Equal Pay

Sharon Hodgson Excerpts

Wednesday 18th March 2015 Westminster Hall

[Emily Thornberry]

Perhaps I am not as much of an optimist as my hon. Friend. I was not at all surprised. Although the landscape is more complex, the effect is essentially the same: women and women’s work are still systematically undervalued in our country, and we have to be on our toes and be prepared to be imaginative and think laterally to tackle that. We have learnt, as was highlighted in the debate on my hon. Friend’s Bill, that we simply cannot leave it to good will; we need to be radical and brave and be prepared to tackle the situation head on. The change that the Government have agreed to, pushed for by my hon. Friend and many others, is a good start, but we need to go further. As I said, it is a shame that Ministers have dragged their feet, but I will not go any further than that. There is a lot that I could say, but I will be more generous.

As my noble Friend Baroness Thornton pointed out last week, of the 7,000 companies employing more than 250 people, just 270 have signed up to Think, Act, Report, but of those—this is what matters—only five have opted to publish data on their employees’ pay. It is clear, as she put it, that

“a voluntary approach on its own will not deliver the transparency needed to achieve a change in companies’ behaviour”.—[Official Report, House of Lords, 11 March 2015; Vol. 760, c. 668.]

It will seem like an obvious point to make, but when only five out of 7,000 companies—that is 0.07%—opt for transparency, we have to change the law. It took the Government some time to drop their opposition to the idea, but nevertheless, things have moved to a certain extent. However, now we have that, we have to look at what we are going to get in detail, because pay transparency and pay audits are good as slogans, but we need to know what they really mean. We should be celebrating the victory, but we need to go further and get rid of some of the more ridiculous loopholes that I have pointed out.

The law has moved since the 1970s in many ways, including the fact that instead of it being reactive—in other words: “If you don’t do this, you will get sued or taken to court”—Acts of Parliament have taken a more proactive role, beginning with the Human Rights Act 1998. I will not spend time going on about it, but that Act is a living, breathing legal document that puts obligations on organisations to comply with it, and to see their obligations under it and act accordingly. It seems an entirely different type of legislation from the type we have had in the past—and an entirely good one.

We can read across from that to the Bribery Act 2010, which said that if an individual in a company bribed officials, either abroad or at home, unless that company could show that it had systems in place to manage those employees, and therefore the employee was acting wholly outside the way in which the company expected their employees to behave, the company could be liable. We could read across from that to doing the same thing in relation to fraud; so if an individual behaved dishonestly for the benefit of a company, then unless the company could show that it had good management structures in place, the company should be liable.

What has happened with bribery has been really interesting. Experts have been going into organisations and making sure that those organisations have the correct management structures in place and are behaving in a proper way. To use a quote from the leader of my party, it is “responsible capitalism” in action. We can have legislation that brings in responsible capitalism and says to companies, “We expect you to behave in this way. Use your initiative, and get on with it. Stop being complacent and stop saying, ‘Well, it’s not against the law,’ or ‘You can’t take us to a tribunal,’ or ‘You can’t take us to court as things currently stand, so we are not doing anything about it.’”

We could do the same with an equal pay Act, which we should begin with a positive obligation on us all to ensure that equal pay is brought in over the next few years. Women have been waiting for long enough; the obligation should not just be on individual women taking their individual complaints to a tribunal and chipping away at the system one by one, piecemeal by piecemeal. We should all be obliged to ensure that if these women take their cases to a tribunal, they are treated like whistleblowers. If they take a case to a tribunal and they can show that on the face of things, they are a whistleblower, and that, in fact, there is systemic discrimination in that company, action should be triggered by that case. We should then have a more proactive law to ensure that the tribunal can say, “We want a pay audit.”

I know that the Government have changed the law, so that at the end of a tribunal there could be a pay audit, but what does the pay audit mean? It is not sufficient for a pay audit simply to be: “We’ve got 15 women doing the typing, and we’ve got 10 women doing administration, and we’ve got six directors and they happen to be men, and we’re publishing that.” We do not want that. What we want—what I want—is a skills audit to be done under that, so that we look at what skills the women have, in what way they are doing those jobs and what skills they are using. We compare jobs and do a proper jobs and skills audit, so we get under the skin of the box-ticking and look at how there may be a difference between the way in which men and women are paid in organisations.

A tribunal could trigger that after an individual woman has taken out a case. It could be done at the end of a hearing as part of the tribunal’s decision making, or—perhaps even better—at the beginning, when legal action is contemplated. At that point, as part of pre-litigation negotiations, a company or organisation might say, “Yes, we’ll do a proper, profound skills audit.”

[Mrs Sharon Hodgson (Washington and Sunderland West) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is making a characteristically superb speech on the extremely important issue she has brought before Parliament today. What is her opinion on what we should do about tribunal fees? As she will be aware, they have had such a detrimental effect on the number of cases coming forward across all discrimination tribunals.

[Emily Thornberry]

If I may, I will answer that later—I have quite a lot to get through, but I will come to that in my speech. I want to pray in aid some more quotes from my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham, who said—so I know I have a friend in this—

“Why should the burden be on women to investigate pay inequality and to ask their colleagues how much they earn?”

She went on say:

“We should not have to wait for whistleblowers”.—[Official Report, 16 December 2014; Vol. 589, c. 1301.]

That is absolutely right. It is not a rhetorical question, but is very apt in highlighting the unfairness of a system that puts the entire burden on individual women to root out discrimination. They are the victims; we should assist them, and our system should make sure that they are given proper assistance.

We need an equal pay Act that enshrines in law the principle that tackling the wage gap is a collective responsibility. Therefore, a company found guilty of discrimination should be ordered to do a proper, profound pay audit. One of the problems with the changes the Government have made so that a tribunal may have a pay audit done is, first, it is not profound enough, and secondly, it is silent on the issue of how it will be enforced, what the plan will be and how it will work. It is important that we have it as a complete package. It is not sufficient to pass legislation by way of gesture—although I am sure that that was not necessarily the entire motivation. We have to look at the situation carefully and see what is going to work. Without that basis, it will not be enough and it will not work.

Under the regulations, there are no guidelines on what constitutes an acceptable plan and the regulations are silent on enforcement and monitoring. What is more, tribunals are not obliged to order a full audit in all circumstances and may opt out of doing so if it is believed that—and listen to this, Mr Weir—

“the disadvantages of an audit would outweigh its benefits.”

So there we are: the audits may be too superficial, they may not be enforced, there may not be a plan, and in any event they can get out of it if the disadvantages outweigh the benefits. That is hardly the radical stuff that we need in the 21st century.

Given that the Government’s actions have demonstrated the inadequacies of a voluntary approach to tackling the pay gap, we need a new law that requires not only stringent monitoring but vigorous enforcement. In my view, audits should be overseen by the Equality and Human Rights Commission and carried out by experts. I am very pleased to have read the paper, which I believe is circulating today, from the EHRC. Although the commission might not agree with all my suggestions with huge enthusiasm, it seems to agree with at least some of them, so I believe that I am making progress. The resulting action plans should be subject to EHRC approval and continued monitoring, with the threat of referral back to the tribunal for non-compliance.

That is the stick, but I am not talking just about sticks. I am also talking about carrots, and the carrot is that we should actively encourage all companies to carry out regular pay audits and eliminate disparities wherever they arise, even if they are not ordered to do so by a tribunal. A voluntary profound audit and evidence of compliance with the recommendations of an approved plan would virtually insulate companies from any equal pay claims. Prima facie, if a company had done these voluntary audits, had a plan and was implementing it, that would be a defence to any claim of unfair pay. It seems to me that that would be a catalyst for a culture change that shifts the onus of rooting out pay inequality from the victims to the employers themselves.

As the changes took root, we could hope for a greatly reduced need for women to pursue claims against their employers via the traditional route set out in the 1970 Act, but inevitably it would be some time before the changes took effect, so, to answer the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Washington and Sunderland West (Mrs Hodgson), we would need measures to streamline procedures within the tribunals to make them more efficient.

We could begin by encouraging more negotiation as opposed to litigation. A number of high-profile cases in recent years have seen unions trying to come to agreements with employers and then finding themselves sued by claimants—disgruntled women who believe that the settlements are unfair. Obviously, that has had a chilling effect on the actions of many trade unions. Given that it is a risk, but we do need to ensure that there are more settlements, it seems to me that we need to take into account the limited financial resources of many employers. We also need to understand that they need to balance the sometimes competing interests of back pay for claimants with pay protection for existing male employees. A new equal pay Act should include codes of practice, which should have legal standing. Therefore, if a trade union and an employer came to an agreement, and that agreement complied with the code of practice attached to the new equal pay Act—a code requiring the parties to make sure that there was proper job evaluation that would result in a settlement—both the employer and the trade union, prima facie, should have a defence and should not be able to be sued. That in turn, hopefully, would release them to get back on the front foot and start negotiating some fairness and some equality in the workplace.

Let me now deal with the tribunals themselves. When we introduced the Equal Pay Act, there was a period of bedding in, and we should have the same with a new equal pay Act. I think that the whole Act should be jump-started with a period of five years during which there should not be fees for tribunals for equal pay claims. Also, we should consider carefully whether, if an equal pay claim is successful, there should be six years’ back pay, as there is under the current law, or whether we should change that back to two years, which was in the original Equal Pay Act.

I know that the European Court of Justice has said that, given that our old Equal Pay Act is based on contract law, we should give contract law remedies, which is six years, but I think that we have a very strong argument to make. If challenged, we could go back to the European Court of Justice and say, “This is a matter of public policy. We in Britain are doing something about ensuring that we get equal pay in our country, so during this five-year period, we wish to be able to bring in some more carrots and sticks and actually get some action.” We all know where we want to go. We need to make sure that we have a plan that works and will get us there.

It seems to me that that could reverse some of the damage that has been done. Let’s face it, employers fight absolutely everything, and one can understand why. The loss for them is so huge if they lose a case—they have to pay six years’ back pay, and if it is a collective action, that is a huge amount of money—but that is not to say that they should not be doing something. We have to find a compromise, a practical and pragmatic way through this. I suggest scrapping fees not for ever, but for five years, and there are other things that we should do.

I have no understanding of why the Government got rid of the short form questionnaire. Before an action began, employers had to fill in a questionnaire for a woman who wanted to make an equal pay claim, which would give some facts for the woman so that she could take out her case. The Government scrapped that, saying that it was red tape. That is clearly counter-productive, because if the individual woman employee does know the circumstances in which she is employed, sometimes she will have some grist to her mill—she will have some evidence enabling her to take her case to the tribunal properly—but quite often, surely, it will have the opposite effect and she will realise that actually she is not being discriminated against. What is the problem with transparency? Why should we not have people with equality of arms—equality of arms as best we can—going before a tribunal where we all know what we are talking about in advance of it happening?

A new equal pay Act needs to bring back a questionnaire. Two pages—it does not have to be 50, 100 or 200 pages —with some basic information, so that the woman knows where she stands. That seems to me to be very important. The questionnaire should include questions such as “Have actions been taken out against you in the past?” and “Have you had to pay compensation in the past?” That questionnaire would be a minimal burden on employers and a vital tool for women who are trying to embark on a challenge. We ought to be supporting those women, who in the end are our whistleblowers. In the recent equal opportunities review, Professor Bob Hepple wrote a case that, in my view, is unanswerable, saying how important it is to have a questionnaire brought back into law.

We should go further in streamlining the process. We should also bring in senior judges. Employment tribunals, if they are dealing with a large and complex case, should be able to bring in extra firepower—perhaps a High Court judge—who will manage the more complex cases and ensure that they move through the courts and do not get bogged down. It is extraordinary to hear it, but there is at the moment a case that is still trundling through the employment tribunal and is still going through preliminary issues—they have not even got to trial yet—and it is five years on. This is not Barbara Castle’s vision. We are so far away from it, and we need to look again.

I have been clear about my views on the inadequacy of the existing system of individual tribunal claims. We will still need to have a system in which individual claims can be brought, but much more support needs to be given to individual claimants and we need to streamline the process.

I have touched on the ridiculous loopholes. A new Act would need to clear away the fog that existing laws have created around questions about whom claimants can identify as valid comparators. It should simply state that comparators can be based on all operations of a single employer. There have been cases in which a woman has said, “I don’t get paid the same as the guy in the building around the corner,” and a serious argument has been put up, “Well, you’re not in the same building, so it isn’t a comparator.” That is just not right and we have to do something about it. It is not a realistic excuse for inequitable pay.

While we are at it, our new law should provide much greater clarity on the issue of succession. We should certainly get rid of the idea that a man succeeding a woman and getting more pay is not prima facie evidence that she has been discriminated against.

We also need to look at outsourcing. Oxford law professor Sandra Fredman has written that, under current legislation, a woman doing equal work at the same establishment as a better paid male comparator has no claim if she is employed by an agency or outside contractor. Given the massive rise in the use of outsourcing over the years, it is time that we gave statutory protection to victims of discrimination whose employers hide behind that anomaly. We should require that public bodies reach binding agreements with contractors, setting out and guaranteeing the terms and conditions for transferred employees. I have a number of ideas about how we can deal with other issues of fractured employment—for example, bogus self-employment. You may be pleased to hear, Mr Weir, that I do not intend to go into the details now, but I will publish them on my website for those who are keen to know more.

I do not suggest that my proposals will wipe away the lingering effects of centuries of discrimination and eliminate the wage gap completely and immediately. There are other things that we need to do, such as looking at flexible working. Some of the changes made by the Government have been good, but it is a curate’s egg: some of them have made life more difficult. If my mum falls over and goes to hospital, I will need to look after her while she is there and work out what support she will have when she comes out. If I ask my employer for flexible working and he says, “I’ll have a look at it, Emily, but I can’t get back to you for three months,” that is not flexible working, and it makes life very difficult indeed. We need to look at practical solutions for women’s real lives.

We need to tackle the continued problem of the clustering of women in low-paid occupations, which are related to traditional gender stereotypes. Two thirds of women are in 12 occupational groups, including catering, cleaning and personal care. Women may, as Annie Lennox and Aretha Franklin sang, be coming out of the kitchen, but unfortunately they have not got very far, and we need to make sure that they have the ability or the choice to go further. Even if they choose not to do so, we need to make sure that women’s work is properly valued.

We need better careers advice at the earliest possible stage in a girl’s education. We need to address the chronic shortage of women who take up STEM subjects. Some of the ideas that I have read from the CBI on that aspect of equality policy are welcome, but we need to do more. We should make efforts to increase the number of women who take up careers in those growth industries, but our work is not solely about putting more money in women’s pockets, important though that is. A much more fundamental principle is at stake: if, as a society, we do not make use of the extraordinary range of women’s talents, we are a poorer society in every sense of the word. Since the Government came into office in 2010, the wage gap has continued to shrink, but only by an average of 0.35% a year. By my calculation, if we continue on that trajectory, it will be another 55 years before the gap is finally closed. I hope hon. Members agree that women have been waiting quite long enough. We are no longer content to wait. We need to legislate, and we need to be bold. Let’s get radical. Let’s pass ourselves a new equal pay Act.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs Sharon Hodgson (Washington and Sunderland West) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Weir, for what might be my last ever outing in Westminster Hall—that might be true of all of us here for today’s debate.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry) on securing this timely and important debate and on the work she has done on the issue over the years. Like her and the other hon. Members taking part in the debate, I am passionate about the topic. My hon. Friend’s research and insights are a testament to her dedication to the cause. What she has proposed and the things she has highlighted show why we can never take a back seat and hope for the best. I am proud, as I am sure she is, that the Labour party and Labour movement have always been true to that belief and are committed to continuing that tradition long into the future.

I am pleased that my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion) was able to attend part of the debate, because she introduced an excellent ten-minute rule Bill a few weeks ago on the section 78 transparency clause. I am pleased that that eventually spurred the Government to act on the matter, after five years of sitting on it, and I am pleased to say it went through in the House of Lords last week.

In government, Labour was a strong advocate of gender equality in all sectors of society. We closed the gender pay gap by a third when we were last in office, oversaw a rise in the number of young women going into higher education—when they overtook boys for the first time in history—legislated to protect women from abuse at home and in the workplace, and, in one of the last acts of a Labour Government, in 2010 we passed legislation that would have made huge strides in tackling the gender pay gap by making large companies publish their hourly pay rates by gender. We were also the party that 45 years ago passed the very Equal Pay Act that we are discussing today. Decades have come and gone since the Act became law, but the problem it attempted to solve is still, sadly, very much with us, and today’s debate is a timely reminder of that.

On average women earn 81p for every pound a man earns, and recent figures cited by the Equality and Human Rights Commission show that women in full-time employment in 2014 earned almost a full 10% less than their male equivalents. That is truly shocking. Things are even worse for women in part-time work, where they earned just under 38% less than male full-time employees. The overall gender pay gap for all employees was 19.1%. It seems ridiculous to think that after 45 years of work and 15 years into the 21st century women are still not on equal terms with their male counterparts.

Last year, thanks to the debate led by my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham, I was fortunate enough to meet some ladies who worked at the Ford plant in Dagenham. The Minister was also present—as was my hon. Friend the Member for Islington South and Finsbury. Anyone who cares about this issue was there. Those women famously went on strike to fight for equal pay, and their actions went a long way to bringing about the first Equal Pay Act, in 1970. Speaking to them it was fantastic to see women still so passionate, committed and hopeful of success, but it was also tragic that after so many years have gone by the imbalance has only been decreased, never destroyed.

Last week, my colleague, Baroness Thornton, highlighted contemporary examples during the debate in the House of Lords on gender and pay, such as the woman working in advertising whose end-of-year bonus was a £100 Liberty voucher, while her male counterpart received £2,000 cash; or the lawyer who was asked to take a pay cut to avoid redundancy, only to find out that none of her male colleagues had been asked to do the same; or the woman who worked in the media and, overhearing two male colleagues boasting about their salaries, realised that both were being paid an average of £10,000 more than she was, despite the fact that she had the same experience. Such gross inequalities are commonplace and things need to change.

Over the years women have had to contend not only with lower pay, but with the problems of glass ceilings, sexual discrimination and a tendency to be penalised in the work force for having children. We have made progress in those fields over the past decades, but too many women are still caught in a culture in which they are told that they have to choose between being carers or having a career, or they have had it drummed into them that they cannot achieve the same things as a man. That mentality holds back our society and all women. We know that companies with more women on their board routinely outperform their rivals, so any glass ceiling that limits a woman’s rise to the top also limits a company’s performance. Glass ceilings should be shattered for the good of everyone. As well as championing equal pay, Labour is committed to opening more boardrooms to women and will legislate to do that if companies do not understand the enormous benefits of doing it themselves. All those problems are linked, and none of them can be solved overnight. Only through dedicated and consistent hard work and pressure can we achieve meaningful and long-lasting success, so it is disappointing that over the past five years we have seen the cause slide down or, more accurately, slide off the political agenda, and it is no wonder that more problems have been caused as a consequence.

As I briefly alluded to, the Government’s record comes up extremely short on addressing inequality. Their record on the gender pay gap in particular can be described only as woeful. The coalition inherited a section of the Equality Act 2010 that would have made all large companies—companies with more than 250 employees—publish their hourly gender pay rates in their annual reports. That requirement was designed to build on existing equalities legislation, thereby boosting transparency and shining much needed light on the issue, which would have forced companies to look at themselves, see the extent of the problem and work towards addressing it. Sadly, the huge value of that section was either completely ignored or totally lost on the coalition Government, who refused to enact it. However, as I am sure all hon. Members present are aware, with two weeks to go before Dissolution, and facing a likely defeat in the House of Lords on Labour’s push for the enactment of section 78, the Government performed another policy U-turn and finally saw the light. I hate to question what may have been a truly Damascene experience for the coalition, but I fear it was a victory for political pragmatism more than for the ideals and values of gender equality. Although the outcome is extremely welcome, the last-gasp way in which it was achieved is sadly symptomatic of a Government who place no priority on equality legislation.

During the past five years, we have seen consistent inaction in the face of repeated calls from the Opposition to do more, or indeed to do anything. One has to wonder how much more we could have achieved on equality if that time had not been totally wasted by the Government. The recent victory only brings us back to where we were in 2010 and, sadly, we have regressed in some areas. The overall gender pay gap fell by a third under Labour, but that rate has slowed dramatically under this Government. The gap actually increased in 2013, partly because the so-called economic recovery saw a rise in low-paid jobs in sectors dominated by women, such as care, and a rise in insecure zero-hours jobs in which women also outnumber men.

Since 2010, the number of equal pay claims brought against employers has fallen from just over 37,000 a year to around 17,000, with the most dramatic fall happening since the coalition’s introduction of tribunal fees. That fall came as no surprise to many Opposition Members, who predicted that it would happen. We were not scaremongering, as we were accused, but it was utterly shocking, none the less. Women are now being put off fighting for equal pay, and the message that the introduction of tribunal fees sends out to women across the country is extremely damaging for the cause. I am interested in the proposals to address the situation suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Islington South and Finsbury. As she knows, Labour fought against the introduction of tribunal fees and, when we are back in government, we will introduce reforms to ensure that cost is never a barrier to justice.

Equal pay should not have been something for which we had to fight for so long. In truth, more should have been done in the 45 years since the 1970 Act was passed to keep it fresh and doing what it needs to do. My hon. Friend expertly raised a number of issues, and they all need to be addressed. I am sure none of us believes that the Act cannot be improved to meet the new challenges of modern Britain. In her proposals, she made many points and cited many examples with which it is hard to disagree, and I would welcome a much deeper look at those issues. That is why I am pleased that Labour supports a review of the Equal Pay Act to see which areas are working, which areas need improvement and which areas are either redundant or need entirely new provisions to make them fit for our modern world.

The goal of the Equal Pay Act to deliver the promise of equal pay has not changed since 1970. We need to establish whether that means amending the Act or introducing something new, and we believe a comprehensive review is the best way to do that. The Equality and Human Rights Commission recently announced that it is also in favour of such a review, and the commission’s experience makes it perfectly placed to ascertain where best to take the Act from here. I am sure the commission will want to see my hon. Friend’s work when it undertakes that process.

Sadly, this debate is as necessary today as it was in the 1970s. The more momentum we can build for reaching the goal of equal pay, the better for every single person in our society. We may have lost five years to complacency and inaction, but we now have a chance to push on and complete the work for this generation and for generations yet to come. Labour is committed to that fight, and I look forward to a time when such debates are consigned to the realm of history, not politics.

Consumer Rights Bill

Sharon Hodgson Excerpts

Monday 9th March 2015 Commons Chamber

[Philip Davies]

My right hon. Friend makes a good point. The Minister argued that two years was very short. In two years’ time, the whole industry could have upped sticks and gone abroad. It may well be that my two-year sunset clause is too long. I will happily be chastised for that, but I thought it was important that we put a line in the sand. I thought that two years would give us a reasonable time to see how the legislation worked with different tournaments and different music events. It is ample time for people to consider the effects. If those people who are in favour of the Lords amendments are so confident in their arguments, they have nothing to fear from a sunset clause. If everything is fine and dandy and none of my fears comes to fruition, the Government will happily reintroduce the legislation and it will sail through because it has been shown to have worked. They do not like the sunset clause because they know that the point I am making is the real agenda behind this Bill, and they do not want to be rumbled.

Once the Bill is on the statute book, the Government think that that will be it and nobody will bother or have the courage to revisit it, and I suspect that they are right. That is why I have tabled my amendment. I understand that there may be some difficulty in having a vote on it, even though it is sensible, and I am sorry that the Government have refused to accept it. This is an unfair and unnecessary intrusion into the free market. Who knows what consequences will flow from this legislation? I shall urge my colleagues to do what they have done twice in recent times already, and vote down the Lords amendment. I shall be interested to see how many of my colleagues vote for something that they have happily voted against in recent weeks and how, as a general election is coming, they will justify their action to their constituents. I shall happily be able to tell my constituents that I stuck to my guns, that I did not change my mind and that that is why I do not want to be in coalition with these wishy-washy Liberal Democrats any more.

[Mrs Sharon Hodgson (Washington and Sunderland West) (Lab)]

As many in the House are aware, I have been interested in the secondary ticketing market for many years now, and, alongside the hon. Member for Hove (Mike Weatherley), I have co-chaired the all-party parliamentary group on ticket abuse, the report of which spearheaded the former amendments to those we are debating today.

It is my long-standing belief that for a long time things have needed to change in the sector, as more and more fans are being ripped off and exploited by unscrupulous touts, and ordinary people are being priced out of seeing the artists, shows, or teams that they love. The full extent of the problem was clear last week when the Competition and Markets Authority, after consulting the major ticket re-sellers, published a new code of conduct—an agreement for which the CMA was happy to take all the credit, somewhat ignoring all the hard work and campaigning over many years of Members, peers and other industry bodies, and on which we are now legislating.

However, that small gripe aside, on the very same day that the new code of conduct was announced, a person could go on some of those companies’ websites and find tickets, guaranteed, for the upcoming boxing match between Floyd Mayweather and Manny Pacquiao in Las Vegas. On one site, the cheapest came in at just under £4,000, and the most expensive floor seats at more than £32,000. That was despite the fact that last week there were no official tickets yet on sale and original ticket prices had not even been agreed. That is a ludicrous situation which leaves the public totally misinformed about the marketplace and serves only further to inflate prices when the tickets become available.

[Mike Weatherley (Hove) (Con)]

Does the hon. Lady agree that it was bizarre that the CMA came out with guidance only days before Parliament was debating the issue and passing laws in this House? It seemed almost to usurp what we are doing.

[Mrs Hodgson]

I totally agree. As I have mentioned, I was surprised that in the press coverage the CMA was taking all the credit for the new measures given that Parliament has been pushing for this in both Houses. As the new authority, which is replacing the OFT, has now agreed with Parliament, the CMA should perhaps have mentioned that fact in some of its press coverage.

Sadly, the example I have given is one of many hundreds of thousands that routinely happen every day. It is only through measures such as the Lords amendment that we can hope to tackle the worst excesses of the industry and put the genuine fans first.

Let me be clear that the argument and the fight have never been about stopping the resale of tickets. The legitimate resale of tickets is not the problem and those who have claimed that clamping down on ticket touts and increasing transparency will harm true fans know very little about the problems and even less about what needs to be done to address them. Greater transparency is never a problem for a market operating properly and it is only in the interests of illegal ticket touts to sit back and do nothing to change the law. Others say that this is a licence for event organisers to cancel tickets, but the amendment clearly sets out that event organisers cannot cancel tickets simply because they have been resold, and can do so only in very specific circumstances. I am glad that that safeguard is in the Bill.

The hon. Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) has tabled a characteristically unhelpful amendment that would insert a sunset clause for the provision—an act that is as misguided as it is obstructive. I know that the Opposition will vote against it and I am sure that the Government will too, as it is our intention to work on behalf of the fans and not the touts. Any further debate on that point gives it merit that it simply does not deserve.

Before I consider the specifics of the amendments proposed in the other place, let me praise Lord Moynihan for his diligent cross-party work and for succeeding in achieving such an important step towards strengthening the regulations in the sector. As a former Sports Minister, he knew first hand how pernicious the practice is. It has been an extremely productive experience working with him, as it has been with many other colleagues in both Houses who care just as passionately about the rights of fans as he, the hon. Member for Hove as my co-chair on the all-party group, the members of the all-party group and I do. I know that Lord Moynihan worked tirelessly over the last recess to secure a compromise with Ministers across two Departments—a feat few could accomplish—and event goers and fans across the country owe him a debt of gratitude for the amendment.

As has been said, the amendment will do three key things to help stop the exploitation of fans. First, it will boost transparency, as from the time the Bill is enacted, ticket resellers will have to provide a seat number, any restrictions or limits on the ticket and the original face value of the ticket to all those they hope to sell it to. That will give fans far more knowledge about what they are buying and will give event managers more information about the tickets that are being resold.

Secondly, the amendment will place a duty on ticket resellers to report criminal activity if they suspect it, making the enforcement of the law much more proactive and effective and discouraging the secondary market platforms from turning a blind eye and letting the worst excesses of these practices continue.

Finally and crucially, the amendment compels the Secretary of State to review measures relating to the industry in a report to Parliament after 12 months, and that is what I would like to use the remaining time to speak about. The improvements in the amendment are a crucial first step, but they do not solve all the problems we can see in the sector. The review process will be absolutely vital in taking representations from the industry and making proposals that can build on the legislation and get to the heart of what is wrong with how things operate.

There is much that needs to be considered in the review, but I shall limit myself to a couple of key points that must be investigated if we are ever properly to understand why the problem is so persistent and deep-rooted. The first is the speed at which secondary ticketing sites get access to tickets in the first place. Secondary ticketing platforms can have hundreds if not thousands of tickets on their sites and ready to be sold within minutes of their first going on general release and in some cases even before they have gone on sale. How can that happen without sophisticated software, such as bots, harvesting them, without certain so-called power sellers working alongside the platforms to get tickets on their behalf or without inside trading, such as behind-the-scenes deals in which premium tickets are not sold on the primary market but given straight to the secondary market to be sold at huge mark-ups?

[Mark Tami (Alyn and Deeside) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that in some circumstances those people never have tickets in the first place but are chancing their arm to see whether they could get inflated prices?

[Mrs Hodgson]

I agree. Sometimes they are following through on a fraudulent transaction and sometimes the listing is speculative, as they might try to get a ticket later and want to see how much they can sell it for.

Given that there is no lawful way to harvest large numbers of tickets and that behind-the-scenes deals are at best duplicitous and immoral, we must ask just how the situation can take place and continue. Further to that point, if the tickets showing on the system have not been acquired, how can the sellers guarantee their sale on their sites? An investigation of those guarantees must be central to the review, because if that approach is found to be misleading, it would directly go against consumer rights, which are of course the entire purpose of the Bill. One way the all-party group on ticket abuse thought of to solve that would be to publish the seller’s identity when reselling tickets. I am sure that that will also be considered in the review.

The duty under the new amendment to report criminal activity is welcome, but we must also ask why past instances of criminality have been so largely unreported in the sector, even when the secondary platforms have been the victims and have had to pay out large sums in compensation. Has that been seen simply as collateral damage? It cannot be a continued coincidence and questions must be asked in the review.

In conclusion, the review is crucial and much needed and will have to be handled carefully and expertly so that we understand how best further to protect the public. That is why the choice of chair is so important. The marketplace is so complicated that it will need somebody who understands it but who is fair minded enough to listen and engage with all parties while keeping the rights of the fans at the heart of the entire process. If I may be so bold as to venture a suggestion, I think that my all-party group co-chair, the hon. Member for Hove, would be an ideal candidate to take up the challenge after he leaves Parliament. I do not know what his plans are—he might be hoping to travel the world and have a normal life for a while—but I can think of no one better. Whoever is chosen, however, I am confident that they will ensure that the right questions are asked, the right leads are pursued and the right outcome is achieved so that at last we can be sure that the market will put fans first.

[Mike Weatherley]

It is an honour to follow my co-chair on the all-party group, the hon. Member for Washington and Sunderland West (Mrs Hodgson). The amendment is the culmination of four years of hard campaigning and it is a little ironic that we have only about two minutes to squeeze in all our comments. I will not go through all the points that have been made so admirably by my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) and the hon. Member for Washington and Sunderland West, as there is no point in doing so, other than to say that the bots have made the free market untenable and something needs to change.

I want to make two particular points. The first is about the review, which is crucial. I thought at first that that would be like kicking the issue into the long grass, as my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley said, but it is an essential part of the reforms. The critics of the reforms are screaming about the potential problems, as we have heard, whereas those who want more action are screaming that more should be done. That is a lot of shouting, but time will tell and the review, which will report in a relatively short period of time in parliamentary terms, will closely consider both claims and at last come up with a proper analysis and recommendations.

The legislation specifically states that terms and conditions need to be fair, and making sure that they are fair must be part of the review. The terms and conditions that event organisers attach to tickets are there to protect fans—not to take advantage of them, as my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley indicated they might be. Where fans have bought tickets for genuine use, and have a genuine reason for resale—that is, where they have bought tickets not just to make a profit—I am fully behind their ability to resell. I will make sure that that is a fundamental principle in the review. Equally, I will make sure that the insertion of “fair terms” in the amendment is not the secondary ticketing industry’s way of undermining all these changes to the law. I am pleased that groups such as the Sport and Recreation Alliance, the England and Wales Cricket Board and the Rugby Football Union are fully behind the amendments.

As with all compromises, neither side is fully happy with the solution, but on balance, this is a good step in the right direction. The review will be key. With this review, the UK, with its rich cultural heritage and world-leading position, will once again be the focus of world attention. I suspect that the review will act as a blueprint for many countries around the world—both those that have enacted secondary ticketing legislation, and those considering doing so.

Oral Answers to Questions

Sharon Hodgson Excerpts

Thursday 26th February 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Harper]

I can confirm to the hon. Gentleman that I published statistics just ahead of my appearance at the Work and Pensions Select Committee. Last year, when I got this job, the average wait for a claimant was unacceptably high, at around 30 weeks. After sustained effort from my Department and our assessment providers, we had more than halved that by the end of the year. I am very pleased, and we will continue that focus.

[Mrs Sharon Hodgson (Washington and Sunderland West) (Lab)]

Recent figures have shown that only 7% of disabled people on employment and support allowance gained sustained employment through the Government’s Work programme, which is worse than if there were no programme at all. In Sir Bert Massie’s report on the link between disability and poverty, he highly recommends replacing this clearly failing programme with one of locally controlled specialist support for disabled people. A Labour Government would commit to do this, so can the Minister tell us his Government’s position on this issue? If they do not believe that change is necessary, how can they justify those figures?

[Mr Harper]

I do not need to justify those figures. If the hon. Lady had used more up-to-date figures, she would know that performance has significantly improved and that more people are being helped into work through the Work programme, work choice and access to work. Yes, more disabled people are being helped than before. As I said in response to an earlier question, 141,000 more disabled people are in work now than last year. I think that is a record to be proud of. There is more to do, but good progress is being made.

Durham Free School

Sharon Hodgson Excerpts

Tuesday 27th January 2015 Commons Chamber

[Roberta Blackman-Woods]

It is important that the chief executive of Ofsted establishes very clearly that the inspections were carried out in a suitable way and following the correct guidance, and therefore that there should be public confidence in their outcomes, because I know that a number of colleagues have received letters from a variety of people calling into question the veracity of the Ofsted inspection.

[Mrs Sharon Hodgson (Washington and Sunderland West) (Lab)]

As my hon. Friend will know, Grindon Hall Christian school is in my constituency. Following on from the intervention by our hon. Friend the Member for Stockton North (Alex Cunningham), I would like to ask her, on behalf of the hundreds of parents who have written to me, whether she agrees that Ofsted has questions to answer about the inspection, to ensure that the public can have confidence in Ofsted, which is something that the parents who have written to me do not have.

[Roberta Blackman-Woods]

It is important that we maintain confidence in Ofsted, which I hope will get—as I am sure it will—challenging questions from the Select Committee tomorrow. Again, I hope that Ofsted is able robustly to defend the way in which it carried out these inspections.

Clearly a number of parents are very upset and want the school to stay open. I genuinely sympathise with them, but given the inadequate rating, I am not clear on what grounds it can do so.

Women and Equalities

Sharon Hodgson Excerpts

Wednesday 21st January 2015 Ministerial Corrections

The following is an extract from Questions to the Minister for Women and Equalities on 15 January 2015:

[Mrs Sharon Hodgson (Washington and Sunderland West) (Lab)]

According to Stonewall’s latest figures, more than half of secondary school teachers fail to challenge homophobic bullying, while 17% feel they are inadequately trained to tackle such bullying. Therefore, does the Minister acknowledge that the Government’s failure to make sexual relationships education compulsory in the curriculum in mainstream teacher training has failed lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender young people, as teachers feel ill equipped to deal with homophobia in the classroom, or to advise children who approach them in confidence?

[Jo Swinson]

Sexual relationships education is compulsory, but the hon. Lady raises an important point about training, and about ensuring that teachers feel comfortable in discussing these issues and know the best way to do so. We recognise that more can be done; that is why we have announced the project to develop that evidence base, so that teachers can see what best practice is, and how they can develop the confidence to tackle these issues effectively in the classroom.

[Official Report, 15 January 2015, Vol. 590, c. 1006.]

Letter of correction from Jo Swinson:

An error has been identified in the response I gave to the hon. Member for Washington and Sunderland West (Mrs Hodgson) during Questions to the Minister for Women and Equalities.

The correct response should have been:

Oral Answers to Questions

Sharon Hodgson Excerpts

Thursday 15th January 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mrs Sharon Hodgson (Washington and Sunderland West) (Lab)]

As we are well into the 100-year commemorations of the first world war, will the Minister assure the House, veterans in my area and my local armed forces network that she will ask Sky to reconsider the scheduling of the broadcast of matches on Remembrance Sunday, which has happened in Sunderland two years in a row, and instead schedule the games for the Saturday so as to respect the original intentions of that special day—remembering those who gave their lives for our country?

[Mrs Grant]

It is a very special day and it is important always to remember those who sacrificed their lives for our country. I am very happy to have a discussion with the hon. Lady about those issues.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jo Swinson]

There is plenty of guidance available, but the point of the work that we are funding is to help develop further the evidence base on the most appropriate and effective forms of intervention, which we will be able to share more widely with schools, so that they know how best to tackle such bullying. I welcome the hon. Gentleman’s commitment to these important issues; I only wish that the rest of his party’s members took the same approach.

[Mrs Sharon Hodgson (Washington and Sunderland West) (Lab)]

According to Stonewall’s latest figures, more than half of secondary school teachers fail to challenge homophobic bullying, while 17% feel they are inadequately trained to tackle such bullying. Therefore, does the Minister acknowledge that the Government’s failure to make sexual relationships education compulsory in the curriculum in mainstream teacher training has failed lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender young people, as teachers feel ill equipped to deal with homophobia in the classroom, or to advise children who approach them in confidence?

[Jo Swinson]

Sexual relationships education is compulsory, but the hon. Lady raises an important point about training, and about ensuring that teachers feel comfortable in discussing these issues and know the best way to do so. We recognise that more can be done; that is why we have announced the project to develop that evidence base, so that teachers can see what best practice is, and how they can develop the confidence to tackle these issues effectively in the classroom. [Official Report, 21 January 2015, Vol. 591, c. 2MC.]

Consumer Rights Bill

Sharon Hodgson Excerpts

Monday 12th January 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mrs Sharon Hodgson (Washington and Sunderland West) (Lab)]

I beg to move amendment (a) to Lords amendment 12.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

With this it will be convenient to consider the Government motion to disagree with the Lords amendment.

[Mrs Hodgson]

Amendment (a) was tabled by the hon. Member for Hove (Mike Weatherley) and me. It gives me great pleasure to speak in support of the new clause as inserted in the other place; it follows on from new clauses 18 to 21, which I, the hon. Member for Hove and others tried to add to the Bill on Report. Those new clauses were based on the report produced by the all-party group on ticket abuse after our inquiry into the secondary market and what needs to change within it.

It is worth pointing out that all these interventions—the all-party group’s report, the new clauses in the Commons and, latterly, the new clause passed in the other place—have been completely cross-party. I would like to place on the record my thanks not only to Opposition Members, but to other hon. Members—in particular the right hon. Member for Bath (Mr Foster) and the hon. Members for Hove, for Selby and Ainsty (Nigel Adams), for North West Leicestershire (Andrew Bridgen) and for North East Cambridgeshire (Stephen Barclay). They have been big supporters in the all-party group and in working on the Bill during its passage through the House.

In the other place, the push was very ably led by former sports Minister Lord Moynihan and by Baroness Heyhoe Flint, both Conservative Members, as well as by Lord Clement-Jones, the Minister’s party colleague, who has been one of Parliament’s foremost campaigners for our live music sector. It was also strongly supported by my noble Friend Lord Stevenson and by many others from all parties and none, including Baroness Grey-Thompson. It is safe to say that the Minister’s counterpart in the Lords had a pretty rough time in those debates. If the Government had any doubt in their mind that they were on the wrong side of the argument when they rejected these amendments in the Commons last summer, their defeat in the Lords should have confirmed that for them.

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs Hodgson]

I certainly will not give way to the hon. Gentleman at this stage. I am sure that he plans to speak, and we have debated this so often that I cannot think that there is anything he would add to the argument today that I have not heard already. He will get his chance and I will listen to him then.

[Philip Davies]

This is supposed to be a debate.

[Mrs Hodgson]

The hon. Gentleman can debate when his time comes.

The concession that the Minister offered in this place—tweaking the guidance to a set of regulations to make it clear that secondary ticketing platforms should abide by them—has proved completely ineffective. Those regulations have been in place for more than six months, and the secondary websites have completely ignored them. It is time for real action, and that is what proposed new clause 33 would provide.

What we are asking for is not exactly radical. Any consumer in any market would expect to know who they were buying from, exactly what they were buying and whether a product came with a risk that they would not be able or allowed to enjoy it.

[Mr John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Mrs Hodgson]

Not at the moment.

What we are asking for would not put secondary ticketing platforms out of business; if anything, it would increase consumer confidence in them. What we are asking for would not drive legitimate resale underground, but it might drive some illegitimate resale underground. Why would the Government and this House want to take decisions that benefited illegitimate enterprise? If that part of touting is driven underground, then it will be nowhere near as successful as it is now, given that it is able to hide behind the legitimate veneer of platforms that are supposed to be about fans selling unusable tickets to fellow fans. What we are asking for would not leave consumers who bought a ticket they can no longer use out of pocket if the event organiser does not allow refunds; there are sometimes very good reasons for many of them not doing so.

[Mr Redwood]

rose—

[Mrs Hodgson]

Let me make this extra clear, because that might clear up some of the points that Members are trying to make—if not, I will let them intervene. We have tabled a small amendment to the clause that the Government could easily adopt today to allay their own fears. This is simply about transparency—that is all. Who could argue against creating a more transparent marketplace other than those who benefit from the murkiness and muddiness that we have at the moment?

[Mr Redwood]

I want to clarify the hon. Lady’s point about the event organiser’s right to cancel tickets. Under her amendment, in which conditions could the event organiser cancel a ticket if it had been resold?

[Mrs Hodgson]

If the ticket clearly states that it is not for resale—that it is non-transferable—then that is part of the terms and conditions that it was sold under. In the new model that we are hoping to create, with a new level of transparency, there would be less need for that.

The reason event holders put it on their tickets is to try to do something about the murkiness and market failure that we see at the moment with the resale of tickets on the secondary market. Under our proposal, that need would not be there because there would be full transparency and people would be able to see who was reselling the tickets. There would be fewer abuses of the system so there would be less need to put “Not for resale” on tickets, because genuine fans would be able to resell to other genuine fans tickets for events they could no longer attend.

[Mike Weatherley (Hove) (Con)]

Does the hon. Lady agree with me and the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, who has said that, when a person wants to sell something, terms and conditions should be respected?

[Mrs Hodgson]

I agree that people should abide by terms and conditions. The fact that the lack of transparency allows platforms to resell against terms and conditions is certainly not in the interest of consumers.

If the Minister does not want to take my word or that of Members in the other place on why we need transparency, perhaps she will listen to those who are actually involved in our crucial cultural and live sector. As she may know, more than 85 prominent organisations and individuals signed a letter to The Independent on Sunday yesterday calling on her and the Government to adopt the proposal. Those signatories included UK Music, the voice of the live and recorded industry; the Sport and Recreation Alliance, the voice of sporting governing bodies in the UK; the Rugby Football Union; the Lawn Tennis Association; and the England and Wales Cricket Board. They have all gone to great lengths over the years to try to ensure that tickets reach the hands of grass-roots fans.

[Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP)]

May I congratulate the hon. Lady on the diligent way in which she has approached the issue and her determination to get justice for music fans, which is what we are talking about? UK Music’s music tourism forum found that live music generates £2.2 billion. Surely we have a right to expect that live music fans are protected and not ripped off.

[Mrs Hodgson]

I agree with the hon. Gentleman and thank him for that valuable contribution. He is not only a creator of music—he remains one to this day—but a huge supporter of the music industry.

Other signatories to the letter included probably the world’s most pre-eminent promoter, Harvey Goldsmith CBE; the operators of west end and regional theatres; a host of individual music managers who look after some the country’s leading performers, including Iron Maiden, Muse, Arctic Monkeys and even One Direction; and most other industry umbrella bodies, which represent countless businesses contributing to the vitality of our creative sector, such as the Association of Independent Festivals and the Event Services Association.

All those bodies, and more, joined together to call on the Government to make one simple change. Would the Government rather listen to that collective call from the live event sector: the people whose hard work, talents and investment create the demand that the touts exploit? Alternatively, would they rather listen to the four companies that have been lobbying so intensely—I have with me reams of letters they have been sending out lately—against opening themselves and their relationships with big-time touts up to scrutiny?

[Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent) (Lab)]

May I also praise my hon. Friend’s leadership? She has done a cracking job raising this important point. Does she agree that we need to get at the touts? Those internet spivs are ripping off fans across the country, rigging the market and preventing real fans from going to gigs by exploiting them through the hugely overpriced tickets that they have harvested.

[Mrs Hodgson]

My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. If the Minister does not want to listen to him, me, Members from both Houses or the creative industry, she should at the very least listen to the police.

The “Ticket Crime: Problem Profile” report by Operation Podium has, of course, been quoted in this place before—several times by me, in fact—but it bears repeating. This was, after all, the unit that was set up to tackle organised crime affecting the Olympic games, and it spent about seven years looking at the workings of the ticket market. In particular, it looked at the major ticket touts—the very people my hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent (Nick Smith) spoke about—because of the links that many of them have to serious and organised crime and money laundering, and because it was likely that the same people would try to tout Olympic tickets.

After spending so much time looking at the ecosystem that exists behind the veneer of legitimacy provided by the secondary platforms, the Metropolitan police’s Operation Podium unit produced a final report on ticket crime in February 2013. It found that:

“Due to the surreptitious way that large numbers of ‘primary’ tickets are diverted straight onto secondary ticket websites, members of the public have little choice but to try to source tickets on the secondary ticket market.”

It concluded that:

“The lack of legislation outlawing the unauthorised resale of tickets and the absence of regulation of the primary and secondary ticket market encourages unscrupulous practices, a lack of transparency and fraud.”

It made the following recommendations:

“Consideration must be given to introducing legislation to govern the unauthorised sale of event tickets. The lack of legislation in this area enables fraud and places the public at risk of economic crime.

The primary and secondary ticket market require regulation to ensure transparency, allowing consumers to understand who they are buying from and affording them better protection from ticket crime.”

Will the Government listen to the police, who have nothing to gain either way, or to those who have gained and continue to gain from the lack of the regulation that the police say is needed?

One public agency that might have something to gain from the change is Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs. One effect of the new clause proposed in Lords amendment 12 is that it would be possible to see which individuals were reselling tickets as a commercial enterprise, and therefore who should be paying tax on the sales made through the websites.

At the moment, when somebody buys a ticket on such platforms, they are led to believe that they are buying from another fan, and the only VAT that they see on the final statement is the VAT on the service charge levied by the platform. If they are, in fact, buying from a third party business—or even from the event organiser, or, as in some cases, the performers themselves—VAT should be paid on the ticket price, as well as, obviously, on its profits as a company. That point was raised last weekend with the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport in an e-mail from a live music agent that I was copied into. They made the point that PRS for Music, which collects royalties to distribute to artists and music publishers, is also being deprived of its lawful entitlement.

I wrote to HMRC following the “Dispatches” documentary, “The Great Ticket Scandal”, in 2012; I have also referred to that in the House countless times. That programme clearly showed how tickets were being bought up and resold in huge quantities—indeed, channelled directly but surreptitiously to the secondary market by promoters and managers. The response that I received from HMRC was that no investigation could be made unless there were specific questions about specific individuals or businesses. Of course, we did not have those then and we do not have them now, precisely because we cannot see which individuals or businesses are selling the tickets and in what quantities. If that transparency is brought into the market through the proposed new clause, perhaps the Treasury’s coffers will see a much bigger slice of a market that is estimated to be worth between £1 billion and £1.5 billion a year—that is the secondary market alone and does not include the primary market.

The same principle could be applied to the problem of botnets, which GET ME IN! has been saying is the biggest problem and should be the focus of any legislation. There is certainly a case for keeping the law on the misuse of computers under review. The hon. Member for Hove and I have met the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for Staffordshire Moorlands (Karen Bradley), who has responsibility for organised crime, to discuss this matter.

It is welcome that primary ticketing companies, such as GET ME IN!’s parent company Ticketmaster, invest in their own software to try to stop people scooping up large quantities of tickets automatically. However, let us be clear that touts use botnets only because they know that they can shift all the tickets they manage to buy from the primary market through the secondary market with the benefit of complete anonymity, with no questions asked by the platforms about how they got them. The secondary platforms are best placed to detect ticket crime at the moment, but they do nothing, because that is to their benefit. If we make the market transparent, it will be clear for everyone to see who has an abnormally large number of tickets, and I bet that the use of botnets would drop off sharply as a result.

This entire debate boils down to a simple divide: it is about whose side we are on as legislators. Are we here to pass laws to protect and enhance the rights of ordinary consumers, or are we here to block laws that might make individuals and companies more open and accountable to those consumers? It is about whose interests we are here to serve. Are we here to serve those who elect us, or are we here to be spin doctors for those exploiting them and apologists for those who know full well that they are lucky to be getting away with what they are doing? It is about whose opinions we value most highly. Do we listen to our constituents, the police and those in the live events sector, who all tell us that there is a problem and a gap in the law that needs to be closed, or do we listen to the few who benefit from that gap in the law? I know whose side I would rather be on, whose interests I am here to serve and whose opinions I value most.

Nobody operating honestly in the secondary market has anything to fear from transparency, and no consumer will be left out of pocket. If anything, the secondary platforms should be embracing the opportunity to build confidence in their sector and limit their exposure to criminal activity. I hope that Members of all parties will think on those points when they go through the Division Lobby later tonight; I am minded that the amendment will have to be pressed to a Division. Let us finally do the right thing and put fans first.

[Philip Davies]

It is always a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Washington and Sunderland West (Mrs Hodgson). Her arguments have not got any better in all the years we have been going around the houses on this matter, but I admire her for persistence in flogging this particular dead horse.

There have been a number of reports on secondary ticketing, and the hon. Lady said that the Government have listened to no one apart from certain companies. Perhaps they have listened to the Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport, on which I serve, which looked into the issue and came up with a report that was unanimous, including among Opposition Members, showing that the market was legitimate and worked in the best interests of consumers. When a former Labour Minister, the right hon. Member for Barking (Margaret Hodge), came to give evidence to the Committee, she made it abundantly clear that she believed that as well, so I will be interested to see how she votes on the amendment. When the Office of Fair Trading looked into the matter, it reached the same conclusion. I am afraid that when the hon. Member for Washington and Sunderland West says that only a few big companies say that the market works in the best interests of consumers, she knows full well that she is talking absolute cobblers.

--- Later in debate ---

[Nic Dakin]

I will take further interventions later. Let me first describe my constituents’ experiences in relation to the Paul Weller concert, which is to take place on 17 March 2015. Some arrived early to join the queue at the Baths Hall ticket office, while others applied by telephone and via the website, but many failed to obtain tickets. Shortly afterwards, tickets cropped up on secondary sites. Today I looked into where I could buy a ticket for the event, and how much it would cost me. I discovered that it would cost me £102 to obtain one through a secondary site. According to my maths, that is a mark-up of £64 for someone in the system. It would be better to allow more of my constituents to have access to the tickets locally, or to put money into the local community via the venue, or to give more to the performers.

[Mrs Hodgson]

What that example demonstrates—Conservative Members refuse to see this for some reason—is complete market failure. A Select Committee and the Office of Fair Trading looked into the matter, but what Conservative Members fail to mention is that they did so 10 years ago, and because they did not act then, the market is now skewed to the extent that my hon. Friend has described. Is that not exactly why, 10 years later, we need to do something, and would not the amendment solve the problem that he has highlighted?

[Nic Dakin]

With the benefit of her knowledge of this matter, my hon. Friend has made her point extremely well. As she says, what we are seeing is market failure, and it is interesting to note that the main evidence base that was drawn on by the hon. Member for Shipley is many years old.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs Hodgson]

It was tickets for the Take That reunion tour that garnered my interest in this topic. I want to place on the record my gratitude to my hon. Friend for the leadership that he showed on this issue before anyone else in the House did. Others have picked up the reins now that he has led the way in getting us to where we are today.

[John Robertson]

I think my hon. Friend might be over-egging the pudding a bit, but I am always grateful when people recognise that someone has done something, particularly in this place.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Nuttall]

So we have to sell the tickets cheap so that people can be conned into paying over the odds for the T-shirts and the CDs. That is the reality.

The other argument is that this is all about transparency; that a person needs to be able to see that they are in a certain row, seat and place in the stadium. Well, people are not stupid. They know that if they buy a ticket without that detailed information, there is a risk that they might end up sitting behind a pillar and have a restricted view. People do not need any further legislation to help them make up their minds about the risks involved in buying tickets. They know that if they buy on the secondary market, there might be risks, but there will be much greater risks if they go underground. Under the current market, we have operators who run professional businesses, which have been going for a number of years without any problems. Everybody uses them every day of the week. Okay, so a person might pay more than the face value of the ticket, but that is the operation of the free market. I come back to the central point: such operators would not even exist if the vendors sold the tickets at a higher price in the first place. They know when they sell those tickets on day one that they will be swept up and sold at a higher price. In most cases, they turn a blind eye to it because all they are interested in is selling the tickets, getting the money in the bank, and forgetting about the problem.

[Mrs Hodgson]

That is utter rubbish and so not true. People involved in cricket, rugby, tennis and music have written to the Minister and made this case. It is not the case that they are not bothered as long as they are sold out. They set the price for a variety of reasons, including making it affordable for the genuine fan. It is so disingenuous of the hon. Gentleman to say that the clubs do not care as long as the tickets are sold out.

[Mr Nuttall]

Interestingly, I was happy to give way to the hon. Lady, but she did not give way when I wanted to intervene, but we will leave that aside. If the large organisations that run these sporting bodies put half a mind to it, there would be many ways in which they could ensure—[Interruption.]

--- Later in debate ---

[Jo Swinson]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for making that point.

[Mrs Hodgson]

This proposal is in no way about making 14-year-olds vulnerable online if they want to sell their ticket. On eBay, people who buy and sell have an identity: we know who we are buying from in the sense of whether they have sold one of something or 1,000 of something. All sorts of mechanisms could be in place to keep the person who is selling on the ticket safe. The Minister is wrong to suggest that this is about allowing event organisers to cancel tickets—that is not the intention at all. It is about transparency. Very few event organisers put “Not for resale” or “Non-transferable” on their tickets. The reason why some do is to try to protect the tickets, but they would not need to if we had this transparency.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jo Swinson]

Much of this information already has to be provided under the consumer contracts regulations, and that is absolutely fine. However, amendment 12 goes beyond that—for example, in requiring individuals to give their name. I do not think that people would wish to run the risk that it ended up being unenforceable, but unfortunately that is the legal situation.

The amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Washington and Sunderland West (Mrs Hodgson) talks about stating the face value on the ticket. I understand what she is getting at, but this is not a particularly helpful concept to use in legislation because the face value is not clearly defined. A ticket does not necessarily have just one value—there may be delivery and administration charges, and the seller might not know which of those needed to be included in the face value. If the fan selling the ticket got that wrong, the ticket could end up being cancelled without their knowledge. The value stated on the ticket might not be what the fan paid because of the fan club or early-purchase discounts that have been discussed. People would not want consumers to lose money when they cannot attend an event, and the face value would not always cover what the consumer had actually paid.

There is a more substantive issue of principle. Is it right for Government to tell consumers that they cannot sell items that they have bought second-hand at above the price that they paid for them? If I buy a book for £4.99 and then a very popular film is made of it and a friend offers me £10 for the book, why should the Government get involved and say that it cannot be sold on?

Perhaps unintentionally, the amendment suggests that it is acceptable for an event organiser to cancel tickets that have been sold for above face value. Many hon. Members have addressed the issue of terms and conditions, and some have said that organisations should be able to cancel such tickets, but that would not necessarily always be a fair term. Under the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999, it would be up to a court to decide on a case-by-case basis, but it may not always be a fair term.

There are problems in the market—as is the case in any market—which is why we have listened and are taking action. We agree on many of the issues relating to consumer information, including consumers not knowing where to go to get redress when they have a problem with a resold ticket. Consumers sometimes raise concerns with event organisers when they should approach the online marketplace where they bought the tickets. Of course, that can be inconvenient and frustrating for both the organiser and the fans.

There is also a problem with bulk selling and the people who have been referred to as bedroom touts. Like the organisers, I am not comfortable that there are people who buy tickets as if they were real fans, but with the sole intention of reselling for a profit. I am, therefore, pleased to announce various actions that we have taken. We have been working closely with the secondary ticket marketplaces and continue to have constructive discussions with them and the event organisers.

The online ticket marketplaces have made a range of commitments, as outlined in the letters that have been placed in the Library of the House and are available from the Vote Office in the Lobby. They have committed to providing further information and transparency, to make sure that consumers have appropriate information. The commitment covers much of the information that Lords amendment 12 would require, but it will not breach EU rules, result in unintended consequences for privacy and fraud, or give event organisers the opportunity to cancel tickets put up for resale.

Secondly, the marketplaces have confirmed their commitment to consumer protection. When consumers have a problem with a ticket they have bought on an online marketplace, they should have access to redress. The marketplaces have set out the guarantees they provide to users and how they work to protect consumers. Thirdly, the marketplaces have committed to ensuring that consumers know where to go to get redress by providing the information prominently on their websites. Alongside those common commitments, they have committed to a range of different improvements specific to their individual sites. They are all welcome commitments.

In addition to the action taken by industry at a practical level, we want to ensure that the Government address the issues with an evidence-based approach. The Department for Culture, Media and Sport has today launched an independent review of the effectiveness of the current law—and, indeed, what can be done to improve it. The review will survey enforcement of the current consumer law as it applies to online marketplaces as facilitators of transactions in tickets, and it will assess the challenges of enforcement of that law. We invite the review to suggest how that enforcement could be improved. That will include looking at how to tackle bulk selling, which has been raised by many Members today, and how to effectively enforce the law against traders impersonating consumers in order to evade consumer law.

I have written to trading standards to gather evidence on what more can be done to enforce consumer law as it applies to buyers and sellers of tickets. That will complement the DCMS review. To respond to the hon. Member for Eltham (Clive Efford), I have not yet received a response from trading standards, but I will, of course, keep the House informed.

Given the ongoing commitments to tackle the genuine issues, I urge the House to reject Lords amendment 12 and the amendment to it, and to welcome the package of measures that I have announced.

[Mrs Hodgson]

We have had a wide-ranging debate. If we were to apply the law of averages to the question of which side of the argument the coin would fall, I think it would fall on the side of the Opposition and the hon. Member for Hove (Mike Weatherley) who tabled amendment (a). The debate has been strongly in favour of transparency, apart from the contributions of two hon. Gentleman in the back row—the hon. Members for Shipley (Philip Davies) and for Bury North (Mr Nuttall) —who have been the only Members to put up any argument against that, albeit unconvincingly.

I have listened to what the Minister has had to say and I have seen the lobbying from the four secondary marketing companies. They have obviously spent a fortune on lobbying and I am sad to say that I heard a lot of their arguments in the Minister’s speech. From their point of view, all the money they have spent on lobbying has worked, but the House is not convinced.

There is demonstrable market failure. When the House, the Select Committee and the then Minister looked at the issue 10 years ago, they said we would need to see such failure before requiring legislation. We have now demonstrated that that market failure exists. I know that the Minister has written, very late in the day, to trading standards. I wrote to trading standards years ago and the response I received was that there was no evidence. Transparency would provide the evidence of what is happening.

The four letters from the secondary marketing companies say, at long last, that they will abide by the regulations that the Minister’s colleague, the right hon. Member for Cardiff Central (Jenny Willott), announced last year, but they have already had more than six months to abide by those regulations. I wrote to them to point out that the regulations are now on the statute book, but they have carried on regardless. I have no faith that they will do anything different. That is why we need to legislate. There is cross-party support for that and I hope that Members on both sides of the House will support us in the Lobby. I know that when the Bill goes back to the House of Lords our proposal will have cross-party support, ably led by Lord Moynihan, Lord Clement-Jones and Baroness Grey-Thompson, as well as our own Lord Stevenson. I will push the amendment to the vote.

Question put.

Oral Answers to Questions

Sharon Hodgson Excerpts

Thursday 27th November 2014 Commons Chamber

The Secretary of State was asked—

[Mrs Sharon Hodgson (Washington and Sunderland West) (Lab)]

1. What representations he has received from secondary ticketing platforms and those working on their behalf on amendments on secondary ticketing made to the Consumer Rights Bill in the House of Lords.

[The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Sajid Javid)]

I have not had any specific discussions with secondary ticketing platforms on the amendments made to the Consumer Rights Bill in the other place.

[Mrs Hodgson]

May I offer my condolences on the very sad loss this morning of the cricketer Phil Hughes? The thoughts of the whole House will be with him and his family this morning.

The Secretary of State was very keen on our ideas to improve transparency in the secondary ticketing market when I and colleagues met him in July to discuss the report of the all-party group on ticket abuse. He must therefore be delighted, as I am, that their lordships have added a new clause to the Consumer Rights Bill to deliver exactly that, although, sadly, against the Government Whip. Will he lobby his counterpart at the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills to leave that new clause in the Bill, so that we can finally put fans first?

[Sajid Javid]

I was pleased to meet the hon. Lady to discuss the issue, but she knows, because we discussed it then, that the previous Labour Government, this Government and the Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport have looked at the issue and all have concluded that new legislation is not necessary. Event organisers can seek their own solutions. However, I am of course looking carefully at the new clause that was accepted in the other place and will respond to it fully in due course.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Mrs Helen Grant)]

It is fantastic that the women’s team is visiting Rugby on 10 December. I am very pleased that they are being rightly recognised in the same way as the men were when they won the world cup in 2003. The support that our women’s team has been receiving is brilliant.

[Mrs Sharon Hodgson (Washington and Sunderland West) (Lab)]

T3. I thank the Sports Minister for her diligent work in securing the funding for our GB basketball teams from Sport England, which means that our women’s team can go off to take part in the EuroBasket tournament next year. Does the hon. Lady agree that supporting elite team sports should be the role of UK Sport? Does she therefore share my hope that the consultation currently under way on the future of UK Sport will result on it focusing on delivering social value and support for team sports, as well as medals?

[Mrs Grant]

Sport England and UK Sport together do a very good job in supporting not only elite sport, but grass-roots sport.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jo Swinson]

My hon. Friend raises an important example of the policy in action and working to deliver for hard-working families in his constituency. There are many such examples up and down the country. The policy is incredibly important for making sure that people do not have to choose not to work for economic reasons, which is why we are committed to taking it further.

[Mrs Sharon Hodgson (Washington and Sunderland West) (Lab)]

Ministers trumpet tax-free child care, but the fact is that it will not have helped even one family that is struggling with child care costs during this entire Parliament. In fact, those who are struggling the most have had their support via child care tax credits cut, so why do Ministers not implement the policy sooner? While they are at it, why do they not adopt Labour’s commitment to providing 25 hours a week of free nursery education for all working families?

[Jo Swinson]

The hon. Lady will be aware that support through working tax credit for child care will rise to 85% under universal credit. She is right that we are introducing tax-free child care, which is coming in next autumn. The legislation to make that happen is going through the House, and I am delighted that it is happening. I have outlined the additional early education hours that the Government have delivered, including, crucially, making it available for two-year-olds for the first time. We know that it has significant benefits, and it has helped many working parents.

Oral Answers to Questions

Sharon Hodgson Excerpts

Thursday 16th October 2014 Commons Chamber

[Nicky Morgan]

I thank my hon. Friend for highlighting the important work of the Hollie Gazzard Trust and congratulate Nick Gazzard on the work he and others have done to support it. I am aware of that tragic case and the devastating impact of coercive and controlling behaviour on its victims. In recognition of that, the Government definition of domestic abuse has been expanded to capture non-violent behaviour. We are now consulting on whether the law needs to be strengthened to keep pace with those developments and provide the best possible protection to victims.

[Mrs Sharon Hodgson (Washington and Sunderland West) (Lab)]

The Minister spoke a lot over the conference season about the benefits of good quality sex and relationships education, which would go a long way towards tackling violence against women and girls. I agree with her: in SRE lessons at school all young people should be taught about healthy relationships, consent and respect for others. Unlike her, however, I am not the Education Secretary with the power to make that happen—not yet, anyway. Could we therefore see a little less conversation and a lot more action from the Minister on this topic?

[Nicky Morgan]

I am pleased that the hon. Lady has been listening to what I have said. She will, I hope, know from my previous track record that I am all in favour of action, not just words. I think that PSHE is very important, and that sex and relationships education is also very important. SRE is already required to be taught in maintained schools, and many academies already do it. As I have said, the important thing is to emphasise particularly the relationships aspect, which is why I support the Government’s “This is Abuse” campaign. I intend to continue to look at these areas further.

Oral Answers to Questions

Sharon Hodgson Excerpts

Monday 10th February 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mrs Sharon Hodgson (Washington and Sunderland West) (Lab)]

I, too, am particularly pleased that the local offer has been somewhat strengthened, as it will be central to the success or otherwise of the new system of support for children and young people with special educational needs. However, I still do not think it is good enough for the unwritten postcode lottery that we have now just to become a written one. Does the Minister not agree that we need a baseline against which parents can judge whether their local offer is good or even sufficient?

[Mr Timpson]

I thank the hon. Lady—for probably the 14th time during the passage of this Bill—for her continued constructive approach to this part of the Bill. I know she has a keen interest from her own family background in ensuring that we produce a system that has children and their families at its heart. We had an interesting and quite long debate in the Commons and another place about the local offer and minimum standards, as well as—from memory—a number of Westminster Hall debates.

It is clear from both the regulation on the local offer that we have set out and the code of practice that having a national framework not only provides some of the stability in provision that the hon. Lady is looking for, but allows the local offer to be truly local, so that people have a genuine reflection of what their local authority expects to be available and deliverable for children and families in that area. Therefore, although I hear her continued call—which I think is for national minimum standards—I think we have got the balance right between having a national framework and giving parents and young people the opportunity to be consulted on the local offer and comment on it as it is developed, and also, given the addition to the Bill and the code since the Commons stages, ensuring that local authorities respond to the queries and concerns raised by families.

[Mrs Hodgson]

If it is brought to the Minister’s attention that unacceptable differences are developing across the country, will he have a mechanism to revisit this?

[Mr Timpson]

As the hon. Lady knows, we have to use the affirmative resolution procedure in this House for the code of practice and that will provide an opportunity to look at some of these issues. The other thing we have done to ensure that implementation is as successful as it can be across the country is to carry out a local authority readiness survey. We are working with local authorities that are perhaps not as well advanced as others in starting to prepare for the changes, which includes looking at the local offer and what steps they have taken so far to involve families in its evolution. That will continue as these reforms become a reality from September.

--- Later in debate ---

[Steve McCabe]

I think there might be a slight difference between our definitions of shared parenting. That might be the simplest explanation. I am in favour of children having access to both parents, as I have said.

We are pleased that amendments to part 3 mean that the Minister now recognises the need to provide for children who have a disability but not a special educational need. I also welcome the Government’s conversion on the need to cater for young offenders, many of whom do have special educational needs. I congratulate the Minister on accepting amendment 128—the “staying put” amendment—which means that children in foster care will now be able to stay with their foster parents until the age of 21. I want to acknowledge how much personal effort he has devoted to these changes, along with all the others who have been arguing for them.

I also welcome efforts to improve the appeals system for parents, who often feel that the problem is not that their child has a disability or special need, but the lifelong battle they are forced to engage in with the authorities to get their child the help and support they deserve. Of course, the amendments covering young carers address a glaring omission in the original Bill, and we are all grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Worsley and Eccles South (Barbara Keeley) for all her efforts on that point.

Many more areas of the Bill have been vastly improved by their lordships’ intervention, but I wish to discuss the amendments standing in my name and those of my colleagues in the shadow education team, which deal with a number of concerns we have about how the Bill will work in practice. We do not intend to press any of these amendments to a vote, but that does not diminish our concern about how these issues will develop. On our amendment (a) to Lords amendment 43, we want to make it abundantly clear that the local offer must not be the minimum a local authority thinks it can get away with; it is no good producing legislation full of good intentions while simultaneously stripping resources from local authorities, thus making it almost impossible for them to deliver on these intentions. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Washington and Sunderland West, I hope that we can be assured tonight that the Minister will be instructing his officials to monitor the implementation of the Bill and ensure that reasonable local services are provided across local authorities, and that where omissions or obstacles are identified, he will intervene to make clear that it is not acceptable, and that it is not the intention of his legislation, to create a postcode lottery where access to services and provision depends on where someone lives and what impact Department for Communities and Local Government cuts have had on their local authority area.

On Lords amendment 73 to clause 37, and our further amendment, it is our wish to make it abundantly clear that there should be no get-out clause for local authorities in providing access to social care provision specified within an education, health and care plan. If that is not the case, this Bill will have failed and the Minister will have let down hundreds of thousands of families up and down the country who have taken him and his Government at their word that this is a brave new world of joined-up provision, designed to try to relieve them of their daily struggles for support. I welcome the Minister’s comments on the code of practice, but I want to know that he will step in if there is any question of a local authority seeking to evade its responsibilities to provide social care as specified in the plan.

Finally, we continue to doubt the entire wisdom of childminder agencies, but we recognise that this is largely a cost-saving measure by a Government who cannot give Ofsted the resources to inspect individual childminding provision. On clause 51D and Lords amendment 158, and our further amendment, we are seeking to make it crystal clear to the Minister that we do not want shoddy childminder agencies on the cheap, with little or no regard paid to the quality of care provided for the children. As the Minister will know, the Department did not consult effectively with childminders on this proposal, and it is not broadly welcomed by childminders. None the less the Government have gone ahead, so we need to be clear that Ofsted will have sufficient powers to check the quality of care provided by individuals within the agencies, especially at the first whiff of concern that the agency or individual provision is not up to standard. There is a potential conflict with childminder agencies, in that they will be both inspector and inspected, and they will have a financial incentive to recruit childminders.

[Mrs Hodgson]

Is my hon. Friend as concerned as I am about who is going to pay for all the costs of these childminder agencies? Will the costs be passed on to the childminder agency, which will in turn have to pass them on to the parents, thus increasing the cost of using that childminder?

[Steve McCabe]

The Professional Association for Childcare and Early Years and the Family and Childcare Trust say exactly that this model will increase costs for parents. A recent Netmums survey shows that people say that Ofsted inspection of childminders increases their confidence in the suitability of the childminders they choose, while an almost equal proportion say that regulation by an agency other than Ofsted would reduce their confidence. We will be keen to hear more about how the Minister will pilot his approach and how it will work in practice. Will he take on board the fact that parents will want to access reliable information about the quality of childminders, which they currently obtain through Ofsted inspection grades and reports?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs Hodgson]

My understanding is that the situation is as my hon. Friend set out. When Ofsted started to inspect childminders, dormant childminders—people such as me who were registered, but had never practised childminding—fell off the books. The people affected either were not active childminders or were not prepared to improve their quality and follow Ofsted standards.

[Steve McCabe]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend, and I hope that there is now some agreement on what happened.

I do not wish to detain the House any longer. We welcome the Lords amendments and we are broadly in favour of the Bill, although we think its implementation will be all important. We urge the Minister to make it clear that, as far as he is concerned, getting the Bill through Parliament is the first stage; the question of whether it operates as he intends is the real test of whether it is indeed landmark legislation.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs Hodgson]

I am grateful to be in the Chamber tonight to hear the hon. Gentleman’s contribution. Does he agree that it was the hundreds of amendments and the hundreds of hours—it felt like hundreds—of debate in the Commons that laid the groundwork that allowed the Lords to bring forward the amendments that the Minister is able to accept today? If that is how it has to be, then we did our job, but it is a shame that more amendments could not have been made in the Commons.

[Mr Buckland]

I agree that it would have been nice to have made some of the amendments in the Commons, but I understand that in the other place there is more time for deliberation and for votes, so the fact that we reached this stage in that way does not trouble me. We are in the right place and the legislation is now in good order. Let us not forget that the process that got us to this stage predates First Reading, because there was an extensive consultation process. A consultation paper was issued in 2011, followed by many months of proper consultation not only with education providers and the third sector, but with children and young people themselves, whose views have been brought to bear in large measure in the Bill.

Only this morning I visited one of the special schools in Swindon, the Uplands secondary school, where the Uplands Educational Trust was holding its annual general meeting. It is a new organisation that has been set up purely to start offering post-19 provision for young people who have gone through the school system and hit the cliff edge of transition, which is still a problem that bedevils parents, carers and young people in the education system and beyond. It is an admirable and excellent initiative that I fully support. I believe that such organisations will be the mainstay of enhancing and developing post-19 provision right up to the age of 25 and beyond for many young people with disabilities and special educational needs. Without the input of such organisations, I worry that the aspirations in the Bill for extending provision to those crucial years will not be met.

The message that came home loud and clear from parents and carers today was that although they warmly welcome the Bill, the implementation will be key. Once again I heard from many parents who find the transition period the most difficult one of all, despite the good intentions and the good work of local authorities, such as Swindon borough council. The message that they wished me to convey to the House is that in many cases, involving the parents and carers—the greatest experts when it comes to their children and young people—is vital to making transition work.

If we are to get that right, the code of practice that will be brought into force later this year, as set out in the Bill, will be crucial. I am glad that the code will be approved through the affirmative procedure in this House in its first iteration, with subsequent revisions made using the negative procedure, which should allow for frequent updating. The existing code has not been updated since 2001—hardly the embodiment of the living instrument that I and many others expect the code of practice to become. It is my sincere hope and fervent wish that the Government take on board the failure of that code to keep up to date with modern practice and to ensure that it truly is a living and adaptable instrument that reflects not only the aspirations of children and young people with special needs and disabilities, but the reality of experience on the ground. Implementation is everything.