National Minimum Wage: Sports Direct

Emily Thornberry Excerpts

Monday 14th December 2015 Commons Chamber

[Nick Boles]

Mr Speaker, it is always for you to judge whether a question is urgent. I simply acknowledge that this question is important, which is why I am so delighted to answer it. On the hon. Gentleman’s broader points, while the Government believe in deregulation and reducing the burden on business, we have made it clear that certain laws are absolute and must be adhered to: minimum wage legislation is one, along with health and safety legislation and a whole slew of other employee protections. We intend to enforce those protections robustly.

[Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab)]

According to the Office for National Statistics, a quarter of million people are not paid the minimum wage. According to the Minister, HMRC has found 26,000 of them. What is the Minister going to do to bridge the gap? If the Minister does not have any ideas—it does not look as though he has a plan—may I suggest something? To not pay the minimum wage is a criminal offence. Why have there not been any prosecutions taken out against directors who are not paying the minimum wage? The department in the Attorney General’s office responsible for taking out prosecutions has been cut for the past three years and there has not been a single prosecution during that time.

[Nick Boles]

The hon. Lady always comes to this House knowing the complete answer to every question, but it might help her sometimes if she would actually listen to the list of measures we have introduced that go significantly further than any enforcement activity the Government she supported ever brought forward to defend their minimum wage. When the set of enforcement measures is working as well as it currently is, I see no reason to take any instruction, however helpfully phrased, from the hon. Lady.

Childcare Bill [Lords]

Emily Thornberry Excerpts

Wednesday 25th November 2015 Commons Chamber

[Nicky Morgan]

My hon. Friend has raised an important point. We are, of course, doubling the entitlement to free childcare for two-year-olds, which originally applied to 20% who were the most disadvantaged, and now applies to 40%. The sector responded by creating an additional 230,000 places over the last Parliament. It has already risen to the challenge, and will do so again. I shall go on to say something about the way in which families will respond to the entitlement and how they will use the additional hours—I am sure that other Members will speak about that as well—but we know that there is already spare capacity in the system.

[Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab)]

The right hon. Lady will correct me if my reading of the Blue Book is wrong, but I understand that the maximum amount will be £5,000 per child. If that applies only to term-time, we are talking about 30 hours times 38—1,140 hours—which, as things stand, means a maximum of £4.38 per hour. In my constituency, where childcare costs more than £9 an hour, that will not be enough to pay for it.

[Nicky Morgan]

I shall go on to talk about the hourly rate. I shall be publishing the findings of the funding rate review, but as part of the funding formula review, we want to ensure that as much money as possible goes to the front line.

[Nicky Morgan]

I will come on to that, but my hon. Friend is absolutely right. As I have said, we want as much money as possible to go to the frontline, and that will be one of the issues that we will raise as part of the funding formula review.

[Emily Thornberry]

Will the Secretary of State give way?

[Nicky Morgan]

I am going to make some progress. I think the hon. Lady will want to hear what I say about rates. She may want to ask a further question after that.

The hon. Member for Manchester Central (Lucy Powell) is on record as saying that she is pleased to see that the Government are offering more support for early years, and wants to see our policies turned into reality. Today, she has the chance to demonstrate her support by joining us in the Lobby to support the Bill. It appears that she will be doing that, and I welcome the support of the Labour party.

Questions were raised in the other place about why the Bill was introduced so early. My response to that is “Why would we wait?” It is clear from the interest expressed by Members today, and from the reaction of our constituents, how successful and important the existing 15-hours offer is in supporting better outcomes for children. As the OECD’s latest “Education at a Glance” study reminds us, the United Kingdom is one of 13 OECD countries in which more than 90% of children aged three are enrolled in pre-primary settings, and pupils who each received one year of pre-primary education in the United Kingdom perform better at the age of 15 than their peers who did not.

We also know that the extension of free childcare is something that working parents want, so instead of waiting, we committed ourselves to implementing the extended offer early in some areas, from September 2016. We know that that is what parents want because we have listened to them. Over the summer, my Department consulted nearly 20,000 members of the public and 750 employers. Those who took part told us that they wanted 30 hours of free childcare and that the increase in hours would support their work choices. I heard that myself on a visit to Rolls-Royce in August with the Under-Secretary of State for Education, my hon. Friend the Member for East Surrey (Mr Gyimah), who has responsibility for childcare and education. Employees talked to us about their childcare decisions and what they are looking for from the entitlement to 30 hours of free childcare. It was a pleasure for us to meet them and I thank them for sharing their views. They were very clear that they want more flexibility and choice in how they can access childcare.

I am determined to ensure that high-quality, affordable childcare is available to those parents, so that pressure is taken off their household budgets, and so they are more financially secure and better able to plan for their future. I am confident that we have a childcare sector that will deliver. The childcare market is flourishing: it has grown by 230,000 places since 2009.

--- Later in debate ---

[Nicky Morgan]

I am going to make some progress on this paragraph and then I will come back to the hon. Lady.

The increase in funding includes nearly £300 million for a significant uplift to the rate paid for the two, three and four-year-old entitlements. That will deliver a new national average funding rate paid to providers. Both rates will increase by at least 30p per hour. For three and four-year-olds, the new average rate will be £4.88, including the early years pupil premium and the rate for two-year olds will be £5.39. With that increase we have set the level of funding that providers need to deliver high-quality childcare, while at the same time providing good value to the taxpayer. We will also consult on a package of reforms to improve efficiency in the sector and further ensure value for money. I can also confirm that the early years pupil premium will not change and is worth £50 million in 2015-16, helping to ensure that three and four-year-olds from the most disadvantaged backgrounds have the best start in life.

The increase in the funding rate is supported by the robust review of the cost of childcare carried out over the last six months. Today that review is being published and will be made available in the Library of the House. I thank those who responded to the call for evidence as part of the review, as well as those who were involved in attending round table discussions across the country.The participation and engagement of organisations including the Pre-school Learning Alliance, the National Day Nurseries Association, the Professional Association for Childcare and Early Years, the Independent Schools Council and other key partners, meant we were able fully to understand the concerns and arguments around the funding of the entitlement.

As the Chancellor has also announced, we are committed to ensuring that funding is allocated in the fairest way. Next year, we will consult on an early years national funding formula, which will give due consideration to funding for disadvantaged children and to special educational needs funding for the early years.

[Emily Thornberry]

I am sorry; I remain genuinely confused. I hear the Secretary of State talking about a fairer funding formula. In Islington, the rate is £9.40 per hour. Will money be taken from other boroughs to pay for the childcare there? Obviously, an amount less than £4.50 an hour will not be enough to pay for it. These are not my figures.

[Nicky Morgan]

I suggest that the hon. Lady look at the review, which is being published as I speak. The figure of £9 an hour is not one that we recognise. No such case has been made to us in the course of the review. As I have just set out, the average rate is going to go up to £4.88 for three and four-year-olds, and to £5.39 for two-year-olds. We are confident, based on the evidence we have gathered, that that increase will provide high-quality childcare for children in Islington and elsewhere in the country.

[Emily Thornberry]

rose—

[Nicky Morgan]

Let me just answer the hon. Lady’s other question. She asked about the funding formula review. That is about making sure that as much money as possible goes to the frontline. I hope she has also had a conversation with Islington council. The duty is on me, under this Bill, to procure the places, but the local authority’s role is to provide a sufficient number of places for families needing childcare and it must pass on as much of the money as it possibly can—we have already talked about top-slicing—so that the front-line providers get the money that the taxpayer is providing.

[Emily Thornberry]

As I understand it, the figure of £9.50 that I quoted was provided by the Daycare Trust. The Secretary of State really ought to be aware that there are boroughs, particularly in inner London, where the price of childcare is much more than £4.50 an hour. We simply will not be able to afford to provide childcare for the amount that is being announced today.

--- Later in debate ---

[Nicky Morgan]

First, the hon. Gentleman should be pleased the Conservative party is on the side of working people, as he will know that his own Front-Bench team are not at the moment—if he would like to join us, he would be very welcome. Secondly, when he was shadow Education Secretary at the general election, his party did not commit to increasing the funding for early years in the way we have done. We can, of course, have a wider debate about the schools budget, but that is not the subject for debate today. I just point out to him that not only have we committed to protecting the schools budget in real terms, but by the end of this Parliament the Department for Education’s resource budget will be higher than it was at the start. His policies would never have delivered that.

[Emily Thornberry]

rose—

[Nicky Morgan]

I will give way to the hon. Lady, for the last time.

[Emily Thornberry]

I have a number of questions, but I will just stick to the money. When Labour was promising 25 hours a week in term-time only, as opposed to 30 hours a week in term-time only, the Minister at the time told us it would cost £1.6 billion. Is not the Secretary of State’s problem that she is missing £1 billion? That is why she cannot cover childcare at its real cost.

[Nicky Morgan]

Yet again, I do not agree with the hon. Lady’s figures. The point is that she is missing the additional help we also giving to families through tax-free childcare and through universal credit, which net each other off. She needs to look at the funding review rate that has been published today, where she will see the response from those who are working in the sector regarding the rate they have been asking for and the reason the figures have been arrived at today. I have just mentioned them and they are an increase. She should also take note that we are going to be spending £1 billion more on childcare every year in the course of this Parliament. If she wants to be a member of the Committee, I am sure that she would be very welcome and that her Whips will ask her to do that.

Let me turn to eligibility for this childcare package. One of the key messages from parents during the consultation was a desire for a simpler system. We confirmed in the other place that eligibility for the 30-hour entitlement will align with tax-free childcare. As the Chancellor set out, parents will be able to access the 30-hour entitlement if they each work at least the equivalent of 16 hours per week at the national living wage—or national minimum wage for those aged under 25—including those who are self-employed. In the case of lone-parent households, the same threshold will apply. This makes it a significant offer of additional support and means that anyone earning more than £107 a week, at this year’s minimum wage rate, will be eligible.

As many parents and children will be able to benefit from both the extended entitlement and tax-free childcare, it makes sense that parents will be able to apply for both schemes through a joint online application being developed by Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs. This will provide a simple and straightforward way to access both schemes, saving parents and providers valuable time. The Government recognise that families are complex and that different circumstances need to be taken into account, so the additional free hours will be available where both parents are employed but one or both parents are temporarily away from the workplace—for example, on maternity or adoption leave. That will ensure continuity and will limit disruption for young children and providers. The additional free hours will also be available where one parent is employed but the other has substantial caring responsibilities or where one parent is disabled.

We are making a significant commitment to investing in the early years, but doing so at a time when we are facing difficult decisions across all spending areas. At the centre of these difficult decisions has been the belief that it is right for those with the broadest shoulders to bear the greatest burden. We therefore intend to introduce an income cap, whereby parents who earn more than £100,000 per annum will not be able to access the additional entitlement.

We want to support parents to make informed choices about what is right for them and their children. To do so, it is vital that parents have easy access to information about the childcare available in their area, including hours offered and cost, as well as suitability for disabled children. That is why, through the Bill, we have introduced a requirement on local authorities to publish information and advice for parents on childcare in their area. The childcare.co.uk digital app, which now allows parents to search for free childcare for two, three and four-year-olds based on where and when they need it, will make it even easier for parents to find out about high quality and flexible childcare places. That will mean that parents can access the information they need to find the childcare that is right for their child and that suits their family’s circumstances.

The message and the measures in this Bill are clear: the Conservative party is the party of working people and this Government are on the side of working parents. Through the passage of this Bill, we will fulfil our manifesto pledge to do more to help ease the pressure on many working families by supporting them with the costs of childcare. We are pushing forward with this legislation to get families that support as quickly as possible and it should be supported from all parts of the Chamber.

I look forward to hearing Members’ contributions, and I hope that the principles behind the Bill are ones that everyone in the House will support. The Under-Secretary of State for Education, my hon. Friend the Member for East Surrey (Mr Gyimah), who is responsible for childcare and education and I look forward to working with all Members on this Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lucy Powell]

Of course I will look at it. Perhaps next time we are having a Second Reading debate where funding is so critical, Ministers might care to let Opposition Front Benchers have sight of such important information before we embark on it. As the Minister knows, there remain key issues about the ability of the vast majority of providers in the sector, who are private and voluntary providers, to deliver these free hours, notwithstanding the challenges that remain for schools.

[Emily Thornberry]

Reference has been made to the cost of childcare review, and we have been told that 6,000 people have put in for it. It has 184 pages. We know that it is yet to be found in the Library, because people are burrowing away there looking for it.

[Mr Gyimah]

It is online.

[Emily Thornberry]

Yes, but it is taking a certain amount of time to print it off. Therefore, we have not been able to look at it in advance of this debate, nor even during the debate. In those circumstances, my hon. Friend presumably agrees that it really is a farce having this Second Reading debate now.

[Lucy Powell]

I do of course agree with my hon. Friend, who makes a very good point. This is all regardless of the fact that this policy still has a considerable funding shortfall, even under the new hourly rates, as the Minister himself has said. When Labour announced before the last election that we were seeking to increase the number of free hours from 15 to 25, he said that that policy would cost £1.2 billion. That is far greater than the funding allocation that the Government have put forward for an additional five hours a week. There are big funding gaps that they have yet to address, regardless of the hourly rate being paid and the information that has been put in the Library.

House of Commons Library analysis has shown that there are over 44,000 fewer early years childcare places today than there were in 2009. In addition, six in 10 local authorities tell us that they do not have an adequate supply of childcare for local parents. There is a downward trend in childcare places that should cause concern. As I said, private and voluntary providers make up the vast majority of childcare places in England. If there is not adequate resource for these nurseries, they will simply not offer the 30 hours, leading to a reduction in choice for parents. I welcome the increase in the hourly rate, but questions remain about how many new places will be provided. Without an increase in supply, costs will continue to rise for parents.

Parents will also be very concerned that the quality of childcare could be damaged by the Government’s failure to adequately support their proposals. A wealth of evidence from the Education Committee and Ofsted clearly identifies strong links between outstanding provision and the best qualified staff. Poor childcare is worse than no childcare, as the Committee reported, and can be detrimental to a child’s development. I am very concerned that unless the Government have answers on adequate funding, the result will be a diminution in quality provision. Can the Secretary of State give a commitment today that, beneath the proposals and those outlined in today’s autumn statement, there are no plans to reduce quality, to increase ratios or to lower requirements for those who can offer the free entitlement? In summary, insufficient funds and poor delivery could have the opposite effect to what the Government want and lead to fewer places, poorer quality and higher cost for parents.

The Government have ample time to address those concerns before their policy is due to be introduced in autumn 2017. We want to work with Ministers to ensure that their plans are credible and affordable and meet the tests we have set out. Part of the problem is that the Government have no clear strategy for childcare. I hope the Education Secretary will reflect on that and come back to this House in due course with an overarching childcare strategy. [Interruption.] Would the Under-Secretary of State for Education, the hon. Member for East Surrey (Mr Gyimah) like to intervene?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs Maria Miller (Basingstoke) (Con)]

Childcare is not a political football, and I really hope that the hon. Member for Manchester Central (Lucy Powell) is not choosing to make it one. On behalf of my constituents and, indeed, those of Members across the House, we want to make sure that a consistent approach is taken to childcare in the future. That also applies to the children of those constituents and to the providers of childcare as well.

It is important to recognise that there are important differences between Members on the two Front Benches. The Conservative Government are showing a real understanding of the role of childcare, and their proposed measures are vital for working parents. A quiet revolution has been happening in the workplace since the country’s recovery from the recession, with more women in work than ever before, including, to be frank, in this place. It is important to recognise our different approach, particularly the fact that, over the past five years, the Prime Minister has made it central to his work in Government to make sure that shared parental leave and flexible working are in place for all parents and, indeed, in the case of flexible working, for all of us. The Labour party did not deliver those ambitions during its time in office.

There are still many women who are not in work but who would like to be. I am participating in this debate because it is important to support the Bill, which will double free childcare alongside other measures mentioned by my right hon. Friend the Education Secretary, including, for the first time ever, tax-free childcare. As she has said, it will offer more support to working parents than any previous Government have ever offered. May I gently suggest to her that as well as talking about our being the party of working people, she should talk about our being the party of working women? In essence, that is what this Government are delivering through the childcare priorities that she has set out.

It is vital to understand the pressures faced by working parents, particularly those with small children. In the past, women who wanted to return to work found it almost impossible to do so because of the financial pressures on them. It would be entirely wrong for the other place to seek to delay this important manifesto commitment by forcing yet further research and funding reviews, which are clearly not required for this measure to work. I underline the words “manifesto commitment” to make sure that those in the other place listening to this debate do not seek to block an important measure supported by Members on both sides of this House.

Childcare costs continue to be a real pressure, which is why the Bill is really important. I pay tribute to the work of organisations such as 4Children which have provided us all with excellent briefings in advance of this debate. In its briefing, 4Children points out from its research that one in five parents have considered reducing their working hours because of the cost of childcare. That is why this Government measure is so important. We have gone a long way to make childcare affordable, but there is still more to do, and the Bill will help to do that for parents. I hope that the hon. Member for Manchester Central, who is listening to the debate on the Opposition Front Bench, really registers that point and accepts that it is the will of parents.

I welcome the Bill, as well as the Government’s commitment to increase average childcare funding rates paid to providers. I also welcome the preliminary measures that the Secretary of State has outlined to ensure a fair distribution of funding across the country.

In most of the families in my constituency—one-parent and two-parent households—all the parents are working. Indeed, 16,000 families in Hampshire could benefit from the Bill. This measure will be a seismic change for those families, and it is important to put it in place. In Hampshire, we are well placed to take advantage of the new measures, because 90% of our providers are good or outstanding, according to Ofsted. We have more than 1,400 early years providers in the county, doing a fantastic job providing private and independently owned places to deliver this key public service.

We are, however, still recovering from past measures that were put in place with good intentions but that unintentionally did some damage. In the past, thousands of childminders left the sector because of the pressure they felt from the administrative burdens on them. That was a great shame, because those childminders provided excellent or good childcare for many working parents, particularly those looking for after-school care. Undeniably, Government funding for free places was top-sliced, as my hon. Friend the Member for York Outer (Julian Sturdy) mentioned in his intervention, because of a lack of focus on the detail of how that could be prevented.

Indeed, parents have in the past been overwhelmed by the complexity of what was on offer. Initiatives were so complex, badly communicated or overlapping that many of our constituents found it difficult to understand how they could access them, and they also provided additional complexities for employers. I therefore welcome the Secretary of State’s commitment to making the system simpler, which is an admirable place to start.

For a Second Reading debate, the hon. Member for Manchester Central rather over-focused on the financial details. They are important, but so are other things. I will draw the attention of the Secretary of State and her Ministers to a few of them. The first is the importance of making sure that we have stability for parents in terms of their access to childcare. If working parents do not have long-term, permanent contracts, they may have breaks in employment or variable hours during the working week. We need to make sure that there is stability in the childcare on offer to the children involved. Perhaps the Under-Secretary of State for Education, my hon. Friend Member for East Surrey, will touch on how he will ensure that there are grace periods, so that parents with an underlying eligibility who have short breaks in their employment can still access childcare if at all possible.

My second point is on flexibility, building on some of the points made by the hon. Member for Manchester Central. Some 45% of women with children do not work full-time. Many work atypical hours, but many work less than a full working week. Flexibility should take account of both types of work pattern so that the cost of childcare is not higher than it should be, relative to the hours those women work. This should be at the heart of the proposals that Ministers are introducing, not left to the discretion of local authorities. I hope Ministers will consider this further, to make sure that a great policy works in practice for women and parents who need it so badly.

[Emily Thornberry]

From my study of the Blue Book, it seems that childcare will not be available to parents unless they have a weekly income level per parent equivalent to 16 hours a week worked at the national living wage. That seems to contradict the idea of people, particularly women, being able to work flexibly.

[Mrs Miller]

I thank the hon. Lady for bringing that up. I am not about to have a Committee debate on the Floor of the House. I hope she is on the Committee because she will bring undoubted expertise to it, to judge from her earlier comments. I am simply setting out the issues that I think should be debated in the course of the Bill’s passage through the House, and I leave the Ministers to answer the detail of the hon. Lady’s point.

On the business model of the providers, the hon. Member for Manchester Central, speaking for the Opposition, highlighted the need to make sure that the provisions work for the providers. Unlike many services that Governments deliver, childcare is delivered predominantly by private and independent providers. It is important that there is an understanding of the business model according to which providers work, and, as was touched on earlier, it is important to make sure that any funding regime takes into account the realities of business life for providers.

I applaud the announcement today of an increase in the average hourly rate that will go to providers, but this will work only if there is a guarantee that the money made available is not top-sliced by local authorities, which may seek to use it to prop up services that apparently support the childcare sector. Some of those services are important, but most important is that the money gets to the providers to provide the care for our children. Making sure that more of that money gets through will ensure the quality of that care.

Another aspect that I hope the Secretary of State will be able to consider as the Bill passes through the House is the knock-on opportunities for staff. Apprenticeships should be made available to those working in the sector in the quantity that will be needed to staff this new initiative.

I thank my right hon. Friend for her response to my intervention about special educational needs. That point was raised with me by Contact a Family, which has undertaken an excellent piece of research that shows that 40% of families with disabled children cannot take up the 15-hour childcare offer that is currently available. That is 10 times more than the families of non-disabled children. Parents of disabled children often feel that staff do not have sufficient training or that providers can refuse a place for a disabled child. Denying a child that opportunity to develop is unacceptable. Denying parents the opportunity to work is unacceptable. I am delighted to hear that there is a focus on ensuring that the support for children who are disabled to get such childcare is manifest. I applaud the work that has been done and hope that it continues.

In conclusion, I am hugely fortunate to come from an area, Basingstoke and north Hampshire, that has a strong childcare sector—strong because we have a strong local economy as a result of the measures that this Government have put in place. Our unemployment levels are at a record low, but this is not the case all over the country. We need to have a strong scheme to ensure that the childcare sector can flourish in every constituency up and down the country.

In my constituency, more than 40 group settings have said that they want to provide the 30-hour offer and 92 childminders have expressed interest in being part of the early implementation of this groundbreaking offer for parents. I believe that Hampshire County Council is registering its interest in being an early adopter of the policy. I hope that, with support from the Government, the council is able to do that, because we need to ensure that such excellent counties are in the vanguard of delivering this exciting new policy. I commend Ministers for the incredibly hard work they have put into this measure and for bringing it before the House today.

--- Later in debate ---

[Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab)]

Providing more free childcare for working parents was supposed to be an easy win for the Government. There should be nothing difficult or controversial about it, given the level of support in the country for it in principle and the amount of support the Government would have in this House for it in principle. The Government, however, seem to have somehow made an extraordinary mess of the Bill. In fact, I cannot remember another occasion when a proposal that was so warmly received in principle produced a Bill that was so comprehensively rubbished by everybody who set eyes on it. There are so many questions in relation to it. The defence of the Bill we have heard today is high on rhetoric, but what we want is reality. We do not want fiction. The problem is not a lack of enthusiasm for the Bill in principle. The trouble is that, as my nan used to say, warm words butter no parsnips.

Surely the most important place to start is this: how is it going to be paid for? I am not an expert, but I have been looking at the Blue Book published today and asking some obvious questions. If the amount spent per child from September 2017 will be £5,000—if I am wrong about this, perhaps the Minister could please interrupt me—and we are talking about term-time only working, so 38 weeks a year, then 30 hours multiplied by 38 is 1,140 hours. On the face of it, that means £4.38 per hour will be spent on childcare. I have already explained to the Minister that the average price of childcare in Islington is £9.40 per hour. I am then told that I am wrong, the figures are pooh-poohed, or there seems to be some suggestion that not all the money has been put into the frontline, as if the head of my early years is upholstering her three-piece suites in mink, but that is just the price of education for three and four-year-olds in Islington. The prices are high as they are—it is just a fact.

Then I am referred to a cost of childcare review, which I am told is in the Library but it is not. I send people off to have a look in the Library and they ask around but nobody can find it. Then I am told it is online and that it consists of 184 pages, but I have not got all of them. I have got the ones I could and they total 59 pages. I have therefore had 59 of 184 pages during this debate. I am told that 6,000 organisations have contributed to this review, but I have nothing from any of them. I would like to read this sort of thing, because I take this seriously.

[Mr Gyimah]

I also take this very seriously. The enrolment rates for the first 15 hours are 96% for four-year-olds and 94% for three-year-olds. If the system is so chronically underfunded, how come that many young people are enrolled in it successfully?

[Emily Thornberry]

Let me give the hon. Gentleman my view, which, again, is based on experience from my constituency. What happens is that the free entitlement is given to parents and a deal is done, whereby they get their free 15-hour entitlement and then they have to pay over the odds to be able to—[Interruption.] He shakes his head but I am telling him that this is what happens. Parents have to pay over the odds for the additional hours or they pay more money for meals; somehow or other this money is raked back to nursery providers, because they simply cannot provide the childcare at the level currently provided for. He has asked me a question, so I will ask him one, and I wonder whether he will be able to help me with it.

As I understand it, at the moment my local authority gets £4.84 per hour for three and four-year-olds, which is much less than the average charged of £9.40 per hour. If the new national rate announced today with such fanfare is introduced, will Islington actually be getting a cut and will our rate be going down to £4.35 per hour?

[Mr Gyimah]

As the Secretary of State said in her opening speech, as part of announcing this rate we will be introducing an early years national funding formula, which will seek to ensure that the early years funding is allocated on the basis of need, rather than historical circumstances. Some local authorities get quite a lot of money whereas others get less. We will be looking to make sure that all local authorities are treated fairly.

[Emily Thornberry]

Again, that sounds great, but it does not make any sense. Does it mean that my local authority will get a cut in its rate or not? If the hon. Gentleman knows, he may intervene on me again, because this is important. As I say, if Islington is going to get a cut in its rate to £4.35 per hour for it to provide places for nursery school children—three and four-year-olds—when the average price in Islington is £9.40 an hour, this is extremely bad news for Islington.

[Mr Gyimah]

The hon. Lady is throwing out lots of numbers, but nobody has mentioned the £4.35 she has just thrown out there. To answer her question, we have said that we will consult local authorities in order to design the early years national funding formula. Part of that consultation will be about recognising how authorities such as Islington are funded and making the appropriate decisions then. She can contribute to that consultation, as can every other local authority in the country.

[Emily Thornberry]

I would be interested to know whether the Minister regrets producing the document entitled “Cost of delivering the early education entitlement” halfway through the debate rather than earlier, if it was produced some time ago. He knows that one problem throughout the passage of the Bill in the Lords was that people criticised the fact that it was a cut-and-paste job from the Tory party manifesto put in a four-page Bill and that it has had no detail. The reason the Government have been getting into trouble is that everyone has been saying, “Where is the detail? Where is the plan? How much money are we getting?” And when the Bill finally reaches this place, keen people like me get a copy of half of this document halfway through the debate.

[Lucy Powell]

My hon. Friend is making some excellent points and scrutinising the Minister extremely well. She makes a good point about the true cost of childcare and how many private, voluntary or independent nurseries cross-subsidise to deliver the free offer. Is she aware that in parts of London in particular, and in other more expensive cities, many providers do not even offer the free entitlement because there is not a good enough business case for them to do that, and so families in Islington are probably missing out altogether?

[Emily Thornberry]

I think that that is right, and there was a hint of that, I think, from the hon. and learned Member for South East Cambridgeshire (Lucy Frazer) when she was talking about the importance of the rate that is being paid in order to ensure that there is childcare provided in her area. Although Cambridge is not as expensive as Islington, I imagine that it is another area where childcare is likely to be provided at a fairly high rate, and is likely to be very expensive.

Having looked at the Blue Book, I have another question. As I understand it, to pay for these additional hours of childcare, the Government will not provide free childcare for parents whose income is more than £100,000—I do not think that there is any problem with that—but the other part is—[Interruption.] I am sorry, but I am asking the Minister a question. I can say it again. The other part of the condition is

“and a minimum weekly income level per parent equivalent to 16 hours (worked at the national living wage)”.

Does that mean that my single parents on the Market estate, who are currently working nine hours, will not get free childcare, and that in order to get free childcare they will need to work not only 16 hours but—because they are all on the minimum wage—16 hours at the equivalent of the national living wage, which presumably means that they will have to work something like 24 hours?

[Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is making a very—

--- Later in debate ---

[Helen Goodman]

My hon. Friend is pointing out that, according to the Chancellor, to qualify for this free childcare, a parent needs to be working 16 hours. Coincidentally, I found out that Asda employs 30% of its people on less than 16 hours a week, and they are paid less than the living wage, because they are on the minimum wage. That is probably the case in supermarkets across the land. We are talking about hundreds of thousands of women here.

[Emily Thornberry]

The point is—[Interruption.] I am just pointing out that the Blue Book refers to

“a minimum weekly income level per parent equivalent to 16 hours (worked at the national living wage)”.

A parent could be working 16 hours at the national minimum wage, but still not get free childcare. That is as I understand it, but we are not in Government. We are involved in scrutiny.

[Mr Gyimah]

The eligibility will be checked by HMRC, and it will be based on the actual income earned, so at 16 hours on the national living wage, someone would have to earn £107 a week in order to qualify for 30 hours of free childcare. In addition to the 30 hours of free childcare, that person may get other support such as the childcare element of tax credits or tax-free childcare. This is an incredibly generous offer, but that is not what the hon. Lady is suggesting.

[Emily Thornberry]

Is the Minister therefore saying that people do not need to be earning a minimum weekly income at the national living wage, because tax credits would make it up? Or is he saying that people have to get an income equivalent to 16 hours worked at the national living wage, and then they will get tax credits and the 30 hours? These are important questions. This Bill has already been in the Lords. We are now in the Commons. It is important for us to understand the Bill.

We are not against childcare, as some have suggested. We are absolutely in favour of childcare, but we would like it to be funded properly so that people get proper access to it, and that includes my single mothers from the Market estate who may be working only a few hours at the moment, but who would like to have additional childcare available to them so that they can look for other jobs, because if Asda will not increase their hours, they will try to find a job somewhere else. They need childcare if they have three and four-year-olds so that they have some time to fill in their CVs, and go to Jobcentre Plus to get the assistance they need to work further hours. I hope that the Minister understands that.

[Mr Gyimah]

The answer to the hon. Lady’s question is simple: a lone parent would have to earn £107 a week to qualify for 30 hours of childcare. Eligibility is judged not on hours but on someone’s earnings, because HMRC can monitor earnings, not the hours that people work. If someone earns £107 in half a day that gets them 30 hours of childcare, and if someone earns that in a week they still receive those 30 hours of childcare.

[Emily Thornberry]

Therefore, someone who works 16 hours on the national minimum wage will not get 30 hours of childcare a week. That is an important point, and I am grateful to the Minister for clarifying it. That message needs to go out if we are talking about fairness. No wonder the end of paragraph 2.61 of the Blue Book states that this measure

“will save £215 million by 2020.”

If we are talking about fairness, opportunity, and ensuring that women are able to go to work, I am concerned about the changes being made.

[Mr Gyimah]

The first 15 hours of childcare is a universal offer that everyone receives. The income testing applies to the second set of 15 hours. I reiterate that eligibility is judged on income, not hours worked.

[Emily Thornberry]

I am grateful to the Minister for making that clearer. Over the next few days I am sure that many more questions will be asked and many more answers given, and we will get a better understanding of exactly what the country is being offered.

On Second Reading in the other place, the Bill was repeatedly described as a “skeleton” piece of legislation—well, absolutely. Lord Touhig went a step further and called it a “missing Bill”. Their criticisms were well summarised by the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, which in a scathing report observed:

“While the Bill may contain a legislative framework, it contains virtually nothing of substance beyond the vague ‘mission statement’ in clause 1”.

As I was saying, it is a cut and paste job from the Tory party manifesto. The job of the Lords is to scrutinise legislation, as is our job in this Chamber. How can we do that if we do not get a plan or a proper understanding of what the funding will be?

I come to this issue blinking into the light after the Welfare Reform and Work Bill Committee. I became concerned about this issue because, as I am sure the Minister knows, mothers with three and four-year-olds will be forced to look for work on the understanding that adequate childcare will be available for them. Given what the Minister has just said, 15 hours of childcare may be available to them whether they work or not when their children are three and four, but they will need to work additional hours, or earn the amount that the Minister indicated, to receive the full 30 hours.

We are talking about getting women with three and four-year-olds into work, and the other problem that struck me is the obvious point that this is just about term-time working. We are asking the question that single mothers and parents ask all the time: what are people going to do in the summer? For 38 weeks people may get 30 hours’ childcare, but how do they cover the summer period if they are doing low-level work and do not earn a great deal? If they do not accept a job, they could be sanctioned or receive a penalty because they will not be working properly.

In the Welfare Reform and Work Committee we tabled an amendment to say that women should not be forced to look for work when they have three and four-year-olds unless adequate childcare is available. As I explained, if the Government are so confident that adequate childcare will be available for working women, surely they would not vote against that amendment, but they did. That is what has brought me to be so concerned about this Bill, which impacts on the lives of women in whatever department. I am a shadow Work and Pensions Minister, and if the Minister is able to introduce a proper Bill that will support women and their children and help women get into work, that will have an impact across the piece, as I am sure he appreciates.

The House of Lords has said that the Bill contains virtually nothing of substance beyond the vague mission statement in clause 1. In other words, the Bill has almost nothing more to say than the Conservative party manifesto. Clearly, the Government like the idea of doubling working parents’ free childcare entitlement; they just have not worked out exactly how to do it. They might as well have written a Bill saying that the land would flow with milk and honey—we would all agree with that.

Perhaps inevitably, the most glaring admission involves the cost of the free childcare extension, about which we have heard a little today. That seems to raise more questions than it answers. If the level of payment is such as to be less than half the amount that childcare costs in my constituency, there are obvious questions in relation to that. As everyone speaking in this debate is likely to know, childcare does not come cheap, and it rarely, if ever, comes free. Costs have been rising dramatically in the past five years to the point where families in England pay more for childcare than in any other country in Europe apart from Switzerland.

The average cost of part-time childcare for two children under primary school age now exceeds the cost of the average mortgage. Given the spiralling housing costs that this Government have presided over, that is quite an achievement. In my constituency, the cost of a part-time nursery placement of 25 hours a week has risen by 183% since 2010. At an average of £235 a week, childcare costs in Islington are the highest of any local authority in England apart from Kensington and Chelsea. Imagine if someone has two children—how are they going to be able to work? While existing support for childcare costs may be a helpful contribution, it has not solved the problem of a large number of working parents.

The Government say that the Bill doubles for working parents the free 15 hours already available to all parents of three and four-year-olds, but there is no such thing as a free lunch, and, in many ways, no such thing as free childcare. As is well known, the free 15 hours are chronically underfunded as it is. There is no legal obligation on any childcare provider to provide them to any parent, and according to a survey by Citizens Advice, a quarter of them do not. The Minister should be concerned about this. We are concerned about it, and working mothers are concerned about it. Those that do provide it will find themselves faced with a conundrum. The significant shortfall between providers’ reimbursement rate and their actual costs means that somehow a way has to be found to square the circle. The options are limited, and none of them is good. Either the cost of the extra hours will rise, new charges will be added for hidden costs such as activities, pencils, books or whatever, or the supposedly free hours will come with so many strings attached as to prohibit most parents from being able to use them.

It is not at all uncommon for parents to be told that they can access their 15 hours free entitlement but only if they pay more for additional hours on top. For working parents with up to 50 hours’ childcare a week, taking into account the early drop-off and late pick-up, the 15 hours may be free but then there is the additional charge for the 35 hours that are supposed to be provided at much higher levels. With fees at the level that they are in my constituency, this means that even with the free hours, families face annual childcare costs in excess of £20,000 a year—and that is for one child. Let me tell Ministers that not many single parents on the Market estate in Islington have that kind of money lying around. The idea of doubling the entitlement to free childcare without addressing the underlying funding gap is simply out of touch with the reality of the lives of people whom I represent, and we all represent.

The IPPR, in a report published last month that has already been quoted, but which I will quote again, described the Government’s estimate of the costs of free childcare extension as

“inexplicably low compared to other estimates, as well as to current funding.”

It concluded:

“The Government’s drastic underfunding gives rise to concerns that the hourly rates that it will give to providers to deliver this care will be too low, resulting in falling quality, poorer outcomes for children and less choice for parents as the market shrinks.”

As recently as this summer, when the Bill was introduced in the other place, the Government were maintaining the ludicrous fiction that the extension could cost no more than £365 million. It is right for Labour Members to say clearly that that is not right. To a certain extent, I am pleased that we have had a little bit of an answer today with the extra £300, but frankly it is still not enough, and the Minister knows it. He, as I understand it, endorsed what the original childcare Minister, the hon. Member for East Surrey, said when the Government were costing the amount, and we were saying what we wanted to do—[Interruption.] I am so sorry—I did not realise that the Minister is the hon. Member for East Surrey. I do apologise. He will remember saying that Labour’s pledge to extend free childcare for three and four-year-olds to 25 hours would cost £1.6 billon. I am so sorry that I did not realise that it was he who said that, but I am sure he remembers saying it. He is not providing £1.6 billion for 30 hours’ childcare for three and four-year-olds, so how can it work, particularly when the costs of childcare continue to go up? Childcare is so expensive in areas such as mine. I accept that my constituency has a large number of single parents who are not working and who find it extremely difficult to find work, but one of the major reasons for that is the cost of childcare.

I want to support this Bill. I want it to help the single mothers on the Market estate, but I just do not believe it will. I will vote for it—I am not going to vote against it—but it is not as though my criticisms have not already been raised in the House of Lords. They were raised in another place at great length and by people who are much more articulate and much better informed than I am. Indeed, concerns continue to be raised, but what happened today? Halfway through the debate, we got the report. I have only half of it and my copy is still warm because it had to be printed off a computer, so I apologise that I have not had a chance to scrutinise it in depth.

When this Bill came here from the other place, the major criticism of it was that the funding was inadequate and that there was no adequate explanation of how it would be viable. To produce a document that we have to print off a computer in the middle of a debate is not democracy; it does not give us an opportunity to scrutinise what the Government do. The Government should not behave with the arrogance of a Government who have a majority of 120. Their majority is 12, and Bills such as this should have complete cross-party support. We should all be able to work together and not go away with a feeling that the Government are playing games, but I fear that that is what they are doing. It was not necessary to produce the report halfway through the Second Reading debate.

[Mr Gyimah]

indicated dissent.

[Emily Thornberry]

I assure the hon. Gentleman that it was produced halfway through. We sent people to the Library to look for it. It eventually appeared on the internet and attempts have been made to print it out. The process should not be some sort of marathon. If the report had been produced yesterday, we would all have sat down and read it overnight. I am sure my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester Central (Lucy Powell) would have read all of it, even if I had not. We would then have had an opportunity to scrutinise the Bill properly. Given that the criticism throughout has been of inadequate funding and a lack of clarity on that funding, the situation is disappointing, to say the very least.

I think I have made my point. I am not an expert on the subject, but I am concerned about the inadequate amount of childcare that will be produced on time, before single mothers of three and four-year-olds are forced to look for work. I am very concerned that there will not be sufficient childcare, that it will be available only during term time, that it will not be sufficiently flexible and that it is not sufficiently funded. I am particularly concerned about the process we have indulged in on the Bill. It has already been discussed in the other place, but the details we have been given are still inadequate. I am very disappointed.

Trade Union Bill

Emily Thornberry Excerpts

Monday 14th September 2015 Commons Chamber

[Ms Eagle]

Great minds obviously think alike, and I may well come back to that issue later in my speech.

[Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab)]

I declare an interest: I am a proud member of Unite the union and I have been since the miners’ strike. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is remarkable that 77% of the public believe that trade unions defend important aspects of workers’ rights and that we need them?

[Ms Eagle]

It is wise to remember that trade unions defend not only their own members. Over the years, trade unions have created a process that has given us holidays, weekends and reasonable working hours. It is right that the benefits that trade unions bring to our society are recognised and extended to those who are not members of trade unions but happen to be at work. Any attack on those rights that weakens those powers threatens the progress made over many years in democracy at work.

Equal Pay and the Gender Pay Gap

Emily Thornberry Excerpts

Wednesday 1st July 2015 Commons Chamber

[Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab)]

The Secretary of State referred to alternative ways of dealing with the situation. When she conducts her review, will she take another look at the short-form questionnaire, which enables a woman who believes that she has been discriminated against to ask her employer for certain facts and figures before even going to a tribunal and taking legal action?

[Nicky Morgan]

The point of the review is to take account of questions of exactly that kind. It is being conducted by the Ministry of Justice, and I am sure that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Women and Equalities and Family Justice, who is also a Minister in the MOJ, has heard what the hon. Lady has said.

Girls often do better than boys at school overall, but evidence shows that their subject choices have a direct impact on their future careers and earnings, and that that imbalance can feed directly into our labour market. A proportion of the gap is also due to differences in years of experience of full-time work, or the negative effect on wages of having previously worked part time or—as was mentioned earlier—having taken time out to look after a family. That highlights the important role that employers can play in supporting women in the middle phases of their working lives by providing effective talent management, facilitating access to affordable childcare, and championing flexible working.

We also know that the gender pay gap is higher for older women. For many of them one of the major challenges is keeping their skills updated, but for others the main challenge is the need to reduce their hours to accommodate increased responsibilities to care for children, grandchildren and ageing parents. Again, employers have a key role, namely to provide a supportive working environment that will enable them to get the best out of all their staff. That will include flexible working.

--- Later in debate ---

[Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab)]

Reference has been made to one of my predecessors, a Member of Parliament for Islington East. Perhaps, as the first woman to represent Islington South and Finsbury, I should point out that my constituency incorporates Islington East. There was a time in the 1930s, I must confess, when the good people of Islington East were so keen on women MPs that it once had a Tory representative—and she was a woman. Given what she was up to, it seems that she was not necessarily a traditional 1930s Tory: she was very interested in women’s equality.

Let me turn to more general matters. Those who will read the report of our debate may not fully appreciate this, but a large group of female Conservatives have been sitting together throughout, although not all of them have spoken. They have made one mistake, however, and I urge them to think about it. They are sitting on the wrong side of the Gangway. I am told that in 1997, when a large number of new Members arrived in the House, those who sat on the Government side of the Gangway were promoted, while those who sat on the other side were not. So girls, move over there so that you can get yourselves promoted. I am just trying to be helpful.

[Rebecca Pow]

I have been wondering what a traditional Conservative woman is.

[Emily Thornberry]

I do not think it would be a good idea for me to rise to that question. I have only 10 minutes, and I want to make some important points about equality, particularly women’s equality.

I think that, when the Equal Pay Act 1970 was passed, Barbara Castle was right to describe it as a

“historic advance in the struggle against discrimination in our society”.—[Official Report, 9 February 1970; Vol. 795, c. 914.]

Unfortunately, however, it has not stood the test of time. In those days, there was blatant and obvious discrimination between the sexes. It was easy for an individual woman to take her case to a tribunal, point to the man who sat at the desk next to hers and who she had realised was being paid more than her, and prove that she had been discriminated against; but time has moved on, and we now need legislation that is not simply reactive. We cannot rely on individual women to root out evidence of discrimination and take their cases to a tribunal. Besides, the process has never been more difficult, not only because tribunal law has become so complex—many cases continue for as long as seven years—but because tribunal fees are at such a level that it is no surprise that there has been a 79% drop in the number of equal pay claims. Those fees have rightly been described as a tax on justice.

However, there are more fundamental problems. I think that we need to look at a new type of legislation that has begun to be introduced and that can be very effective. Conservative Members had better take a deep breath, because I am about to mention the Human Rights Act, a proactive piece of legislation with a beating heart which could be moved to the centre of our constitution and ensure that work was done properly. Another proactive piece of legislation is the Bribery Act 2010. Under that Act, a company has to prove that it has structures in place to manage things in such a way that, if a person is bribing someone else, they are acting as a lone wolf and the company has done everything it can to stop it. It has resulted in a culture change in our companies, which is very much to be recommended.

A new equality Act could do the same thing. Our current Equality Act does not do that. It has failed to foresee the fragmentation of pay-setting, even within an organisation. It has the most ridiculous loopholes. For example, if I as a woman were to leave a job because I felt that I was not being paid properly and was being discriminated against, but I did not want to take the matter to a tribunal, and then I realised that, to make matters worse, I had been replaced by a man, who was not being discriminated against and was being paid more than me for doing the same work, I could not use that as evidence that I had been discriminated against. How crazy is that. We need to look again at some of these ridiculous loopholes.

It is to be applauded that we are looking further at pay transparency, but that is not in itself sufficient. The Equality Act is up for its five-year review. The Government have said that they are looking again at whether the Act has achieved its stated aims. The Under-Secretary of State for Women and Equalities and Family Justice has said that

“Parliament will consider this information before deciding whether to gather further evidence on how the Act is operating.”

However, it seems to me that we should introduce a new Bill. As Barbara Castle rightly said:

“I have no doubt that some employers will try it on…undoubtedly, pockets of discrimination will remain—unless women organise to put a stop to it.”—[Official Report, 9 February 1970; Vol. 795, c. 928.]

So let us do that. Let us organise and stop it.

A new Act should be proactive and not reactive. I strongly suggest that successful claims should trigger a mandatory company-wide audit, including proper job evaluation studies. That does not just mean listing what the women get paid, what the men get paid and what the different jobs are. We should be drilling down into companies and looking at what skills are being used, what the women are doing compared with the men, and seeing whether there is systemic discrimination in a company. It would be right for tribunals to be able to trigger that. It could be done before the case even gets to the tribunal, where there are negotiations before the case officially kicks off. However, it should also happen afterwards if a claim against an individual is upheld.

There should be a flipside to that. If a company has done a proper, deep and profound voluntary audit, that should be a prima facie defence against any equal pay claim. We need to do this by way of carrot and stick.

Other things need to be done. There has been a chilling effect on some negotiations because of widely publicised cases in which trade unions have negotiated with an employer to try to get rid of discrimination within a company and to introduce equal pay, only to find that many of the women feel that the settlement has not been sufficiently fair, and the trade union has ended up being sued itself. New legislation could include guidance so that everyone knows where they stand and where their settlement should end up when trade unions and employers negotiate. That again could be a prima facie defence against any equal pay claim.

At the moment, legislation is too complicated, and the tribunal process is too obscure, too difficult and takes too long. It seems to me that many people are running away from using our tribunals and any legal process to enforce equal pay. Good as it was at the time, it seems that the 1970 Act is not fit for the 21st century, and we need to look at it.

Not only should we have new codes of practice so that the parties know what is expected of them, but we need to streamline our tribunal process and bring in experienced, senior judges to adjudicate more complex claims—those cases where preliminary issues get appealed and go back to the tribunal, and then another preliminary issue is taken up and appealed. For that reason, these cases can take seven years. It is not right. The current process is not fit to do what we want it to do.

We should look again at introducing questionnaires. Why have the Government stopped the process whereby, if a woman makes a claim against a company, the company is supposed to answer a questionnaire to give proper information on the practices within the company? The Government said that they were cutting red tape. That is one way of looking at it, but another way is that they disempowered women from taking their equal pay cases to tribunals. If we are looking again at what we should do with tribunals, we should reintroduce the questionnaire. We can make it two pages if we are worried about it being red tape, but we must ensure that that short-form questionnaire includes important information such as, “Has the company been sued before? Have you done a proper audit? When did you last do a proper audit?” Women will know exactly where they stand before they begin the process of taking a case to a tribunal.

I have talked about the ridiculous loophole whereby if I am replaced by a man I cannot use that as prima facie evidence to show that I was discriminated against. I feel very strongly about this issue. I have written extensively on it. For those who are interested, I have written on “Comment is free”, there is a long article in the New Statesman, and those who are really techie can go to my website.

A new Act will not, of course, solve all the problems. We cannot have equality without proper flexible working. I say that as a mother of a precious daughter, but also of two precious boys. I want my boys to be fathers and to be able to look after me when I get old, and to be able to balance their work and family life, and for their family life to be as important to them as it will be, I hope, to my daughter. When we talk about women’s liberation, we must not leave the men behind, because this should be about the liberation of all of us. Flexible working is very important for us all.

We should also look at the fact that women tend to cluster in certain professions. We may have left the kitchen, but we have not gone very far. The majority of us still do things like cleaning and cooking, secretarial work, nursing and looking after children. Those are the main sorts of work we do, and, guess what, it is seen as women’s work and, guess what, it is not paid as well as men’s work. We have to look at that if we are serious about equal pay. The importance of proper careers advice for boys and girls has been mentioned, and understanding the careers available in STEM subjects is particularly important.

These are long-term goals. Right now we need a new equal pay Act. Let us be radical; let us not be afraid; let us get on with it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rebecca Pow]

That is why we need to get the economy moving to improve all those areas and why childcare support is so important in helping to top them up. That support is very much welcomed by all the women I speak to.

I welcome the introduction of 15 hours a week of state-funded early education for three and four-year-olds. Although I welcome that support, I know from speaking to a range of women in work that many of them are calling for it to be introduced when children are even younger, to enable those women who want to do so to get back to work sooner. I support my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth South (Mrs Drummond), who said that we must recognise those women and even fathers who want to stay at home to bring up their children, because nothing is more important than what we do for our children in bringing up the next generation.

[Emily Thornberry]

Of course, the hon. Lady is absolutely right: such decisions—whoever makes them on behalf of their family—should be in their family’s best interests. Some women may wish to work part time and take advantage of tax credits. The difficulty is that they need to work 16 hours a week to get tax credits. Is there not a problem therefore with offering only 15 hours childcare, particularly as children have to be dropped off and picked up again?

[Rebecca Pow]

The hon. Lady makes an exceedingly good point, and it is something that we should throw into the mix.

In my constituency, the gender pay gap is the lowest on record, due largely to the progress made during the last Government, because the economy in Taunton Deane has really improved. The disparity between men’s and women’s pay is relatively small at 11% and, with the actions being taken by this Government, is coming down all the time, which, of course, I welcome.

I am pleased that the Government are taking this issue seriously. I see some people shaking their heads. The figure is still too high, but I am confident that, with the measures that the Government are putting in place, the gender pay gap in my constituency and elsewhere will continue to come down, and I shall be pressing to ensure that that happens. I have an all-women political team, both in London and in Taunton, and they are of mixed ages—some older, like me—so we are addressing the issue that was raised earlier. Indeed, with the glorious flood of new, young—and not so young—female blood coming into the House, I am sure that we will all work on this very important issue together.

Equal Pay

Emily Thornberry Excerpts

Wednesday 18th March 2015 Westminster Hall

[Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Weir. I thank hon. Members for taking the time to discuss this matter with me and to give their points of view. I hope that this debate will be part of a larger one. It is about time we had that.

Forty-five years ago, Barbara Castle’s Equal Pay Act 1970 inspired a generation of young women and girls, which included me. I was a member of St Mary’s church choir in Guildford the year the Act was passed and I was galvanised into action when I heard that the boys in a church choir in the same parish were getting paid twice as much as we were. With my friends, Bryony and Lesley, I wrote to the rector to complain about that great injustice. That did not go well. He showed what he thought of our protest in his next school assembly when he gave us an honourable mention in his sermon on avarice and greed. While I was inspired by that landmark law, I never imagined that I would be here today, talking about the need for a new one. However, like many other products of the 1970s—Status Quo, mood rings and cassette tapes—the Equal Pay Act has not really stood the test of time.

Thanks to the hit film and west end musical “Made in Dagenham”, many who were not around at the time are now familiar with the circumstances that helped the Equal Pay Act into being. In 1968, women sewing-machinists at Ford’s Dagenham plant walked out after their jobs were classified as less skilled, allowing managers to pay them 15% less than men doing comparable work. The women, who made car seat covers, managed to bring about a complete halt in the plant’s car production during their three-week strike. However, much more than that, they were the catalyst for a series of events that included a 1,000-strong rally for equal pay in Trafalgar square the following year, which culminated in the passage of legislation that, for the first time, explicitly outlawed the unequal treatment of men and women with regard to pay and terms and conditions of their employment.

On Second Reading, Barbara Castle rightly hailed the Equal Pay Act as an

“historic advance in the struggle against discrimination in our society”.—[Official Report, 9 February 1970; Vol. 795, c. 914.]

It certainly was an advance. Today, the wage gap between men and women is a quarter of the size it was at that time. I am afraid, however, that that was not a perfect solution, as Barbara acknowledged at the time. As anyone who was around then will know—as will those who have seen “Made in Dagenham”—the Equal Pay Act was a product of a time when, all too often, pay discrimination was blatant. Many women knew that they were being paid less than their male colleagues for no reason other than being women. The Act was crafted to fit the challenges the situation presented and the time of its passage. As such, its approach was essentially reactive. For example, a woman had to find a comparator: a male colleague who was paid more for similar work. She then had to marshal evidence to present to a tribunal. If successful, she would be compensated for loss of wages and achieve equal pay for the future.

That sounds like an entirely reasonable and simple solution, and at the time it was, but a law written to give women the tools to fight blatant discrimination was, perhaps inevitably and understandably, a blunt instrument. For a start, compensation paid to an individual was limited to that individual. At that stage there was no understanding of the importance of looking also at the impact on others affected in the same way and there was no requirement for offending employers to correct practices that led to such discrimination in the first place. Therefore, unless a claimant joined in an action at the outset, a sister colleague working in the same plant, doing the same work, would have to relitigate the matter from scratch even if her colleague had made a successful claim in identical circumstances. It has never been easy to take an employer to a tribunal, even before the near disappearance of legal aid for employment law cases and the introduction of tribunal fees that have led to an immediate 79% drop in the number of equal pay claims and that have been called—I think rightly—a tax on justice. However, there is more to it than that.

A fundamental problem with the Equal Pay Act is that its authors could not have predicted the extent to which the rise of fractured employment practices and insecure working have changed the context in which the law operates today. As Karon Monaghan, QC, a leading employment law specialist, has pointed out, the requirement that a male comparator be employed by the same employer, or an associated employer at the same establishment, causes

“very significant disadvantage to women employed in public sector services that have been contracted out to private contractors”.

Similarly, the increased fragmentation of pay setting in large organisations has undermined women’s ability to bring a claim under the Act. Robertson v. the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs is a case in point. Civil servants employed by DEFRA sought to bring a claim using a male comparator at the Department for Transport. The Court of Appeal held that, although civil servants were all employees of the same Government, the claim could not be directed at a single source because pay was devolved for individual Departments to determine.

Many other loopholes have helped mire the legislation in inefficiency. Perhaps the most ridiculous is that the law explicitly states that a comparator must be someone employed at the time. Therefore, if a woman leaves a job and a man takes it and gets paid much more, that cannot be used as a comparator. Frankly, that is ridiculous and flies in the face of common sense. That is exactly the sort of thing that should be classed as discrimination and that any Equal Pay Act ought to deal with. I should clarify that I am not by any means blaming the authors of the 1970 Act for flaws that have bogged the legislation down in the intervening years. They were pioneers in the fight for equality and I applaud them. My point is simply that they were addressing the circumstances of their time and what has become increasingly clear to me and others who have studied this issue is that if we truly want to eradicate unequal pay once and for all, we need to follow their example and craft a new law that is fit to meet the new challenges of our time.

[Sandra Osborne (Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this important debate. When the Equality Act 2006 was passed, it was believed that voluntary pay audits would help to solve the problem. They have not, but she is illustrating how they are not the answer in any case. Does she agree that we need to take a whole new look at the law on equal pay?

[Emily Thornberry]

I agree completely. While I am pleased that, at last, the Government have now said that they will introduce that section of the Act, we have wasted a large amount of time on arguing over this matter. That minimal change could and should have been implemented much earlier than it will be. However, progress is progress and that should be recognised. I think that leaving it to the good will of companies to do audits led to only five of them doing them. Clearly that is not anything like sufficient.

To go back to Second Reading of the 1970 Act, Barbara Castle was prescient in asking, “What, then, of evasion?” She knew that there were circumstances—foreseen or unforeseen—that could allow the spirit of the law to be undermined. At the time, she said:

“I have no doubt that some employers will try it on…undoubtedly, pockets of discrimination will remain—unless women organise to put a stop to it.”—[Official Report, 9 February 1970; Vol. 795, c. 928.]

A number of women have followed on from Barbara Castle. Her fighting spirit has lived on through the generations of Labour women who succeeded her and in such a debate it is only right that I recognise them. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman), who joined Parliament when it was 97% male in 1982, has led the way in fighting for many changes that we take for granted today, such as a national minimum wage; longer maternity leave; higher maternity pay; the Equality Act, as has been referred to; and measures to promote pay transparency, which are a vital tool in tackling pay inequality.

Transparency must be the bedrock of a renewed effort to close the wage gap. As my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion) said when making the case for her Equal Pay (Transparency) Bill:

“Pay transparency would push companies to focus on why the pay gap still exists”.

Further, she said that it

“places the responsibility on employers to be actively conscious of the law on equal pay, and to have policies to address the gap.”—[Official Report, 16 December 2014; Vol. 589, c. 1301.]

She is absolutely right. Perhaps it is a call to action.

[Sarah Champion (Rotherham) (Lab)]

I apologise for being late, and I am really grateful that the hon. Lady has secured this debate, because we need to challenge this situation all the time. Was my hon. Friend surprised, as I was, by just how big the pay gap is? Before researching it, I expected it to be 2% or 3%, but I find the fact that it is nearly 20% genuinely shocking.

[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.

[Dr Eilidh Whiteford (Banff and Buchan) (SNP)]

It is a particular pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Weir. I congratulate the hon. Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry) not only on securing the debate but on setting out the case so clearly and persuasively for reform of the Equal Pay Act 1970. I support, in principle, the call for the 1970 Act to be brought up to date and into line with the needs of our society, our economy and our labour market in the 21st century. I am disappointed that only women MPs have shown up for today’s debate. Is it not shocking that there is not a single Government Back Bencher here for such an economically and structurally important debate? The subject of our debate impacts on all our lives and on the lives of men, because they also have to deal with the consequences of unequal pay.

The Equal Pay Act 1970 was introduced the year after I was born. Although women’s participation in the labour market has been transformed in the intervening 45 years, the pay gap remains stubbornly entrenched. Progress has been painfully slow, and even women of my generation, who expected to be the second generation of women to experience equal pay, still find that, on average, our pay falls significantly behind that of our male counterparts.

I want to say a few words about Scotland. Although compared with other parts of the UK, we have had higher rates of women’s participation in the labour market, consistently lower women’s unemployment and higher women’s employment over the past few years, our pay gap appears to be slightly wider. There are different ways of measuring that gap, but according to the Close the Gap campaign, provisional figures for 2014 indicate an 11.5% pay gap in the hourly rate for full-time workers, and a massive 32.4% pay gap between the hourly rate of women working part time and men working full time. Women working part time are earning almost a third less. Given that 78% of part-time workers in Scotland are women, the gap will have a long-term impact on women during their working lives and in retirement, when they are likely to have far lower pensions than men and to be far more susceptible to poverty in old age.

I take this opportunity to pay tribute to the Close the Gap campaign, which is doing much to lobby on equal pay in Scotland. I also pay tribute to Engender and the Scottish Women’s Budget Group, which provide a lot of research and analysis that informs not only the raising of awareness but action to tackle the problems caused by unequal pay. At the moment, on average, a woman in 21st-century Scotland earns £95.60 a week less than a man. As we know, a significant part of the problem is occupational segregation. Women are over-represented in jobs that tend to be low paid, as the hon. Lady has said, such as cleaning, caring, clerical work, catering and retail jobs. It is also significant that in Scotland, according to Close the Gap, 48% of women work in public administration, education and health.

Women represent more than half of workers in only six of the 20 standardised industry classifications, whereas men tend to be more evenly spread across industry groups. Some 80% of administrative and secretarial workers and those in personal service jobs are women. Women are more likely to work in the public sector: 67% of local government workers and 81% of NHS workers, but only a third of chief executives, are women. We know that 97% of child care and early years education staff are women, and 98% of classroom assistants. By contrast, less than 3% of chartered civil engineers in Scotland are women. I have been working hard with my local college and schools to try to change that, and some of the local companies that recruit people with STEM qualifications are keen to encourage such change. We are making progress with getting girls into engineering, but it is a long-term challenge.

The hon. Lady has alluded to the fact that the vertical distribution of pay in organisations often betrays a gendered division of labour. Higher-paid jobs are predominantly done by men, and lower-paid ones tend to be done by women. It is disappointing that efforts to encourage companies voluntarily to audit their pay structures by gender have had such derisorily poor uptake, especially when companies that have done so have changed their policies and practices as a result and become a lot more aware of their own institutional biases.

The hon. Lady made the point at length that it has become much more difficult for women to seek redress if they believe that they are being discriminated against in the workplace. A core underlying factor in the pay gap is the fact that caring for young children and frail, elderly, sick or disabled relatives still falls predominantly to women. It is often perceived to be a woman’s duty to step up at times of family crisis or illness. Consequently, too many women—mothers and unpaid carers—take jobs that they can juggle around their caring responsibilities. Too often, that means part-time, low-paid, insecure and low-skilled work, sometimes on zero-hours contracts, even when those women have the skills, experience and qualifications to take on much higher levels of responsibility. That is a huge waste of human and economic potential, and it costs our economy dear.

I do not mean in any way to undervalue the choices that people make to prioritise their family; I am merely reflecting the lack of choice and flexibility that women have when they are trying to establish a balance between their working lives and their home lives. Our workplaces and our legislation—indeed, our legislative system, although I will not say too much about the House of Commons today—have not kept up with changes in our society and with the aspirations of both women and men to earn a living and have a life. We need to take much more account of the impact of care in our economic models.

A step change in access to child care is as important as other legislative measures to tackle unequal pay. The cost of child care is simply prohibitive for far too many people, especially when it is combined with the cost of commuting to and from work. It acts as a huge disincentive to mothers who are keen to be in the workplace, and who want to work and use their skills and qualifications, but who cannot do so because they cannot earn enough to pay for child care and commuting. That problem gets even worse during school holidays, when many parents find that they are effectively working for nothing because they have to pay for very expensive child care over the holiday period. Sometimes, they have difficulty arranging any suitable child care at all during the summer months. That is helping to entrench occupational segregation, and it is driving the casualisation of employment.

Many things can be said about this issue, and I do not intend to make a long contribution, but introducing free access to child care and increasing the hours of child care to which parents are entitled goes much further than simply introducing tax breaks on child care, which tend to help women in higher-paid occupations, but which do nothing for the millions of women who top up their low pay with tax credits and who are already struggling to make ends meet.

In recent times, we have seen evidence that the pay gap is closing for younger women. Obviously, that is to be welcomed, but we should not be too congratulatory or pretend that the problem has been solved, because such developments are not really a sustainable solution. We need to think much more long term about how those women will fare in later years. If the only way for women to close the gender pay gap is not to have, or to delay having, children, that is simply not sustainable in terms of our demographics.

We therefore need to look at flexible working and at protecting women’s rights in the workplace. I absolutely agree with the hon. Lady that we need to bring the Equal Pay Act 1970 into the 21st century.

[Emily Thornberry]

Has the hon. Lady, like me, met young women beginning their careers who believe they will always be paid equally with men? When I point out that they would face an increasing gap with their contemporaries if they had children and tried to go back into work, they look at me as if I had two heads. They simply do not believe that that can happen, but we all know it does.

[Dr Whiteford]

It is interesting, and I have seen it in my own generation. When I was young and fresh-faced, I came out of university keen to build a career. If anybody had told me then that I would be disadvantaged in the labour market, I would probably have laughed at them. However, women find out the truth very quickly; indeed, that happens when they are first appointed to their jobs—in my day, there was still a big gap in starting salaries. There is also the issue of how they negotiate pay increases as they go through their careers. It is therefore difficult for young women to keep pace with their peer group.

It does not matter how hard they work, how committed they are or whether they have children; the pay gap persists for women who do not have children, as well as for those who do. This is not just as simple as whether a woman has a family. The layers of discrimination are often very subtle, and they have to do with the cultural dynamics in organisations and the vertical integration the hon. Lady and I have talked about.

Audits within organisations are therefore important, because they can expose to personnel departments their unconscious biases in offering different starting salaries to men and women and in looking at people’s investment in their careers and career progression. The hon. Lady therefore makes a good point, and I would absolutely encourage young women to be assertive in the workplace and to chase the careers they want. As a society, however, we cannot let that happen at the expense of the work-life balance, and it must be possible for women to pursue careers in a sustainable way, without burning the candle at both ends, and then some. At the same time, it cannot just be women who take responsibility for work-life balance. However, I was just winding up when the hon. Lady intervened, so I will do so now and hand the floor to other contributors.

--- Later in debate ---

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Weir. I emphasise the word “man,” because you are the sole male MP in the Chamber. The hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Dr Whiteford) made a good point that men, as well as women, have an important role in fighting for equality. Such debates answer the question whether having more women MPs makes a difference.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry) on securing this debate and on putting forward an interesting set of proposals into which she has clearly put a great deal of thought. I recognise that equal pay will not be addressed in the next 10 days, but she has started the debate now on what needs to be a careful consideration of equal pay laws and whether they are delivering the outcome that we all want. She wrote an article about equal pay for the New Statesman, and she spoke about it in the international women’s day debate a couple of weeks ago. Her contribution is excellent and welcome, particularly because of her legal expertise. It is good that we have diversity in this place, with some Members having legal expertise and some Members not having legal expertise. As a non-lawyer, I found her speech interesting.

In the hon. Lady’s powerful speech, I particularly loved the example of the fight for equal pay beginning with church choirboys and girls, and quite right, too. She ended her remarks by saying, “Let’s get radical,” and I am open to radical ideas for proceeding on these issues. The legislation, which was of its time, may need to be revisited and addressed. Indeed, this is a particularly timely point to do that because, although the Equal Pay Act was passed in 1970, the provisions were rolled into the Equality Act 2010. The Government are undertaking a thorough five-year review of that Act, which will include the equal pay and sex discrimination provisions, with a view to reporting to Parliament later this year. This is a topical and timely point at which to have this wider debate.

The hon. Lady set out the history of the Equal Pay Act, which came from the battle of the ladies of Dagenham —I agree with the hon. Member for Washington and Sunderland West (Mrs Hodgson) that it was a great privilege to meet them—and addressed blatant pay discrimination. It is important to recognise the difference between the pay gap and pay discrimination because it is easy to muddle the two terms. A casual observer might think they are the same thing, but outright pay discrimination is different from the pay gap itself, which is caused by discrimination, yes, but is also caused by other factors. About a third of the gender pay gap is due to occupational segregation. Typically, an engineer will be paid more than somebody working behind the till in a retail establishment. Women tend to be more concentrated in such sectors and in roles that are less well paid. Roughly about a third of the pay gap is because of time taken out of the labour market, largely because child care responsibilities still tend to fall disproportionately on women rather than men, but it is not solely about child care. There is also caring for elderly relatives and other reasons for time out of the labour market.

Other factors contribute to the pay gap, including pay discrimination and other issues that have been discussed today such as unconscious bias and perhaps the social conditioning of girls and boys. We still live in a very gendered world. A man might negotiate a pay rise in a different way from a woman, and that can lead to problems with the pay gap.

The Government’s record in tackling some of the issues has been positive, although I absolutely accept there is still a long way to go. On occupational segregation, there is a dearth of women in the STEM sectors: fewer than 10% of engineers are women, for example. We have the Eurolife initiative. We have recently published new careers advice aimed at parents, called “Your Daughter’s Future”. Although careers advice in schools is important, it is also sometimes about the messages that girls get at home.

I recently visited some apprentices in the construction industry in my constituency. Only one of the apprentices is a girl. I chatted to some of the young men who are doing their apprenticeships there. I said, “Why did you come to do an apprenticeship in construction?”, and one of the young men said, “My family encouraged me to do this.” He said that he had a sister, so I said, “Did they encourage her to go into construction as well?”, and he said, “No, they encouraged her to do a beauty course.” So the family environment matters. We live in a society with a lot of stereotyping generally, so that guide for parents might break down some of the stereotypes that people have in their minds. They have an image of what engineering is. They imagine someone in oily overalls working in a dirty factory environment, but high-tech modern engineering is a million miles from that. Sometimes people’s ideas about what certain careers entail are stuck in another time.

We have also worked with the Institute of Physics and the Royal Academy of Engineering to get role models into schools. STEMNET ambassadors, 40% of whom are women, do a fantastic job in encouraging girls to aspire and to get involved and interested in the issues. Part of the problem is also the wider cultural issue of stereotypes that start to take root at an early age, before children even start school. Certainly, the Government have a role to play in some of that, but, more widely in society, there is cultural campaigning, and the feminist movement is particularly valuable in addressing that.

We touched on time out of the labour market and the pay gap in the international women’s day debate. The 19% pay gap gives us a part of the picture, but while the pay gap is almost eliminated for women in full-time jobs under the age of 40, there is the massive problem that at that stage in women’s lives pay diverges hugely. A big part of that—not the only part—is about child rearing and the fact that such responsibilities are still shared unequally. That is why I am so passionate about the new shared parental leave laws, which I introduced. For babies due from 5 April this year—some might be born already—their mums and dads will be able to choose how to share the leave. I believe that that will drive radical change, and I want to do everything possible to break down some of the cultural barriers that will stop men taking it up. In year one, a certain number of people will take it up. In year five, it will be more, and in year 10 it will be even more, because this cultural change is happening. It is part of men generally being much more involved in their role as fathers.

In the 1950s, it was very unusual for men—a tiny percentage—to be present at the birth of their child, but that is now commonplace. Men used not to take paternity leave, but now most men take some time off after their baby has been born. I think this tide is going in the right direction, but we need to do everything we can to hurry it along.

[Emily Thornberry]

The Minister is making a very good speech. There is very little that I disagree with, but there is an additional element. Although we should welcome the fact that younger men are prepared to be more actively involved in their role as fathers, they still leave two thirds of the unpaid work in the home to women. Are they hoovering? Are they ironing shirts? Is there anything that can be done to encourage them to do that?

[Jo Swinson]

Shared shirt ironing would certainly be a winning policy for half the population. The hon. Lady is absolutely right. There are the wider domestic responsibilities, too, which are harder to legislate for, but there is interesting research on the harmony of relationships in which domestic chores are spread more equally.

Flexible working delivers two things. If men are more involved in caring responsibilities, it makes it easier for their partners as mums to combine their roles at work with their mothering responsibilities, but it also means that the workplace starts to change, because it is not only women who want something different. Dads are involved in that as well. That means we can start to reduce the parenting penalty. Flexible working becomes more commonplace and much more normal. That is why the extension of the right to request flexible working to all employees is so vital. Although parents already had it, it is about making it something that is not stigmatised and is just a modern, agile way of working.

The issue is not only about children. The hon. Lady mentioned flexible working in relation to carers. We have changed the legislation so that requests have to be considered in a reasonable manner. In the case of an urgent request for a specific issue, it would not be reasonable to wait three months for a decision. We are piloting a wider piece of work on how to get more carers into employment. Many carers want to stay in employment, and there are different ways in which they might be able to be supported to do so. So we will get the results of those pilots in different parts of the country and perhaps move forward.

I agree with the point about unconscious bias and discrimination. The hon. Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion) said that it should not be the woman’s burden to find out what people are being paid and then take up the fight. I absolutely agree. The pay gap is not the fault of women, but equipping women with the confidence and skills to negotiate hard for a pay rise is also a sensible thing for us to do. So I welcome the guide by the Everywoman organisation that we were able to publish, which sets out basic things that women might consider when they go into pay negotiations and how they might argue for a pay rise. We should encourage women as well as men to develop such skills. The Women’s Business Council will shortly be publishing a guide for business, called “Mending the Talent Gap”, which looks at why, from an employer’s perspective, dealing with the pay gap is important. It looks at what it is and what they can do about it.

On the specific issue about whether all women in the employ of a particular business should be awarded equal pay, it is currently possible for a tribunal judgment to be read across. Certainly, the risk of future pay claims is one that would encourage most employers to do so. What the hon. Member for Islington South and Finsbury said about comparators was fascinating. She raised the point about whether the comparator had to be employed at the same time. During the 2010 discussions on the Equality Act 2010, the Government agreed to Lord Lester’s amendment that comparators are not limited to people working at the same time as the claimant, which is in section 64(2) of the Act.

The hon. Lady also mentioned delays, which relate to the issue about comparators. One of the reasons for a delay is that the reporting and working out of what the comparators are can be a process that takes months on end. Part of that is inherent in trying to deal with 45 years of case law that has built up, but perhaps that is something that highlights the importance of looking again at whether this can be made simpler.

[Emily Thornberry]

The Minister has just made a point about someone taking over someone else’s job and whether a person can say they are being discriminated against if the other is paid more. There is a problem with the Equal Pay Act 1970 and it is in the notes of guidance. Perhaps we can discuss this outside Westminster Hall. I appreciate that if Labour is carrying out a review and the Government are also carrying out a review, and we have highlighted this issue enough, presumably the right people will look at this matter.

[Jo Swinson]

I certainly hope that that will be the case.

The hon. Lady also asked how far back the backdating goes, as the six years is quite a perverse disincentive to companies to get on and deal with this matter. As she rightly said, the potential issue is about a legal issue, in terms of the European Court of Justice ruling. However, it is worth exploring this matter in the review process to see whether anything can be done on it.

As for bogus self-employment, clearly the employment status review that is under way at the moment will look at a range of issues, because bogus self-employment is a problem not only in terms of equal pay but much more widely.

Regarding the pay audits that are in place where a tribunal has found that companies have been found not to have paid men and women correctly, there is redress. The order that was passed in Parliament provides for a £5,000 fine to be imposed for failure to produce an audit, and the audit must be published. The Equality and Human Rights Commission is in a position to monitor these cases and therefore it can pursue an employer further if it suspects that it has not complied properly with what is required of them.

On the particular issue about the exemption if the disadvantages of pay audits would outweigh the advantages, I understand the concern that the hon. Lady raised. Perhaps, however, I can provide some reassurance about the intention behind it. It was primarily put in to avoid the risk that would arise if an employer was close to insolvency, and was told that it had to undertake an audit, the cost of which would tip it into receivership and therefore end up jeopardising the jobs of employees. So it was there for very specific circumstances and not for general circumstances. I hope that she agrees that in the kind of specific circumstance I have just described, the overriding responsibility is to try to safeguard jobs in a business that could still be rescued and that could continue as a going concern. There may be some limited circumstances where that would be the case, but the exemption was certainly not envisaged as a wide exemption.

Pay transparency is hugely important. The hon. Member for Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock (Sandra Osborne) raised it, as did others. As for section 78 of the Equality Act 2010, I will put something straight about its chronology, because I fear that history is being slightly rewritten in this debate. In the debates in 2010 during the passage of the Act, it was my right hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Lynne Featherstone) who made the case for pay transparency. The Labour Government at the time were ultimately forced to take a power in the Act to be able to introduce that. However, the Labour Government at the time said very clearly that they wanted to adopt the voluntary approach first; in fact, they gave an undertaking that they would do so for at least three years before bringing anything else forward. In negotiations within government subsequently, that made it much harder to win an argument to go for pay transparency at an earlier stage. I want that to be clearly on the record and I am absolutely delighted that we are bringing forward the proposal to activate section 78 of the Act, because it is a vital tool to shine a light on the problem.

One reason why some people have not liked that idea is that it will make quite uncomfortable reading for some organisations. That is a very good thing, because they should be uncomfortable about a pay gap, and all credit to the five companies that have gone forward and already published information about their pay gaps. However, when I spoke to some of the people who argued for that action within those organisations, they told me how difficult it was to get it through their own legal departments because they were so worried about the outcome.

One important thing to bear in mind is that a difference in pay does not automatically mean that an employer is discriminating, because there are a range of reasons why that difference could exist. Nevertheless, the point is that having that transparency means that questions can be asked, and that if there are particular reasons why there is a difference in pay they can be set out by the employer. It also means that the employer has to ask questions of itself, so that it can provide answers to those questions, whether to employees, to the media or to customers who may be interested. That consciousness about what is going on is hugely important.

Think, Act, Report is the Government’s initiative, and 2.5 million employees are covered by the 270 companies that have signed up to it. It is worth putting on the record that while it has not delivered significant pay transparency, about half the companies who have signed up are conducting pay audits, and so on; they were just not publishing those audits. Also, the initiative was very much designed to be about things wider than pay. Pay is a hugely important issue, but the initiative is also about recruitment of women, retention and promotion within the workplace—all those different strands of gender equality. While legislation has been needed to force the issue of pay transparency, none the less the initiative is valuable, because companies can share best practice and learn from one another about how to promote gender equality.

All those other elements are important if we are going to solve the issue about the executive pipeline—how we get women into more senior roles and how we address these different issues. Organisations may have problems at the recruitment stage. For some sectors and some companies, that is exactly where their problem lies; their intake of new staff out of education is not equal. However, other companies have an entirely different set of issues. They may have a 50:50 gender divide of their intake, but they suddenly lose lots of women part way through their careers. Last night, I was at the everywoman in Technology awards, where a scary statistic that was given was that 41% of the women who go into work in technology leave after 10 years. So, not enough women are going into that industry—only about 15% of jobs in technology are held by women—and there is also a real problem in retaining women. We need to look at all those different elements of gender equality.

Other issues have been raised today. The hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Dr Whiteford) rightly identified the cost of child care as a key issue. This Government have taken steps to help to address that issue, which I am very proud of. In particular, we have extended free early years education to 15 hours a week for three and four-year-olds, and indeed to 260,000 of the most disadvantaged two-year-olds, which is 40% of two-year-olds. That is really positive, although I hope we can go further in future; that is certainly what I want to see. I also hope that the Scottish Government can be encouraged to follow suit, because their extension of free early years education to two-year-olds currently reaches only 15% of two-year-olds, so there is a more lot more that we can do on both sides of the border.

International Women’s Day

Emily Thornberry Excerpts

Thursday 5th March 2015 Commons Chamber

[Maria Miller]

I know that we have crèche facilities, although I am not sure that my 12-year-old would be too excited about going there. The hon. Gentleman raises an important point, which is that at the beginning of the next Parliament, when we start to think about the working hours of this place—I know that there are many different competing demands, with people living in various parts of the country—we have to ask ourselves the questions. If, as the Conservatives will, we have many young women coming into Parliament who may have not yet started their families, and if we are to encourage them to stay here for as long as possible, we have to address the sort of issue he is talking about. I want to encourage more women who have families into Parliament. At the moment, 40% of women MPs do not have children and that is not representative of our population as a whole. In addition, women tend to have shorter parliamentary careers than their male counterparts and tend to have older children, too, so there are some forces at play that he is right to pick up on.

[Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab)]

The right hon. Lady is making an interesting speech. I wonder whether she shares my experience, which is that at surgeries or even when knocking on doors it tends to be the women who come forward to discuss things. I have had surgeries where the man has been brought along but does not open his mouth and the woman speaks on his behalf. I wonder whether it is a shared experience among women MPs that the level of engagement by women is very high indeed.

[Maria Miller]

The hon. Lady is making an important point. I wish to pay tribute to my local Basingstoke and Deane borough council, particularly its Conservative group, because more than a third of our councillors are women and that is well in excess of any other party. I think there is something else at play in what she says; perhaps as she and I are women MPs, women feel more empowered to take a more assertive position with us because they see women in their community taking a role that they can follow.

I believe that each party is doing good work to encourage more women to stand. I pay particular tribute to the work of Women2Win for my party, under the careful guidance of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and the noble Baroness Jenkin in the other place, and to my hon. Friend the Member for Truro and Falmouth (Sarah Newton)—an extraordinarily dedicated group of colleagues, who have ensured that an extraordinary group of talented women are set to join us on these green Benches in May. More than a third of our candidates in winnable seats are women. I pay particular tribute to Suella Fernandes, who was selected for Fareham, in my home county of Hampshire, just a few weeks ago. With all her experience, I know that she will be an excellent addition to this place.

My right hon. and hon. Friends here today, many of whom have been MPs for longer than me, have noted many things about this place, but one thing that I was concerned about when I came here was the lack of visibility of the contribution made by the women who had already been in Parliament before me. Since that point, we have seen some progress, but we need to continue under your careful guidance, Mr Speaker, to make progress on that. We have seen the unveiling of the statue of Margaret Thatcher in Members’ Lobby and just this week we have seen an inspiring exhibition of photography and portraiture, which has really started to crystallise the contribution of the extraordinary women we have already seen in this place.

I know that you are one of our great supporters, Mr Speaker, but let us make sure, perhaps as a testament to this international women’s day, not only that we have an exhibition of women’s portraiture and photography in Portcullis House, but that those images creep their way down the corridors to the Palace of Westminster itself and on to the walls of our Committee Rooms, so that the next time I sit on a Delegated Legislation Committee, I do not have to endure two or three hours of simply looking at previous male colleagues on our walls. I think that is perhaps what would be expected, all these years on from the first woman having sat in the House of Commons.

I will close there, because I know that many hon. and right hon. Friends want to contribute to this debate. I look forward to an excellent discussion of the issues that really matter to women in Britain today.

--- Later in debate ---

[Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab)]

May I begin by saying that a statue of Emily Wilding Davison would be at the top of my list? She was not a parliamentarian, but she was certainly someone who made a huge impact in this place, not least by breaking into the House on a number of occasions, locking herself in and making a complete menace of herself, furthering the place of women hugely. The very fact that she was not a parliamentarian should not continue to exclude her from recognition in this place. You know my very strong views on this issue, Mr Speaker, and as the first and only Emily ever to be elected to this place I will continue to press for that.

I congratulate the right hon. Members for Basingstoke (Maria Miller) and for Meriden (Mrs Spelman) and the hon. Member for Erewash (Jessica Lee) on their work in securing today’s debate. International women’s day has a distinguished history. The first formal observance of a women’s day was in the United States in 1909, to mark the first anniversary of the women garment workers’ strike in New York in 1908, when 15,000 women went on strike to demand their economic and political rights. It is right in many ways that international women’s day is founded in the movement for more justice in the workplace.

I have some young girls coming into Parliament today from the Elizabeth Garrett Anderson school, which is based in my constituency. Elizabeth Garrett Anderson was a distinguished woman who fought her way into becoming a medical doctor despite the rules and managed to slip through some loopholes, which the medical profession then closed after her, so that she was alone as a woman doctor for many years. She established a women’s hospital in my area, was the first woman mayor in the country and her sister was Millicent Fawcett—quite a history, and these are quite some girls I will be seeing. They are 11 and 12-year-olds. As a woman in my mid-50s, it is difficult for me to give them advice. They have had advice from many people, including from Michelle Obama who visited. I do not think that my advice will rival that of the President’s wife.

When speaking to girls who are just beginning their lives and looking forward to womanhood, one has to be realistic about the difficulties that they will face. The truth is that no matter what decision they make, they will feel that it is the wrong one. If they remain at home, they will feel that they have not been ambitious enough. If they go to work, they will feel that they have let their families down. If they try to work part-time, they will not do sufficiently well professionally and their children will still resent the time that they are out. They will find that, even if they are at home looking after their children, the demands of the older generation will be put on them. It does not matter which way we turn, we are always wrong. Women’s liberation was not supposed to look like this.

We have more that we should do, that we must do and that we can do, but fundamentally, as long as women continue to do two thirds of the unpaid work—work at home is important—we will not get equality. The younger generation of men have changed their attitudes in many ways. It is good to see that they are prepared to change nappies, and that they are prepared to be involved in child care.

[Mr David Hamilton (Midlothian) (Lab)]

I used to do that.

[Emily Thornberry]

I understand that some people from an older generation who are sitting in the Chamber used to change nappies, but the question is: do they clean the loo?

[Mr Hamilton]

Yep.

[Emily Thornberry]

Do they do the ironing?

[Mr Hamilton]

Yep.

[Emily Thornberry]

Do they do the hoovering?

[Mr Hamilton]

No.

[Emily Thornberry]

Do they sort out the shopping? If there is no breakfast cereal, is it my hon. Friend or his partner who ensures that there is breakfast cereal on the table the next morning? The reality is that many of us have partners who are enlightened and wonderful and we love them greatly, but in the end they believe that they are helping us. Why are they helping us? Why are we not helping them? Until we begin to re-establish the relationship between men and women and unpaid work, we will not get far, because that is the biggest problem we have.

In the meantime, while we are waiting for the halcyon day when men clean the loo, we need to be working much harder at ensuring that we have proper flexible working. Some changes made by the Conservatives have been positive, but there have been restrictions in what they have introduced, which have been counter-productive. It is certainly to the benefit of all of us that people, no matter what their circumstances, can apply for flexible working and that that request is taken seriously. The difficulty is that the employer can be completely within their rights to insist that they will take three months to consider it. If someone’s mum has fallen down and has gone into hospital and they need to visit her, see that she is okay, help her out of hospital afterwards, and ensure that she is back in the community and properly supported, and their employer is taking three months to decide whether they can work flexibly, what do they do? They are likely to take demotion, leave, or work part-time. It is not a feasible system for the real lives that real people live today. We should be looking further at flexible working. It is to be greatly applauded that we encourage men and women—men particularly—to take time off when children are born, but the needs of children continue throughout their teenage years and, in my experience, into early adult life. The continuing caring responsibilities that people have for an older generation remain and should be shared by men. We have a long way to go in relation to that. I put that down as my first marker.

[Jeremy Lefroy]

Does the hon. Lady agree that the long-hours culture in this country is counter-productive for everybody? It is particularly so for women, because if they want to get into a profession and are expected to work all hours, as indeed are men, that puts them off. This place is not an exception.

[Emily Thornberry]

I could not agree more with the hon. Gentleman. We have got ourselves into an odd place in which it is accepted that women have to limit the hours they work—that full time may mean just full time and not all the hours of overtime. In many workplaces, if a man wants to be able to get home at six o’clock to see the children there is in some ways more prejudice against him than there might be against a woman, as it would be accepted that she would need to get home. It would be to the benefit and liberation of us all if we looked again at our equal and shared responsibility for unpaid and paid work and allowed people to make choices that are appropriate for them and not based simply on gender. It happens too often and it continues to happen.

My stepmother was a great feminist in the 1970s who translated “The Little Red Schoolbook”, which was a great call to arms at that time. I remember her saying that she was doing that work not for herself—she did not expect it to work for her—but for me. I continue to work, not necessarily for me but for the girls at Elizabeth Garrett Anderson and for my daughters. We go down the generations, but although things improve we still have such a long way to go. We must not be complacent.

There is an area in which there is an element of complacency, with the greatest respect to the right hon. Member for Basingstoke, and that is equal pay. Work still needs to be done. The Equal Pay Act 1970, passed some 45 years ago, has run into the sand and we have a number of difficulties with it. First, it was based on the idea of individual women taking out individual complaints about their individual circumstances. They cannot be representative of a class of women or of an entire employment establishment; they do it on their own behalf. They can of course be bought off and there can be a gagging clause in any agreement that is made instead of their going to court, so there is therefore no end to it.

Increasing numbers of cases have taken years and years. The idea of the Dagenham work force going along to a tribunal, representing themselves and it not taking very long is long gone. It can take five years for the preliminary issue in the case to be decided. This process has become counter-productive. As we have established our law on the basis of a form of contract law, the European Court of Justice has said that women should not just get two years’ compensation but six years’ compensation for not being paid equally with men. That has had a chilling effect on employers, who will fight every single case.

In increasing numbers of cases, trade unions and employers come to a negotiated deal on equal pay between men and women only for the trade unions to be sued. We are getting mired in difficulties, but the gender pay gap remains stubbornly at about 10% for women on full pay and at 17% for women who work part time. We should not turn our backs on that.

[Maria Miller]

I reassure the hon. Lady that in no way should she sense any complacency from me on that issue. I was simply pointing out that disaggregating the data uncovers a slightly different issue. I recognise the problems with equal pay and other pay complaints that she has cited, but if we disaggregate the data we can see that the challenge for women over 40 is not focused on enough.

[Emily Thornberry]

There are other problems with the Equal Pay Act. The fact that there are fees has put women off taking cases; there has been a decline of 70% or 80% in the number of women taking cases on equal pay.

I have talked about settlements and about the need for six years’ compensation and its chilling effect, but in addition the Equal Pay Act was based on another way of working in another world. It does not comprehend outsourcing, agency working, bogus self-employment and all the things that have, in my view, often been used to circumvent equal pay. We need a new pay Act that would ensure that such difficulties are directly addressed.

All sorts of increasingly bizarre loopholes have developed in the law. For example, if a woman is replaced by a man and the man gets paid more, it would seem that she is not allowed to compare him with herself and to compare his level of pay to show that she has been discriminated against. In my view, that is nonsense. If a man is paid more than a woman it is a defence for the employer to say that that is not discrimination because it is owing to some other material factor—historical or mistaken. Obviously, that is also nonsense. There is even an argument, which has been upheld in some court cases although not all, that if a woman compares herself with a man who is employed by the same employer but works in a different building, it is not a fair comparison. That is obviously another piece of nonsense that needs to be swept away in a new equal pay Act.

The fundamental problem with the Equal Pay Act is that it is based on individual women taking complaints about their individual circumstances. We should accept, in clause 1 of a new Bill, that it is the responsibility of all of us to ensure that there is equal pay between the genders, so we need to work together to do something about it. A new Act should have a code of practice with some legal standing attached to it so that employers know that they will not be sued so long as the agreements negotiated with the trade unions are made within the code. Employers could volunteer to have proper pay audits, job evaluations and skills audits. If they out sourced that to recognised experts and acted on the basis of their recommendations, that would be a complete defence against any equal pay claim.

[Mary Macleod]

Does the hon. Lady agree that some of the “Think, Act, Report” work, in which the Government have pushed organisations to be transparent on diversity issues, for example by revealing the number of employees at each level within the organisation and the gender pay gap, is the first step to making life fairer within a business?

[Emily Thornberry]

Section 78 of the Equality Act 2010 was introduced by the previous Government and has not been implemented by the current Government, which is a great shame. Section 78 orders all businesses with more than 250 employees to have a proper pay audit. The devil is in the detail, and it could well be a modest change, even if it was implemented. The requirement to make available proper pay information so that pay can be compared across different stratums of equivalent work is an important call to arms to which the Labour party has committed itself as a first step, but a new equal pay Act would give substance to that.

I was talking earlier about the idea of collective responsibility and of businesses volunteering to have a proper root-and-branch look at how they pay people. If the agreements reached are a complete defence so that they are not scared about changing the way in which they pay men and women or about paying six years’ compensation, we may well find that more businesses come forward. If we have a code of practice under which the trade unions can negotiate equality between the sexes and eradicate the gender pay gap, we can all move together towards the sort of world that we want, in which there is not discrimination between men and women.

We need to look again at the powers of employment tribunals and the way in which they act. In serious and complicated cases, senior judges—High Court judges or whoever—should be brought in to make sure that the cases get through the system quickly and efficiently and there is no time wasting. We should bring back the questionnaire. Why the Government got rid of it, I do not understand. It should be two pages that a woman can send to her employer and say, “Could you give me information on this?” Let us keep it short and punchy, but let us enable women to get some information so that they know whether they have a case.

Perhaps the most important thing is to treat women not as individuals taking individual cases but as whistleblowers. If they go before an employment tribunal and explain that in the culture of a company or organisation they and their sisters are being discriminated against, the tribunal should have the power to step in and order a proper pay audit and skills evaluation. Then there should be a plan. I appreciate that the Government have introduced the power for tribunals to order an audit if a case is lost, but the law is silent on implementation. So let us implement it. Let us not just have a little bit of window-dressing. Let us make sure that there is a proper study of the cultures within organisations where there has been discrimination, and let us make sure that there is a plan for change. I respectfully suggest that that plan for change should be overseen by the Equality and Human Rights Commission and that the commission should make sure that the plan is implemented. Failure to implement it should be treated as a form of contempt of court. The organisation can then be brought back and a penalty imposed.

We need new legislation which is fit for the 21st century, which is based not on individuals, but on collective responsibility, which in the end ought to be the responsibility of our whole society. This seems to me the sort of thing that we could do. There could be particular powers over a short period of five years—for example, compensation of just two years instead of six years for a period of five years; no tribunal fees for a period of five years; a business not needing to pay compensation for five years if it conducts a root-and-branch audit of the way in which it pays people. Such steps could push matters forward, and at long last we could address at least that part of what holds women back. Unless we do something about it, it may hold back the girls from Elizabeth Garrett Anderson. We will deal with flexible working and unpaid work at another stage. Let us take one step at a time. That is what I propose for a new equal pay Act.

--- Later in debate ---

[Fiona Mactaggart]

Yes, I do—that is absolutely horrifying—and I am really worried that the reduction in quality refuge provision for women who are at risk means that more women will be murdered.

As I have said, we should not just shift our culture and understanding, but change things. I invite every Member to vote on Tuesday week for a real change for a very vulnerable group of women: domestic workers who are grossly exploited by their employers. The other place has tabled an amendment to the Modern Slavery Bill and we have an opportunity to support it when it comes back to this House. I am absolutely certain that the Government have no intention of doing that, but following this debate we could decide that our commitment to those women—bold, brave women who have their passport taken away and are expected to sleep on the kitchen floor and, in some cases, to work for 24 hours for no money—is more important than our commitment to our party Whip. If we did that, we would demonstrate that this debate expresses solidarity among women—because, overwhelmingly, domestic workers are women and they are enslaved here in Britain—that we will not put up with it and that we will be prepared to stick out our sharp elbows and make a difference for that group of women.

As I have said, the third role of Back-Bench debates is to advance policy. Over the past few years I have been banging on about older women—a category that I never particularly expected to get into, but it crept up on me and bit me on the bum. It is a real issue that the peak earning point for men comes when they are in their 50s, while the peak earning point for women comes when they are about 40. The narrowing of the pay gap is being achieved not by Government policy, but by history, because, although it has narrowed for younger women, it is enormously wider for older women.

It is great for Government Members to say, as the right hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs Gillan) has, “Look at all these people we’ve taken out of tax,” but if we look at women’s income, we will see that the majority of them have not benefited from that. The average pay of women entrepreneurs—lone, self-employed women—is £9,600, according to the Office for National Statistics. That group of women has not benefited one jot from the increase in personal allowance.

[Emily Thornberry]

Is it not also right that, if the minimum wage was raised to a living wage of £7.65 outside London and £8.80 in London, 1 million more women than men would benefit from it?

[Fiona Mactaggart]

Absolutely—my hon. Friend is quite right.

After the election of 101 Labour women in 1997, I did a piece of work about how much difference was made by having a lot of women in Parliament. One of the most obvious differences was a shift from the wallet to the purse. Fiscal decisions made by that Government hugely increased the income of women and, to a lesser extent, benefited men. The problem is that precisely the opposite has happened under the present Government. I am really sad about that. I do not believe that that was intended by Government women and I want them to be allies in trying to remedy the problem.

I want to talk specifically about older women and work, because there is a real crisis about keeping women in work. One statistic that is burnt on my brain is the fact that two thirds of the people who work beyond retirement age are women. Two thirds of those women earn entry-level wages, while two thirds of the men, who are the other third of people who work beyond retirement age, are on top-level wages. The story is that the guys keep going because they are enjoying themselves—they have chauffeurs, and there are all the nice things about being on the board—but women continue to work because their families need the money.

In public services, we do not have an intelligent way of keeping women in touch with the workplace. I praise the Government for appointing Dr Ros Altmann to look at the needs of older workers. I am very glad that she is about to produce a report that, for example, will look at women and the menopause. From talking to organisations such as the Royal College of Nursing and the National Union of Teachers, I know that the people for whom they are taking employment cases are women in their 50s and 60s who have been managed or pressed out of their careers. As one woman in my constituency said, “What happens is that you are always first in the queue for redundancy and last in the queue for a new job.” It is very striking that our jobcentres do not make enough of a difference for such women. The Work programme has found sustained employment for just over 10% of the women over 50 referred to it, which is much lower than the level for men of the same age group and lower than the level for every other group. We do not have an intelligent strategy to help to keep older women in the work force.

What is worse is that one reason why older women come out of the work force is that we are the default carers, as other Members have said. We not only make sure that there is breakfast cereal on the table, but we look after the children, the grandchildren, the elderly relatives and our husbands when they have a sudden illness. Yet we do not have proper policies to ensure that a women who suddenly has to do unexpected caring can have a period of adjustment in her employment to work out whether the person she is caring for is going to die, which means that she could go back to work at that point, or whether they will have long-term caring needs. We do not have a policy on adjustment leave in the UK—some individual employers do, but the majority do not—and it seems to me a no-brainer that the Government should legislate to provide for such leave.

The Government should also legislate to enable women who take time out to stay in touch with the workplace. When they have to leave to look after someone, they lose contact with the workplace and cannot find help to get back into it. In a recent e-mail to me, Ms Altmann wrote:

“I would like to see special programmes introduced to help women carers (and male carers…) back into the workplace after they have taken time out, or more flexible working to allow them to combine work with caring.”

The Government may have to incentivise employers to do that, but it is a no-brainer: if we want to use all the talent that exists in our community, we need to let women make such adjustments.

The problem with policies made when women are not in the room is that women are regarded as “not men”—as though their lives were the same as men’s lives when actually they just are not. For example, women’s prisons are very ineffectual at helping women to rehabilitate themselves. Why? Because they think that work is the best form of rehabilitation. That is absolutely true for men, but the best form of rehabilitation to prevent women from reoffending is being able to look after their children. If a woman is given the chance to be reunited with her kids and to look after them, she is enormously less likely to offend. Yet despite all the insights of the Corston report, we do not have a national programme to ensure that that happens for every woman, which is just sad.

That is an outcome of not ensuring that women can think through every bit of policy. In Back-Bench debates, we can criticise policy and say that we have better ideas, but we need to be on the Cabinet Committees and in on every decision. If we were, instead of women being treated as men who menstruate, we could treat them in accordance with the reality of their lives, and we could devise policies to ensure that we employ women’s talents in the work force, use women’s ability to care for our families and have a society in which women play the role of which they are absolutely capable, but which they cannot currently play.

Child Care (London)

Emily Thornberry Excerpts

Wednesday 19th March 2014 Westminster Hall

[Nick de Bois]

I think the hon. Lady will find that we are learning those lessons. I am dealing with that point: my two themes are the supply side and fiscal interventions. However, I will concede that the supply-side challenge in London is particularly difficult. I will also bring to the Minister’s attention some weaknesses in the fiscal interventions that I am experiencing in my constituency now.

It is a current problem. In the interests of fairness, Opposition Members would recognise that the number of child minders halved under their Government, reducing choice and flexibility for parents. There were 98,000 child minders in 1997 and the number fell to 58,000 in 2010. Westminster Hall is generally a constructive environment for debates, but my main point is that this is not a new problem. Costs have been rising above inflation, consistently, since 2003, and since 2009 they have been rising above wages.

[Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab)]

As the hon. Gentleman is comparing Labour’s policies with the current Government’s, can he say whether any child care centres in his constituency have closed since this Government came in?

[Nick de Bois]

I will, as I said, come on to the issues that we are facing in my constituency. However, the work force, on the supply side, is equally as important as the facilities. If the numbers halve, the problem of servicing good quality child care provision will be increased.

I suspect that we would also agree that the quality of the work force is important. That is unquestionable. We do not want to create places just to dump a child in, so that people can go off and have some free hours; no one is into that. We need good quality care. I am sure that the Government’s aims and attentions in this regard would draw cross-party support, because Opposition Members would have said, and tried to do, the same.

We can do things to open up the supply side. I do not generally like to intervene in markets, but we should try to work up constructive ways for the Government to apply leverage to encourage schools to admit younger children. We have to deregulate the process of allowing schools to admit younger children. We made it easier for schools to teach children under three by removing requirements to register separately with Ofsted, a move that was well intentioned, but we do not want to make it difficult. So often, by liberating certain elements of the market, we can free it up and increase the supply side.

On helping schools to offer affordable after school and holiday care, I want primary schools to be open for more hours each day—so does the hon. Member for Lewisham East—and for more weeks a year, to better match the working family’s time table. That can be done locally and I am all for empowering people locally to take those decisions—and, boy, are they needed in my constituency.

We should also be helping good nurseries expand, not stopping them. I would be interested to know whether the Minister is working with councils to explore ways that we can expand the supply side in the boroughs, particularly those that are challenged.

--- Later in debate ---

[Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab)]

All politicians hope we learn from our constituents, and align our priorities with those of the people we listen to and learn from. However, we also come here as people with our own experiences of life. If I am truly honest with myself, probably what provoked my interest in politics and has always been a guiding light is the fact that, from the age of seven, I was brought up by a single parent. For many years, she found it impossible to work, because I was the oldest of three, my youngest brother being three, and my middle brother five. She tried to find child care, but our nan was not around the corner, and she could not find anywhere for us to be looked after to make it possible to work. I remember sitting in a pub back room while she worked in a bar while I was still at primary school. For me, it has always been a matter of huge importance that politicians understand that, for women to be able to play a full role in society and for children to be given a proper chance in the world, politicians must prioritise child care.

I am proud that the previous Labour Government did the amount of work they did to help women, including the fact that we could get nursery education free, as an entitlement, for pretty much the first time. That was something that my grandmother campaigned for and my mother needed. I was pleased to be a Back-Bench member of the party in government that was providing it. However, let us be honest: that was not enough. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Westminster North (Ms Buck) that any penny spent on child care is completely welcome, so we welcome the assistance that the Government announced yesterday. We wonder how effective it can be, whether it could be more effective if used differently, and whether it completely fulfils the priorities we would set. Nevertheless, given that conditions for working parents are almost desert-like, any additional assistance must be welcomed.

The difficulty in London, of course, and the reason the debate is important for Londoners in the context of cost of living, is the fact that child care in London is so expensive. It is 25% higher than in the rest of the country. We live in societies where our nans are not around the corner, and we do not have the extended support that other communities do. People who have moved to London tend to have families elsewhere. People move around. We do not have support networks and rely on professional support.

I am now a privileged woman, but I struggled with child care when I was at the Bar. I give advice to young women and tell them that if they want to go into the world and have a job, and if they want to have children, as so many women do, they must be realistic: unless things fundamentally change, their career prospects will be compromised by not finding sufficient child care. That affects everyone, but statistics for my constituency show, I believe, that 40% of children are under the poverty line. My constituency also has the highest proportion of single parents. Time and again people come to see me and say they cannot afford to go to work because they cannot afford the child care. The statistics bear that out. If a constituent of mine were to get a full-time, minimum-wage job at Kentucky Fried Chicken—I have a constituent with two children in such a position—she would earn £210 a week. If she did not have the assistance of a friend to look after her child and had to send them to the most heavily subsidised nursery place for under-twos in Islington, she would be spending £167.28 of her £210 a week salary on child care. If she was lucky enough to receive a London living wage, she would be earning £293 a week. How on earth can she send her child to full-time child care under such circumstances? There are further problems when children reach school age, such as before and after-school care and care during the holidays. What happens if the child gets ill? The problems continue.

Politicians still have a long way to go in terms of understanding, prioritising and putting our money where our mouth is. We talk about hard-working families, but we do not consider enough how families can work hard and still best look after their children’s interests. It is not right that wages have been frozen and that in-work benefits and tax credits have gone up by only 1% when nursery school costs increased by 11% in 2012. Life is being made harder and harder. It is not right that the London child care strategy, which developed affordable and flexible child care, was closed when Boris Johnson was elected. It is right that we have extended schools and that we increase the number of free hours of child care for three and four-year-olds, but I agree with those who have asked, “What about the 13-year-olds?” A 13-year-old should not have to go home to an empty house and make their own supper and look after their younger siblings. We need to think again about our political priorities, and I hope that Labour will more than match any promise that any Conservative Government ever make.

Oral Answers to Questions

Emily Thornberry Excerpts

Thursday 24th October 2013 Commons Chamber

[Vince Cable]

It is fair to say that our manufacturing companies have a great deal more influence and we agree with them. I would add one point: it is not just about manufacturing. A recent survey by CityUK suggested that 60% of banks in London are here because we are part of the single market.

[Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab)]

11. What plans he has to publish the Government’s planned register of companies’ beneficial ownership.

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

The UK has committed to implement a central registry of company beneficial ownership information, accessible to law enforcement and tax authorities. We recognise the potential benefits of making the information available publicly and have consulted on that. That consultation closed in September and we are now analysing the responses. We will issue a Government response in due course.

[Emily Thornberry]

The Prime Minister has expressed his personal support for a public register and is supported in that by four former Labour Home Secretaries, the British Bankers Association and anti-corruption non-governmental organisations, but, as my mum used to say, fine words butter no parsnips. Will he take the opportunity of the open government partnership summit, which I understand will happen later this month, to confirm that the Government will have an open and public register of beneficial ownership of companies?

[Jo Swinson]

The hon. Lady is right to mention that the Prime Minister has shown a great deal of leadership on that, not least at the G8 summit in June, where he also said that he has a huge amount of sympathy with the idea of making that information fully public. I am sure she will appreciate that we are analysing around 300 responses to the consultation. I am certain that more information will be forthcoming to the House and beyond as we set out what we plan to do to introduce a register of beneficial ownership, which we have committed to do within this Parliament.

A-level Reform

Emily Thornberry Excerpts

Wednesday 23rd January 2013 Commons Chamber

[Elizabeth Truss]

By linking A-levels more closely to universities, their entrance requirements and the skills and knowledge they possess, we will see a better control on standards.

[Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab)]

Many parents will have got the message that the Secretary of State is largely against assessments and in favour of exams. They may therefore be a little confused about the abolition of AS-levels, and will have to get over that. I was interested to note that in her statement, the Minister accepted that it was important for students to learn more, including about extended writing and research skills, which she saw as important for A-levels. Does the Minister expect there to be more assessments during those two years?

[Elizabeth Truss]

No, I do not expect that. We are talking about the extended project qualification, going alongside A-levels, but the point about A-levels is that there will be a terminal exam.

Higher and Further Education

Emily Thornberry Excerpts

Tuesday 11th September 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Willetts]

No. I think that we have succeeded in getting across to prospective students the important message that they do not have to pay up front to go to university. I hope that all Members from all parts of the House, regardless of their views on the fees, will agree that we should all communicate the message that no student pays up front and that they pay back only as graduates. I pay tribute to the enormous efforts of my right hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Simon Hughes) in that regard.

[Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab)]

I wonder whether the right hon. Gentleman will help me communicate a message to one of my constituents, who is here legally as an overseas student. He is unable to go into the third year at London Metropolitan university because, for some reason, he is no longer allowed to go there. He wishes to pay the fees and wants to complete his degree. Will the right hon. Gentleman help me convey to him why his education has been so abruptly and unfairly stopped?

[Mr Willetts]

Several points have been made about London Met, so let me explain the latest position to the House. I fully understand that there are genuine overseas students who are here legitimately and who need as much assurance as we can offer them about their ability to pursue their studies. That is why we set up a taskforce on the day that the UK Border Agency took its operational decision. The taskforce has met several times. It is led by the head of the Higher Education Funding Council for England and other bodies are involved. Next Monday, as a result of the efforts of the task force, there will be a mini clearing procedure. We are collecting offers from universities around London and elsewhere of places on particular courses, which will be available to overseas students at London Met. I will be happy to keep the House updated, in whatever way is suitable, as the taskforce makes progress in ensuring a fair deal for overseas students.