Draft Insolvency (Amendment) (EU Exit) (No. 2) Regulations 2019

Alison Thewliss Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd October 2019 General Committees

[Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)]

I will be brief. I welcome the consultation with the Scottish Government and the recognition that personal insolvency is a devolved matter, and that the regulations are necessary in the event of no deal. My wider concern is the broader economic impact of Brexit—of losing access to the single market. The Fraser of Allander Institute estimates that Brexit will cost 100,000 jobs in Scotland, which will involve some degree of insolvency. We must be realistic about that.

I note that there is no impact assessment, because the Government estimate that it is under £2.7 million per year, as was laid out by Lord Duncan of Springbank when the matter was discussed in the House of Lords. Could the Minister give further detail on how that figure was arrived at?

The SNP will not oppose the regulations. They seem necessary, as the hon. Member for Sefton Central said, unlike the delegated legislation that we faced yesterday. This is a far more appropriate use of statutory instruments. I am content to let this one go.

Draft Freedom of Establishment and Free Movement of Services (EU Exit) Regulations 2019

Alison Thewliss Excerpts

Monday 21st October 2019 General Committees

[Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)]

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Hanson; I, too, pass on my congratulations. The SNP agrees with Labour: we oppose the regulations and the way in which they are being brought about, which is completely inappropriate. It is inappropriate to lump satellite decoder cards in with people. This is about people’s lives and people’s businesses.

The Government are making it more and more difficult for people to continue their lives in the UK. Those two things should not be lumped together in the same Committee, hidden away on a first-floor corridor. The measure should be part of the immigration Bill, which would allow us to debate it, move amendments and have some degree of control over the process. The Government are taking control away from the House in this hidden Committee, and that is despicable. EU nationals, Turkish nationals and other EEA nationals are finding out about the measure through the grapevine and the work of the3million and others, and they are, frankly, appalled that the Government would add insult to injury by doing it in this particularly heavy-handed way.

The best way to guarantee that rights are reciprocated is to take the first step, because the UK Government are making the change and going about Brexit. It would be an act of good faith to make sure that we did our best to protect rights, rather than remove them. No one is going to reciprocate if we start to remove rights in this country.

The regulations will further erode the rights of EU citizens by removing their right to be self-employed, to own and manage companies and to provide services in the UK on the same basis as UK nationals. It is odd that the Conservative party, which is supposed to be the party of small businesses and entrepreneurs, is taking action today to undermine them. It keeps claiming that it supports them, but it is not there for them at their time of greatest need, when they need their rights to be protected.

The regulations remove the rights of EU citizens to bring nationality discrimination claims in relation to those rights. It is sinister that people cannot even fight when there is discrimination against them, and it certainly does not bode well for the future Brexit—certainly not for the people I know. It also does not chime with the promises made by the right hon. Members for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Boris Johnson), for Witham (Priti Patel) and for Surrey Heath (Michael Gove). They all promised that EU citizens would be automatically granted the right to remain and that they would be treated no less favourably than at present. The regulations do quite the opposite.

The hon. Member for Sefton Central mentioned a lot of the things in the3million’s briefing, which I will not reiterate, but the Public Law Project also provided a comprehensive briefing that mentions its four key concerns with the regulations. First, it is concerned that secondary rather than primary legislation is being used to make significant policy changes and to disapply important rights. Again, this Committee is not the proper place to do that.

Secondly, the Public Law Project is concerned that the changes may have an impact on immigration rights and should be included in the immigration Bill, which is stuck—logjammed. We do not know whether it will ever conclude, because this Parliament is so uncertain. The Government probably do not have the numbers for that either, so it is in their interest to stick it in Committee rather than make any progress. Thirdly, the Public Law Project is concerned that the regulations go beyond the powers conferred on Ministers by the Henry VIII powers in section 8 of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 and, fourthly, that no impact assessment was done before laying them, despite the obvious impact on businesses and individuals.

The Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee in the Lords picked up on that issue, and noted that:

“removing the treaty rights will mean that the people and businesses affected will not be able to use the rights to challenge possible new policies or regulations in the UK which place restrictions on their access to the UK Internal Market after exit.”

All the things that the Government have done on the hostile environment until now have had a deliberately chilling effect—they do not want people to come here. That is the message being sent to EU nationals by the regulations.

My hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk (Martyn Day) had an email from constituents in that vein this evening, and he asked me to pass it on. They are a couple who have businesses, who say:

“Apart of the fact that this is highly discriminating, my husband and me will be personally affected by this as we are both running businesses in West Lothian as full time occupation. Both of us have already been granted Settled Status and I was of the impression that this would keep our rights intact. Apparently now, the government is seeking ways to frustrate those rights through the backdoor, which will ruin the livelihood of so many…We love Scotland. This is our home and would like to stay here, however, if we are stripped of our rights and our livelihood, it would be impossible for us to stay.”

That is how EU nationals feel about the issue, Mr Hanson. They feel as though their rights are being undermined in a sneaky, sleekit, underhand way up in this Committee Room this evening.

Stuart Gregory, managing director of Lentune Mortgage Consultancy, emailed every member of the Committee, I think, to express his concerns. He and his wife started a business together in 2008 after the financial downturn caused him to be made redundant from his job. He said:

“This issue even being put forward by Government is appalling, and to threaten the removal of rights to run a company in the UK is making me feel quite sick—it’s literally treating EU Nationals as 2nd class citizens—which I’m sure would excite many leave voters.

If this comes to pass, I’m disgusted by how my country has fallen into the gutter.”

That brings me to the heart of the issue, because it is appalling and inappropriate that the regulations are being brought forward in this way. It is a sad state of affairs that the rights of EU nationals are being debated in this way and that the rug is being pulled out from under people in this cruel and underhand way. It is no wonder that EU nationals, EEA nationals and Turkish nationals have a lack of faith in the Government and in due process, because they see this underhand thing happening time and time again: people are promised, “Nothing will change—everything will be fine. Don’t worry. Fill out this form. Do that.” That is not how it feels to them.

Perhaps the Minister thinks I am talking nonsense; perhaps, in his heart of hearts, he knows I am right. He should withdraw the regulations and do things properly. The Government should not be sneaky about it. Yes, we need to look at the issue of satellite decoder cards—perhaps that is quite important. But it is not as important as people’s lives and livelihoods and their feeling that they want to live in a country where they feel welcome. Many of the EU nationals who I speak to on the doorsteps of Glasgow Central voted no in 2014 because they wanted to retain their EU membership. That is very much what they were told in 2014. They voted to remain in 2017. They have seen how EU nationals have been treated over this five-year period and the rhetoric that comes from the Government. The EU nationals who I spoke to on the doorsteps of Glasgow Central over the weekend are going to vote yes when they get their chance, because they see how the UK is going, and they want none of it. I completely reject the regulations and will vote against them.

--- Later in debate ---

[Nadhim Zahawi]

May I start by sharing with the Committee my dismay and disappointment at the conflating of this SI with issues of immigration and the status of European citizens, as well as those from Turkey and Switzerland, who work hard and deliver services here?

The hon. Member for Glasgow Central might not have been in the room when I confirmed that the Government sought and received the consent of the devolved Administrations in Scotland and Wales because we wanted to make sure that we received consent before we moved forward, but I hope that she and the hon. Member for Reading East will refrain from scaremongering. They both spoke about the impact on EU citizens’ rights, and I want to reiterate to the Committee that EU citizens’ rights are being preserved separately from this instrument. The Government have already committed to protect the rights of more than 3 million EU citizens, which we have heard being conflated today with this statutory instrument. We will make sure that their rights are protected. The regulations do not affect the offer that the Government have made to EU citizens resident in the UK at the point of exit. They do not interact with the citizens’ rights agreements with Switzerland and the EEA European Free Trade Association states.

[Alison Thewliss]

Will the Minister give way?

[Nadhim Zahawi]

I have a lot to cover, but I will happily take the hon. Lady’s intervention later. The Government’s plan on citizens’ rights confirms that EEA and Swiss citizens resident in the UK by exit day would be able to apply to the EU settlement scheme until at least 31 December 2020 to secure their status in a no-deal scenario. The EU settlement scheme is live and performing well. More than 2 million applications have now been received, and the scheme will continue to run in a deal or no-deal scenario. EU citizens resident in the UK by exit day will continue to be able to access benefits and services on exactly the same basis after the UK exits the EU as they do now. I sincerely hope that colleagues will refrain from scaremongering. It is deeply irresponsible for hon. and right hon. Members to do so.

The hon. Member for Sefton Central asked important questions, which I will attempt to address. He asked about the impact assessment for the regulations. An impact assessment has not been prepared because the impact has been approved de minimis in line with the better regulation framework.

Recall of Tumble Dryers

Alison Thewliss Excerpts

Monday 17th June 2019 Commons Chamber

[Kelly Tolhurst]

The right hon. Gentleman talks about modified machines. When any information or testing that had been carried out at any particular event by “Watchdog” or Which? was submitted to the Department or to the OPSS, it was scrutinised and looked at during the review of the modification process. The outcome was to put the risk level at low. However, anyone who has a concern about any machine should contact Whirlpool. In actual fact, if anyone has any concern about any electrical appliance within their home, they should stop using it and contact the manufacturer.

[Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)]

A number of my constituents contacted me with their concerns about Whirlpool. With Electrical Safety First research pointing to the fact that only 10% to 20% of recalled products are ever returned or repaired, we should perhaps consider looking at a statutory basis for online retailers to contact people who bought products online, because they certainly will have a means of contacting their consumers—they will have email addresses and other details for the products that have been dispatched. Perhaps that could be an easier way for some retailers to contact people to get that recall information to them.

[Kelly Tolhurst]

I thank the hon. Lady for highlighting that point. One of the issues that we considered in last year’s review was the outreach programme. There are many ways in which Whirlpool should be able to contact the people who have bought its products. This is very much the responsibility of the manufacturer, and it is one of the reasons we are taking so much care with this review, and why we are asking so many questions. It is the responsibility of the manufacturer to make sure that it has a programme that is sufficient to reach its customers. We are dissatisfied with what it has done. That is why we issued the intention to issue a recall. She is absolutely correct: Whirlpool should be using everything at its disposal to make sure that it contacts anyone who has purchased its product by any means necessary.

Oral Answers to Questions

Alison Thewliss Excerpts

Tuesday 11th June 2019 Commons Chamber

[Greg Clark]

I have no aspirations to such recognition, but I am very happy to meet my right hon. Friend to discuss the further opportunities for what is one of the foremost innovation campuses in the whole world.

[Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)]

The Scottish Government’s consultation on fireworks closed last month, having received 16,000 responses. Can the Minister update us on the UK Government’s action on fireworks, and can she guarantee that my constituents in Pollokshields will not have to suffer as they did last November?

[Kelly Tolhurst]

I would be grateful to discuss the consultation outcomes with the hon. Lady. As she will know, the Office for Product Safety and Standards is undertaking a review, and I will happily update her when we have the results.

National Minimum Wage Naming Scheme

Alison Thewliss Excerpts

Tuesday 4th June 2019 Commons Chamber

[Kelly Tolhurst]

Absolutely, and this Government have made great ground in that regard. This is not about grabbing headlines. It is about ensuring that workers get the pay to which they are entitled, which is why we have doubled the enforcement budget and are collecting more arrears than ever before. There were more than 3,000 successful investigations by Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs in the last year alone. I want that budget to be spent effectively on catching more employers who are underpaying the minimum wage.

[Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)]

It is all well and fine for the Minister to say that some under-25s are paid more than they are legally entitled to receive, but that gives no reassurance to those who are not. May I suggest that she adds to her naming and shaming scheme employers who employ young people on short-term, temporary contracts and then dismiss them when they cost more money?

[Kelly Tolhurst]

The hon. Lady raises an issue regarding the incorrect practice of employers. As I have said, HMRC will investigate every complaint and ACAS is available to receive those complaints. We have asked the Low Pay Commission to undertake a review of the structure of the national minimum wage, and it will report back later in the year. We encourage employers always to pay above the minimum wage brackets if they are able to do so.

Climate Change Policy

Alison Thewliss Excerpts

Tuesday 23rd April 2019 Commons Chamber

[Claire Perry]

My hon. Friend points out an incredibly important fact. While people want to do the right thing, they often do not know where to go, and centrally imposed standards often suppress rather than stimulate innovation. Trying to get that right is the subject of a review by other Departments at the moment, but perhaps she could pour me a glass of organic wine and we could watch it together.

[Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)]

I asked the Minister earlier what she would do to incentivise all renewables, and I got a very narrow answer, so let me try again. Small-scale renewables such as solar panels have been fitted in developments in my constituency, such as the social rented housing one in Pollokshields, built by Home Group, but Hannah Smith of Scottish Renewables has said

“that the end of the feed-in tariff will mean, at best, a period of enormous uncertainty for the companies that install these projects and for the people who work for them”.

The solar sector in Scotland has sold the equivalent of 360,000 solar panels every year since 2010. It is no small industry. What will she do to restore certainty and incentivise that industry?

[Claire Perry]

The hon. Lady makes the important point that we need to hurry up with the smart export guarantee and make sure it works to deliver that, but I would gently encourage her to look at the outcome that we are delivering, rather than focusing on a particular technology. Last month, renewable energy in the UK was at over 40%, and we can now source things such as offshore wind at subsidy-free prices, so we are delivering and will continue to deliver, but we need to do that in a way that provides value for money for consumers.

Climate Action and Extinction Rebellion

Alison Thewliss Excerpts

Tuesday 23rd April 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

And more. There is plenty of scope.

[Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)]

The Minister is keen to trumpet the fact that the UK went 90 hours and 45 minutes without coal power, but the reality is that her Government are not making nearly enough of our potential in onshore and offshore wind, solar, wave and hydroelectric, particularly in pump-storage hydro. Scotland’s efforts are being stymied by her Government’s policies. What specific measures will she bring in to incentivise renewables across the UK?

[Claire Perry]

We are already incentivising renewables. We have always said—I believe that this is right—that we must be technologically neutral in such things. All technologies started out from pretty much the same place, but some have progressed faster than others. We must also have cost-effectiveness, so we cannot spend other people’s money on supporting technologies that will remain expensive over the long term—[Interruption.] The hon. Lady is waving her hands, but is it not incredible that the price of offshore wind has dropped over the past two years by a proportion befitting a technology company, let alone a mechanical engineering company, because of the policy and auction structure and the market investment that we have brought forward? We should be celebrating that and the fact that the North sea is the best place in the world for offshore wind.

Net Zero Carbon Emissions: UK’s Progress

Alison Thewliss Excerpts

Thursday 28th February 2019 Commons Chamber

[Thangam Debbonaire (Bristol West) (Lab)]

rose—

[Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)]

rose—

[Claire Perry]

I will of course try to take as many interventions as I can, but I just want to respond to some of the points made in the debate.

After the very startling and worrying IPCC report, we were the first developed country to ask for advice on how we would achieve that target. We have asked how, by when and how much it is going to cost. We have to be pragmatic about this: we have to recognise the need for urgency, but we cannot bring forward policies and proposals that do not command the support of the people we represent. We can see just across the channel what happens when we do that.

Terms and Conditions of Employment

Alison Thewliss Excerpts

Tuesday 19th February 2019 Commons Chamber

[Kelly Tolhurst]

I thank my hon. Friend for pointing out the good work of the Low Pay Commission and how it brings people together to come up with balanced proposals, such as those before us today, which the Government have accepted.

The regulations mean that a full-time worker will be more than £2,750 better off next year compared with the year the national living wage was introduced. The regulations also increase the rates for younger workers and apprentices. Those aged between 21 and 24 will be entitled to a minimum hourly rate of £7.70, which is a 32p increase; workers aged between 18 and 20 will receive an extra 25p an hour, taking their rate to £6.15; 16 to 17-year-olds will earn at least £4.35 an hour—a 15p increase; and apprentices aged under 19 and those in the first year of their apprenticeship will receive the largest percentage increase of 5.4%, meaning an hourly rate of £3.19.

[Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)]

Does the Minister appreciate that that is not even enough to buy a Freddo?

[Kelly Tolhurst]

I point out to the hon. Lady that we are talking about the apprentice rate.

The regulations will also change the amount employers can charge workers for accommodation without it affecting their pay for national minimum wage purposes. From April, this will increase to £7 per day.

Changing the law is the first step, but we also need to make sure all workers know they are entitled to the national minimum age and that all employers know they must pay it. The Government run an annual campaign to increase awareness of the national minimum wage and the national living wage. Last year, we spent £1.48 million reaching workers and employers through posters and billboards as well as digital and online channels. We know that most businesses are good employers and pay at least the national minimum wage, but where non-compliance exists the Government will step in and make sure that money is recovered on behalf of workers.

Since 2015, we have doubled our investment in enforcement of the regulations to more than £26 million per year. More than 420 staff in Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs are involved in the enforcement of the national minimum wage, and they follow up every worker complaint they receive. HMRC also conducts pro-active, risk-based enforcement in sectors or areas with a higher risk of workers not being paid the legal minimum wage, including those identified by the director of labour market enforcement. In this work, it co-operates with other labour market enforcement bodies to share information and conduct joint operations where that makes sense for businesses and workers.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)]

I know that many Members across this House share my concern that Brexit and the removal of hard-won EU legislation will mean a race to the bottom for workers’ rights in the UK. In that respect, it is at least a little bit encouraging to see a commitment to continuing to increase minimum wages; however, as I have said time and again in this place, it does not go nearly far enough. The UK Government’s pretendy living wage is not enough to live on. The real living wage, as calculated by the Living Wage Foundation, is set at £9 an hour, or £10.55 an hour in London; the pretendy living wage falls short of that. For those of us who want a highly educated, highly skilled, high-wage economy, it continues to be extremely disappointing that the UK Government choose not to increase the minimum wage to a level people can actually live on.

High wages are linked to increased productivity—an issue the UK has struggled with for many, many years—increased staff retention and higher standards of workers. A substantial increase in wages is not a choice between acting in the interests of businesses and acting in the interests of employees; it is entirely possible to cover both. The attitude that I am hearing from Government Members is that the national living wage falls short of a real living wage, but we should celebrate it anyway because it represents a pay rise for working people. That shows a real lack of aspiration on the part of the UK Government—a Government who claim that they want to help people work their way out of poverty but whose actions fail those people time and again.

If this UK Government really wanted people to work their way out of poverty, they would be investing in our labour markets, increasing the powers of trade unions and improving the rights of those in insecure work. They are presiding over one of the lowest rates of real wage growth among the advanced nations of the G20. Andy Haldane at the Bank of England has described the past 10 years as “a lost decade” for workers, and the measures today will do very little to address that problem.

As things stand, the Chancellor is giving with one hand and taking away with the other. For those at the lower end of the income scale, the proposed increase in the minimum wage does not even offset the impact of the benefits freeze. I and my hon. Friends have consistently called for an end to the benefits freeze, which is a pay cut by stealth for some of the lowest earning people in this country. We welcome the Labour party’s commitment to scrap it, even if it did not feature in its 2017 manifesto.

The age pay gap is the income inequality that the national minimum wage policy creates between age groups. The Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy impact assessment on the policy explicitly states that the purpose of a lower minimum wage for under 25s is to

“maximise the wages of low paid younger workers, without damaging their employment prospects.”

It also says that the Government asked the Low Pay Commission to recommend separate national minimum wage rates

“by age band (16-17, 18-20 year olds, and 21-24 year olds).”

There is no real evidence to justify why that is necessary. It is insulting to young people in my constituency and across these islands to say that employers would not want them if they had to be paid a fair wage; quite apart from that, it entices employers to make hiring decisions based on age, encouraging unscrupulous employers to break the law.

Make no mistake, this is state-sponsored age discrimination. In the impact assessment, the public sector equality duty sets out that the Government must

“eliminate unlawful discrimination, harassment and victimisation and other conduct prohibited by the Act”.

It goes on:

“The protected characteristics consist of nine groups: age, race, gender, disability, religion or belief, sexual orientation, gender reassignment, pregnancy and maternity, marriage and civil partnership.”

If women were to be paid less than men, that would be against the law because gender is one of the protected characteristics; mysteriously, however, this impact assessment does not extend to age. I would really like to see some smart lawyer take a legal challenge against the Government, because there is clear discrimination in the terms of this statutory instrument on the basis of age alone. There is no justifiable reason for this policy.

To compound matters further, the proposal that we are discussing today will increase the pay gap between age groups. The uprating that will result from the regulations means that 24-year-olds could earn £90 less a month than 25-year-olds for exactly the same job, amounting to a difference of more than £1,000 a year. The gap would increase even further within the under-25 age groups, making it even harder for young people to get by. Since the measure was brought in in 2016, 18 to 20-year-olds have seen the age pay gap between themselves and someone on the higher rate go from £1.90 to £2.06; 16 and 17-year-olds have seen it rise from £3.33 to £3.86—that gap between the highest wage and all that they are legally entitled to be paid—and for apprentices, the gap has gone from £3.90 to £4.31. No justification is given in the impact assessment for that state-sponsored age discrimination.

If I were to suggest that Members of Parliament—an MP born in 1973, perhaps, like my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow South West (Chris Stephens), or an MP born in 1978, like the Minister, or myself, born in 1982—were to be paid different rates depending on age, I cannot imagine any MP in the House signing up to that. Why should young people face the discrimination in law that the Government are proposing today?

[Gillian Keegan]

I am listening carefully. Having started my working life aged 16 as an apprentice, I would not expect to get the same minimum wage at 16 as I would starting in a new job when I was 20, 30 or 40. Surely there is some recognition that experience comes with age, even if it is not always experience in the workplace. I think that perhaps people when they are older might expect to see a differential to reflect their experience.

[Alison Thewliss]

The hon. Lady misses her own point, because the regulations are not called “The National Experience Wage (Amendment) Regulations”. The regulations discriminate by age alone, not by experience, so if the hon. Lady, as a 16-year-old, walked into a job on the same day as somesone who was 25, she would not be legally entitled to the same wage. The 25-year-old would have no more experience in that job, regardless of their experience in life. There might be 20 or 16-year-olds who are far more savvy on the first day in the job than a 25-year-old, or a 45-year-old, or a 65-year-old. We are not measuring experience here.

[Mike Wood]

Surely the hon. Lady acknowledges the Low Pay Commission’s conclusion:

“In light of this evidence we concluded when thinking about the pay floor for this age group, that it could not currently be set to the same level as the national living wage without risks to employment.”

[Alison Thewliss]

That was exactly the type of comment that the Conservatives made when the national minimum wage was introduced—that it would risk people’s employment. That has not been the case. The impact assessment says that the Government asked the Low Pay Commission to set the national minimum wage at these levels. The Government have instructed the Low Pay Commission to do this. That is quite different, and I do not buy the hon. Gentleman’s arguments at all.

The gap amounts to a difference of thousands of pounds in the take-home pay of a 16-year-old, an 18-year-old, a 21-year-old and a 25-year-old, and it is completely unjustifiable, because this is not about experience, as I said. It does not say that in the regulations; they specify the age, and age alone.

I shall quote from the excellent report by the Young Women’s Trust, called “Paid Less Worth Less?”, which I commend to the Minister. Shanae, who is 24, said:

“A 25 year-old starting out on their first job and just entering the workplace would have the same experience as a 16 year-old who is also just starting out. If companies want to pay based on experience, then that should be reflected in what they choose to pay people. But that’s different from paying us on our age.”

She is absolutely correct.

At 25 or younger, many people have families of their own to support and their own responsibilities, and in the research by the Young Women’s Trust, Tia mentions her circumstances specifically. She says:

“I am a care-leaver and I have lived independently since I was 17, so that makes my costs exactly the same as maybe like a 30 year-old who is living in a private rented flat. You have bills to pay like any other adult. Everyone gets hungry. Everyone has to pay for gas, electrics, toiletries, clothes and food. It still adds up the same. So I don’t see why there should be a pay difference.”

I do not see why there should be a pay difference either. It is completely unjustifiable.

Young people have to pay the same amount as somebody over 25 for rent, for getting the bus to work, for childcare, for the cinema, and maybe for a Freddo bar. All those prices are exactly the same. Young people are not entitled to discounts on their rent because of their age, and indeed they get less in benefits from this Government as well because of their age, so they are doubly missing out. Young people deserve the right to be paid a fair market value for their skills, and not be subject to state-sponsored age discrimination.

I mentioned unscrupulous employers. When I was at school, it was well known among my peers that some employers would employ young people right up until the point at which they would have to pay them more, and then they would let them go. That is particularly true for people on zero-hours contracts or in precarious employment, who can be let go at a moment’s notice. As soon as an employer has to pay them more, they are shown the door. There is very little by way protection, particularly for young people, who often do not know their rights and cannot afford legal representation to challenge an employer. A few years ago I met a constituent who had been working in a bar when the rate of pay went up. She was pretty sure that she was let go because she was the oldest person employed there, but she could not prove it. This Government are leaving the door open for unscrupulous employers to do that time and again to low-paid workers, often female workers in part-time jobs. This Government are aiding and abetting those unscrupulous employers.

Scotland is the best performing part of the UK when it comes to paying the real living wage. There are 1,363 real living wage employers in Scotland, and I am proud to say that the latest among them in my constituency include the Scottish Fairtrade Foundation, Silver Cloud and the spectacle manufacturer IOLLA, which has a shop in Finnieston. I am proud that those responsible employers are seeing the benefits of paying the real living wage, because it improves retention and morale. However, powers over the minimum wage are not currently devolved; they remain with this Government, who are not interested, frankly, in making the change for young people in this country. If the Minister is not interested in doing this, will she devolve the powers to the Scottish Government and let us get on with the job?

--- Later in debate ---

[Kelly Tolhurst]

As I have already highlighted, age rates are not new to these regulations. We have asked the Low Pay Commission to review the age-related rates to see whether they are fit for purpose, and to report back later in the year.

As hon. Members have raised in the House, it is absolutely true that younger workers are the most vulnerable with regard to employment. I must point out that, from September and November 2018, 11.7% of 16 to 24-year-olds were unemployed, compared with 2.9% of over-25s. It is absolutely right, when these rates are set, that we have in mind that we want young people to be in work and getting experience in order to have the future earning capacity to reach their full potential and be able to fly. They can do that through work experience, and by getting into a place of work and gaining such experience, while in some cases they will get the entrepreneurialism they need to go on to do great things.

[Alison Thewliss]

Will the Minister give way?

[Kelly Tolhurst]

I want to make one more point about the age-related model. This model has been in place since 1999, and it is used across OECD countries, so it is not specific to the UK.

I will move on quickly to enforcement. I have said at the Dispatch Box a number of times since I have had this role that we take enforcement extremely seriously. That is why we have doubled spending on enforcement to £26 million. In 2017-18, there were 810 penalties, totalling £14 million. This is five times more in penalties than were imposed in the last five years of the previous Labour Government. To level the criticism that we are not taking enforcement seriously is just factually incorrect.

Exiting the European Union (Structural and Investment Funds)

Alison Thewliss Excerpts

Tuesday 19th February 2019 Commons Chamber

[Brendan O'Hara]

My hon. Friend is right that it is vital that our farmers have the ability to plan into the future. At the moment, we enjoy that ability to plan long term, and the fear is that that is being taken away.

The common fisheries policy is co-financed in Scotland through the European maritime and fisheries fund, and Scotland is allocated 44% of the total UK figure, with £42 million—over 80% of the Scottish allocation—already committed to projects. Competitive funds are awarded directly by the European Commission to organisations, and that includes significant research, innovation and education exchange programmes. Since 2014, Scottish organisations have secured €533 million of Horizon 2020 funding, €65 million of Erasmus+ funding and €58 million of European Territorial Cooperation funding. Even since 2016, the European Investment Bank group has signed loans worth €2 billion for projects in Scotland.

These EU-funded programmes represent a vital source of funding to communities right across Scotland, but as I said earlier, they are particularly important to peripheral communities, which are in greater need of support. That is why, when the question was asked in 2016 whether we wished to remain part of the European Union, every single part of Scotland, without exception, urban and rural, said yes to staying in the EU. Our communities knew—and still know—the benefits of being a member of the European Union and the significant difference that that has made to their lives, economically, socially and culturally.

[Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)]

My hon. Friend is making some great points. Is he aware that urban areas such as Glasgow have hugely benefited as well? Since 2010, regional selective assistance grants to businesses in Glasgow have provided more than £83 million of investment and created 7,292 jobs.

[Brendan O'Hara]

It is absolutely remarkable that all 32 Scottish local authority areas—urban and rural, with the vast differences that exist between them—said with one voice that we as a nation wished to remain in the European Union. That cannot and should not be ignored. Its significance cannot be underplayed.

The loss of the funds I listed earlier could be absolutely devastating for our farming and fishing communities. As yet, there are no guarantees about the continuity of these funds beyond 2020. Here we are, a month from Brexit day, and there is still no certainty for our farming and fishing communities as they plan for the future.