal pay legislation and has secured equal and improved pay for millions of women across the public services. Improvements do not rely only on directives; common law decisions of the domestic courts rely heavily on EU law. That has had the positive effect of women not needing to find a male comparator where they have suffered pregnancy discrimination.

The part-time workers directive has resulted in thousands of part-time workers gaining access to public sector pensions when previously they had been prevented from joining a pension scheme. The agency workers directive has resulted in UK agency workers gaining access to pay and leave improvements, and in many agency workers gaining permanent employment.

The much maligned working time directive has resulted in increases in holiday pay so that it includes regular allowances and so that pay is not reduced during holiday periods. It has allowed care workers on sleepover shifts in care homes to have their working time recognised when they are woken in the middle of the night to help the elderly. It has ensured safe shift patterns, reducing accidents and critical incidents, and pro rata annual leave for zero-hours contract workers for the hours that they have worked. The EU collective redundancy regulations have kept thousands of workers in work, rather than on the dole, by ensuring meaningful alternative redeployment or retraining are considered first before a final decision on employment is made.

Those are not burdens but real protections and have provided fair rights at work. Those workers’ rights must be protected. If the UK, in whole or in part, leaves the EU, we must ensure that those protections stay, and are not under attack from the zealots and fanatics who believe nothing good has ever come from the European Union.

Living Wage

Chris Stephens Excerpts

Thursday 3rd November 2016 Commons Chamber

[Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)]

It is a pleasure to take part in this debate. I congratulate the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh) on securing the debate. I know that she has been a tenacious campaigner on the issue and has contacted many MPs about it. I am pleased to support the motion in her name.

It has been an excellent debate. I look forward to the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Helen Goodman) telling us on a future occasion what the pay rates of the butlers and housekeepers are in Mr Morrison’s castle. I want to pick up on some of the themes in the speeches of the hon. Members for Halifax (Holly Lynch) and for Oldham West and Royton (Jim McMahon) in particular.

As others have said, the UK Government’s national living wage is not a living wage, but an additional tier of the national minimum wage. The national living wage does not benefit those under 25, who still face the lower rates of the national minimum wage. I view that as direct discrimination against young people. Differential pay for young workers is not acceptable and our long-term aspiration should be that the living wage becomes the norm across the board. There is no justification for paying people in their early 20s 25p an hour less than those who are younger.

Let us take the example of two workers in a fast food outlet, one aged 17 and the other aged 37. If they are both flipping hamburgers in that fast food outlet, surely they should be paid the same, but they are not. One is paid £4 an hour and the other is paid £7.20 an hour. Because of the way the Government have done the calculation and added the living wage to the national minimum wage, for someone who enters employment at 16 or 17 and stays with that employer, it will take eight or nine years to qualify for the highest minimum wage rate. No employer in the UK would keep a worker on a grade for that length of time before they reached the top of their pay scale. This is clearly discrimination against young workers, and it is one of the reasons why today’s young generation is likely to be poorer than generations before them.

There has been no adequate explanation in this debate of why the living wage applies only to those aged 25 or more. More importantly, as the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden pointed out, the real issue is the enforcement of minimum wage rates. The National Audit Office confirmed last year that 209,000 workers were not paid the national minimum wage. That is a scandalous figure, and the pernicious practices of rogue employers who are trying other means to get round paying the living wage should be investigated. These are multinational companies that should be paying their tax and are not doing so. That should be addressed.

I support the comments of the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael), who made the very serious point that somehow seafarers are exempt from the living wage and the national minimum wage. I hope Members will consider signing early-day motions 231 and 516 on this subject. The information that I have from the RMT is that seafarers are paid less than £2 an hour, which starkly illustrates the issue.

The so-called national living wage relates to average earnings, not living costs, and therefore cannot be a living wage. It is calculated according to the adequacy of household incomes for achieving an acceptable minimum living standard.

In Scotland the SNP continues to set the bar on fair work. On Monday 31 October the First Minister welcomed the new rate of the real living wage of £8.45 an hour, which will benefit thousands of workers in Scotland, and urged more Scottish organisations to sign up as accredited living wage employers. Peter Kelly, director of the Poverty Alliance, said on Monday:

“Today’s announcement of the new, increased, Living Wage rates of £8.45 brings a welcome pay rise to thousands of workers across Scotland. 430,000 people in Scotland still earn less than the wage they need to get by. This is an increase on the number of people struggling since last year’s figures. That’s why it’s more important than ever for leading employers to join the growing movement of businesses and organisations that are going further than the government minimum and making sure their employees earn enough to cover the real cost of living.”

The knowledge exchange project, carried out by the University of Strathclyde and the Living Wage Foundation, has found that implementing the real living wage encourages businesses to re-evaluate their approaches to staffing and payment, leading to more effective and efficient working patterns. Implementing the real living wage encourages businesses to re-evaluate their business model and increases skills development, staff performance, job satisfaction and staff retention.

According to the New Economics Foundation, one study found that when employers transitioned to paying staff at least the real living wage, they experienced significantly lower rates of staff turnover, reputational benefits, a reduction in sick leave, better motivated staff and an increase in productivity. A massive 80% of employers felt that their staff delivered better quality work after paying them the real living wage, with 75% of employees agreeing that their work was improved. One major UK firm found that paying contractor staff the real living wage cut staff turnover by half, saving it £75,000 on the value of a single contract.

There are now more than 624 Scots-based living wage accredited employers paying the real living wage, and the SNP Government have set a target of 1,000 by autumn 2017. I want to thank those living wage employers in Glasgow South West, including housing associations, Money Matters, Ypeople, Lifelink and Agripa, which is a local printing company.

Draft National Minimum Wage (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 2016

Chris Stephens Excerpts

Thursday 8th September 2016 General Committees

[Margot James]

I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention. I propose meeting Marks and Spencer to discuss a range of matters, including some of the points that she makes. It is important to remember that, by law, as long as companies pay the national minimum wage and, in future, pay those over 25 the national living wage, there will be a limit to what the Government can do, apart from expressing a keen concern that employers should operate within the spirit, as well as the letter, of the law.

[Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)]

There is a real issue with enforcement. The National Audit Office said that, last year, 209,000 workers in the UK were not being paid the national minimum wage and that 56,000 were owed arrears. Will the Minister outline the Government’s plans to enforce the national minimum wage better throughout the UK?

[Margot James]

We are doing a great deal to improve enforcement. Sadly, there will always be cases of employers who have the very immoral intent of getting round this law, but the powers of investigation of Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs are increasing, and we are increasing the expenditure on HMRC’s enforcement team. I will come on to make other points about enforcement; there are various other things that we are doing to increase it. Every single complaint made by an employee is automatically investigated by HMRC’s enforcement team. This year, we have increased the budget from between £13 million and £14 million to £20 million. We are serious about cracking down on employers that try to flout the law. I shall return to enforcement in due course, because I agree with the hon. Gentleman that it is crucial.

The Low Pay Commission has proved that a rising minimum wage can go hand in hand with rising employment. However, the carefully considered independent advice from the commission is central to this. The Government’s 2016 remit for the commission asked it to make recommendations for the new rates, based on maximising the wages of the low-paid without damaging their employment opportunities. The commission has made its recommendations following thorough consultation with business, workers, and their representatives, and extensive research and analysis.

The Low Pay Commission’s remit is clear: when considering the pace of increases to minimum wage rates, it should take into account the state of the economy. The commission has stated:

“the labour market had continued to perform well, with robust employment growth in low-paying sectors”.

Although the referendum result may have cast some uncertainty over forecasts and assessments made before June this year, we should remember that the labour market performed robustly during the worst recession in living memory.

The increases to the minimum wage rates are, of course, in addition to the national living wage for those aged over 25, which we implemented in April. It is the Government’s ambition for a national living wage to reach 60% of median earnings by 2020. In addition, the national minimum wage cycle will be aligned with the national living wage cycle from April 2017. That will reduce the burden on businesses of having to update their workforce’s pay more than once a year and will mean that the statutory pay floor for all ages is uprated simultaneously.

[Margot James]

I thank my hon. Friend for his informative intervention. The fact that it is more or less dollar for pound indicates that we in Britain are doing as much as we possibly can to protect the interests of low-paid workers, and to pay them the maximum that the economy can afford without damaging their employment prospects.

[Chris Stephens]

Since the Government announced their version of a living wage for those over 25, there has been no explanation of why the age of 25 was chosen. Will the Minister outline why that age was set for a living wage, rather than 21?

[Margot James]

The wages of young adults between the ages of 21 and 25 are protected by the minimum wage regulations, which will continue to apply. It is felt that prior to the age of 25, people in employment are gaining experience, and that the most important thing for them is to be in work and looking at their prospects in the workplace. I am sure that is felt by the Low Pay Commission, which advises the Government on such matters, while having a remit of having regard to the state of the economy as a whole and a mission to not damage people’s employment prospects. Those factors informed the Government’s decision to pick the age of 25 for the national living wage.

I point out to the hon. Gentleman that a lot of employers—particularly in the retail sector, for which I am responsible—are finding the prospect of a national living wage a huge challenge. If we lowered the age or dramatically increased the rate, there would be a grave danger to young people’s employment prospects, which it is the Government’s duty absolutely to protect.

If I may make some progress, I will come on to the issue of enforcement, which I know is of interest to the hon. Gentleman. We are absolutely clear that anyone entitled to the national minimum wage or the national living wage should receive it. The enforcement of the minimum wage is essential to its success, and we are committed to cracking down on employers who break minimum wage law in all sectors across the economy. That is why we have increased HMRC’s enforcement budget, as I was saying earlier, to £20 million from £13 million last year. This will bolster HMRC’s resources and ensure that it continues to respond to every worker complaint.

The Government will continue to take a tough approach to employers that break minimum wage law, and will continue to name eligible employers in the vast majority of cases. From April this year, the Government have also significantly increased the national minimum wage penalty, taking it from 100% to 200% of the arrears owed to the worker, up to a maximum of £20,000 per worker. HMRC will continue to refer the most serious cases of wilful non-compliance for criminal investigation.

In conclusion, the Government believe that the rate set out in the regulations will increase the wages of the lowest-paid while being affordable for business.

--- Later in debate ---

[Michael Fabricant]

I have not even mentioned the national living wage; the hon. Gentleman was not listening to what I was saying. I am talking about the national minimum wage. Whether we are talking about the national living wage or the minimum wage, it has to be set at a rate that people can be employed at. Otherwise, why not set the national minimum wage at £50 an hour? That sounds a good figure. Why not make it £100 an hour? The hon. Gentleman knows as well as I do that that would be ridiculously stupid, because it would price people out of the market. It is always a question of balance. He may or may not be a great economist—I do not know his background; forgive me, but I have not read his biog—but he would know that.

It is all too easy to score cheap political points and say, “Let’s make the rate higher,” and “Aren’t the Tories wicked and mean for not having it higher?” [Hon. Members: “Yes!”] Listen to them now, Mr Wilson. They are saying, “Yes, the Tories are wicked and mean.” Well, I am not a wicked Tory, and I am not mean. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear!”] Thank you. I supported the minimum wage at the time. However, it has to be at the correct rate, and I think that on balance, this is the correct rate. All I agree with the hon. Gentleman on is that the rates must be enforced, as I said earlier.

[Chris Stephens]

rose—

[Michael Fabricant]

I will give way. I like SNP Members, because at least they are hard-working.

[Chris Stephens]

I thank the hon. Gentleman, although I think I have been damned with faint praise. He is talking about the right rate. What is his view on having different rates for different age groups? That is an issue on which there is real debate, and I would like to hear his view.

[Michael Fabricant]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that question. The analysis done by the Low Pay Commission and others suggests that unless we have different wage rates by age, people under the age of 24 or 25 will be unemployable. That is the problem. For example, if we set the rate too high, it would be a disincentive for companies to engage people in apprenticeships.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Stephens]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Wilson. There are two main themes that I will touch on. The first is enforcement. We heard about some sort of strategy to address that, but I have questions for the Minister similar to those that the hon. Member for Sefton Central asked. What impact does the HMRC office closure programme have on enforcement of the minimum wage? Have any of the compulsory redundancies made by HMRC affected any minimum wage enforcement staff? It is important to get enforcement right. If 290,000 workers in the UK last year were not paid the national minimum wage, it seems that there is a real problem with enforcement, and we need to do it better. How many people are employed to deal with minimum wage enforcement? Are there any plans to increase that number?

The Minister mentioned the alignment between the living wage and national minimum wage rates. When will that alignment take place? It is important to look at the whole picture. The criticism of the UK Government’s so-called living wage is that it is actually just an additional tier of the national minimum wage. She and the hon. Member for Lichfield have argued that the rates change at 25, then 21, and then at other age bands. I think that that is wrong. I do not accept the arguments, well put though they were, that young workers should be discriminated against in terms of wages. I have never agreed with that analysis.

I say that for a couple of reasons. First, young workers have the same costs. A 21-year-old or a 19-year-old has the same costs as a fellow worker aged 25. I have never accepted the view that we should have different age bands. Another way of looking at it is that if there are two workers flipping hamburgers in a fast food restaurant, one aged 17 or 18 and the other aged 37, and both are doing the same work and producing the same output, they should be paid the same rate. Under the Government’s proposals, one would be paid £4 an hour and the other would be paid £7.20 an hour, which is a difference of £3.20 an hour between two workers working alongside each other and doing the same job. Employers address training and experience by inventing a pay grade containing different bands.

Well put though the arguments are, I am afraid that I want the Government to reconsider this and to direct the Low Pay Commission to look at the various age bands of the national minimum wage, because young workers have the same costs. When young workers go into the labour market, they should not be treated any differently from others. They should not be used as cheap labour, as some employers use them. I ask the Government to consider young workers, and I look forward to the Minister’s response to those questions.

--- Later in debate ---

[Margot James]

I thank hon. Members for the interesting points they have made. I will take the issues turn by turn, starting with the valid points raised by the hon. Member for Sefton Central about the national living wage. He quoted the other organisation for a real living wage, whose deliberations I follow. However, the Government follow the recommendations of the Low Pay Commission, rather than those of the other organisation. The Low Pay Commission is independent of the Government and, as I said, it makes its recommendations on the basis of what the economy can afford without damage to the employment prospects of young people.

I also mentioned the increase represented by the national living wage, which will rise over the next few years, as we all know. We on this side of the House think that is a very good thing. A lot of employers, particularly in the retail sector, are seriously concerned about their future viability with this new cost; for example, we have already identified that people in the social care sector, which several hon. Members mentioned, are very concerned. The Government are right to follow the recommendations of the Low Pay Commission, for those good reasons.

[Chris Stephens]

Will the Minister give way?

[Margot James]

I am going to make some progress, but if I do not cover the point the hon. Gentleman wants to make, he can intervene later.

I will say a little about enforcement, which was mentioned by the hon. Member for Llanelli; I very much agree with where she is coming from, and I thank her for her comments. As I said earlier, the Government are absolutely committed to cracking down on employers who break the national minimum wage law. I mentioned the budget increase for HMRC’s enforcement team; we have also increased the minimum wage underpayment penalties from 100% to 200% of the arrears owing to workers.

Employers who have underpaid their workers by more than £100 are eligible to be named. We name the vast majority of those employers: 700 have been named to date. I will make sure that that operation continues and is put on an expected footing of quarterly naming and shaming. I assure hon. Members that naming impacts on firms’ reputations, especially locally, because the local media always pick these stories up. It is a serious deterrent.

We are also creating a statutory director of labour market enforcement—I hope to have the individual in place by the end of the year—who will establish a single set of priorities for all enforcement bodies, and will back up the work of the HMRC enforcement team. The increased budget for HMRC will enable it not just to continue to investigate every single employee complaint, but to carry out more targeted inspections that do not depend on employee complaints.

I recognise that some employees, particularly in small firms, are worried about their future employment security if they make a complaint. There is the facility to make confidential complaints—people can complain directly to HMRC or they can call the free helpline that ACAS operates—but there is still that worry and fear at the back of people’s minds. I had someone come to my constituency surgery about it; they were so worried, and I took the matter up on their behalf. To ensure that that worry is not a barrier to enforcement, HMRC will carry out targeted inspections across various sectors of the economy.

That point leads me on to the care sector, which several hon. Members mentioned and which is a priority for the Government. HMRC is already undertaking targeted inspections: so far, it has made inquiries into almost 500 social care companies operating in the sector. It is worth pointing out that many of those inquiries result from targeted inspections; they are not dependent on employees making complaints. We have also enabled local authorities to charge a precept of up to 2.5% on council tax to provide considerably more funding for the social care sector, because we are concerned by what we have heard from companies operating in that space.

Hon. Members mentioned prosecutions—an issue that causes me concern. So far, HMRC has brought just 12 successful criminal prosecutions. I think we would all agree that that is a small number, but there is a good reason why HMRC prefers the civil remedy. It is far quicker; it is also cheaper, and we must have an eye on cost. Each criminal prosecution costs, on average, £50,000, and some cost considerably more. We need to make sure that criminal prosecution is in the armamentarium of HMRC, for the serious repeat offenders and employers who go out of their way to break the law. They should be the subject of criminal prosecution, but there is much more we can do, and hon. Members should not forget that when a civil remedy is pursued, the employees get their arrears immediately, whereas with a criminal prosecution they have to wait—and, of course, if it is not successful, they receive nothing.

I think I have dealt with most of the matters that the hon. Member for Sefton Central raised, including the Low Pay Commission. On the point about the disparity between people aged under 25 and those aged over 25, I listened attentively to the hon. Member for Llanelli, who obviously has expertise on the issue, and I accept that there is a difficulty in terms of strict equality between someone aged 18 and someone aged 37. I do not accept that they necessarily have the same costs, but there is an issue.

Let us not forget that the figure is a floor—a minimum. A lot of good employers who can afford it pay younger and older workers equally, and I think we would all like that to happen; but we must accept that the position of younger people in the labour market is different, and among the differences is the fact that sometimes they are training, or they need experience. I have already pointed out the significant difference in the unemployment rate.

I do not think that the provisions are a licence for exploitation. I think it is a realistic acknowledgement of the different position of different age groups, and the need to incentivise employers to employ younger people who do not have experience. Employers must have some kind of benefit from doing that. If they are in highly competitive and low-paid sectors that are under threat, such as the retail sector, which as I have mentioned is under severe threat for all sorts of reasons, they need that cushion, and that is what the Low Pay Commission recommends.

[Chris Stephens]

Some of those companies in the retail sector are multinationals making millions of pounds of profits. Is the Minister also looking at some of the companies that are changing contracts and taking away other premium payments to enforce the living wage? In debates in the House, evidence has been given of companies taking away other payments and changing hours and shifts to try to get round the living wage. Is the Minister looking at that issue?