Oral Answers to Questions

Ian Murray Excerpts

Thursday 26th March 2015 Commons Chamber

[Greg Clark]

One principle behind our reforms in devolving powers is that every part of the country is different, and it is that difference that plays to the strengths of those reforms. Throughout this Parliament, my hon. Friend has been a formidable champion of the science sector in Cheshire and across the north-west. It is doing very well and creating jobs. I thank him for his efforts during this Parliament.

[Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab)]

Here comes a tenuous link. The strength of the EU and the euro is critical not just for the economic success of the UK, but for regional growth. However, major concerns are rightly being raised about the effect that the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership negotiations will have on our national health service and public services. Will the Minister and his business team use this very last Business, Innovations and Skills questions to rule the NHS out of the TTIP negotiations, or will it be left to a Labour Business Secretary and a Labour Government, as it always is, to save our NHS?

[Greg Clark]

The hon. Gentleman said it himself: this is a tenuous connection. There is no relevance in it at all. But there is relevance in the sense that, as our economy prospers and is the strongest in the EU for job creation, other countries are looking to the success of our long-term economic plan. We advocate it to the world, and when Yorkshire is creating more jobs than France, it pays close study.

Consumer Rights Bill

Ian Murray Excerpts

Monday 9th March 2015 Commons Chamber

[Jo Swinson]

My hon. Friend clearly takes that view. However, I think that two years after the legislation has come into force is not very long at all. It would be very shortly after the review had concluded and the Government had issued their response. Indeed this would already have pre-empted the outcome of the review by saying it should be sunsetted, because if the review finds that the new provisions are working well, it will be required to take action to make that continue. The review might recommend removal of the provisions, but in that scenario we would also want the benefit of the advice on the best timing in which to do so, rather than some arbitrary date being imposed. However, what I would say to reassure my hon. Friend is that if such action was required as a result of the review, the Government could use primary legislation to repeal chapter 3B without needing a sunset clause.

Finally on amendment 12Q, we should take a step back and look at how it could impact on the market. I am sure I do not need to remind this House of the disruption caused by changing the law too often. Changes and reforms are necessary and important, but there are costs to business in implementing a new regime, and to have it repealed wholesale after two years would incur significant costs.

We must also consider the major events we host in this country. Amendment 12Q would mean that fans of some such events benefit from the new regime, but others do not. For example, fans buying and selling tickets for events such as the world athletics championship in 2017, possibly the biggest athletics event we will have hosted since the Olympics, would lose out. That would not be fair on those fans.

In conclusion, we believe the provisions agreed in the other place create a proportionate, light-touch regime to protect consumers and the secondary market. I encourage Members to support them and allow this important Bill to move to Royal Assent.

[Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab)]

I am delighted that this issue has now come back to this place, as we have always believed that the Consumer Rights Bill gives an opportunity to provide real protection against rip-off practices, particularly in the secondary ticketing market.

We all know that healthy, fair and competitive markets are vital to building an economy that works for both consumers and businesses. We also know that well-informed consumers make for better customers and better-informed citizens get better outcomes in dealing with both the public and private sector. Ticket touting is a classic example of a market where a group of traders are colluding to restrict supply and so push up prices, ripping off consumers by overcharging them and as a result shattering the dreams of many fans. We have argued this throughout the passage of the Bill and, while we are pleased that Ministers are now in agreement, they have been dragged here kicking and screaming to make these changes.

I was delighted that in the last sentence of her speech the Minister agreed with the Lords amendments, but it has taken her three years to do so. That sums up this Administration. They rail against good ideas from Opposition Members, charities, non-governmental organisations, trade bodies, trade unions, the public and others, and then they are eventually embarrassed into having to bring forward the very provisions they have railed against. We have witnessed that with regularity, first on allowing the Groceries Code Adjudicator to fine people, and also on giving tied landlords a better deal with pubcos and better enforcement of the national minimum wage to name just a few, and they even had to be dragged kicking and screaming to do something about zero-hours contracts.

Now we have the secondary ticketing issue, where the Minister and the Government are arguing against their views of just a few weeks ago. On 21 January 2011 the Culture Secretary told Parliament:

“Ticket resellers act like classic entrepreneurs”

and that concerns about touting represented

“the chattering middle classes and champagne socialists”.—[Official Report, 21 January 2011; Vol. 521, c. 1186, 1187.]

That is obviously not the case now.

On Friday 6 February 2015 the Daily Mirror quoted the Culture Secretary as saying unscrupulous websites have every right to hoover up sought-after tickets for football matches and pop concerts and flog them at five or 10 times the asking price. He said:

“There’s nothing wrong with a healthy second market”

and went on to say

“I don't have any problem with it.”

He obviously does now.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mike Weatherley]

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

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

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

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

[Ian Murray]

The hon. Gentleman has put so much effort into ensuring that we got to this point today. Will he, with his experience of the industry, say what he would like the conclusions of the review to look like? What questions should be asked to make sure that the secondary ticketing market works best for both consumers and businesses?

[Mike Weatherley]

I thank the shadow Minister for his intervention. The review must be balanced. Obviously, I am pushing for more regulation, because I feel that the free market has fallen down, but we should consider experiences around the world. There are states in America that have repealed secondary ticketing laws, and we need to look at why. Was it because the legislation was badly drafted? Norway and Denmark have laws under which tickets cannot be sold above face value, but they have never been enacted. Is that because, as someone mentioned, trading standards teams do not have enough teeth to implement such measures? All of that needs to be in the review; that is absolutely essential. There are so many aspects to the review that it will be quite an exciting one.

To summarise, and to misquote E.M. Forster on democracy, two cheers for the amendment, but not quite three. However, I am really pleased that we will enact this law before the end of this Parliament, and before I step down. This is very much a good step forward.

Oral Answers to Questions

Ian Murray Excerpts

Thursday 12th February 2015 Commons Chamber

[Jo Swinson]

There is agreement on both sides about the importance of the universal service obligation, and I do not think there is any evidence that the regulator is failing to fulfil its duty. It looked in detail at the case the Royal Mail put forward last summer and concluded that the market is operating as it should at the moment. It is committed to a further review later this year, and is also looking at the issue of access pricing. These issues are continually under consideration because the USO is so important.

[Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab)]

I am disappointed that you did not tell the House the middle names of this Minister, Mr Speaker, but perhaps we can look forward to that later.

It is nearly 18 months since the botched privatisation of Royal Mail. There are reports almost weekly of its being under pressure from the impact of Amazon’s increased use of its own delivery network, and from rivals which are cherry-picking the most profitable services. As the Minister has just said, Ofcom recently concluded that other firms did not have to match Royal Mail’s costly standards in the delivery of the universal service obligation. Given that Labour warned time and again that privatisation would ultimately threaten the USO, and given that the National Federation of SubPostmasters called it a “reckless gamble”, will the Minister look again at the USO, and give a cast-iron guarantee that it will be secure under this Government?

[Jo Swinson]

This Government have already given that cast-iron guarantee by legislating for it in the Postal Services Act 2011. Parliament has set it very firmly in stone. Unless the hon. Gentleman thinks that any future Labour Government would be minded to change the position, I hope that Members on both sides of the House can feel confident that the universal service obligation is secure.

As I said earlier, Ofcom, the regulator, has significant powers to obtain information from other operators in the market. It monitors operators’ plans regularly, and looks at the information every month. Operators must also inform the regulator of their future plans. That will remain under review, and a formal review will take place later this year. I think that what I have said should reassure the House that the universal service obligation is here to stay.

Oral Answers to Questions

Ian Murray Excerpts

Thursday 8th January 2015 Commons Chamber

[Vince Cable]

I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman does not share the consensus among Opposition Members about the benefits of British membership. I am sure that if he occasionally crosses the border into Luton South and visits the vehicle production institution, he will recognise the EU’s importance to the industry and of its having the European Union negotiate access to bigger markets such as north America, as it currently is.

[Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab)]

In a recent article in The Times, a host of senior Cabinet members, including the Foreign Secretary, the Chief Whip, and even some Ministers in the Secretary of State’s own Department, stated that they would campaign for an “out” vote in any EU referendum. In the same article, another Cabinet member was reported as saying:

“It would be a continual distraction from…work on the economy”.

Given that, as the Secretary of State said, the EU is one of our largest trading partners, what is his view on the impact on UK trade and jobs in the event of, first, an EU referendum, and, secondly, exit from the EU?

Post Office Mediation Scheme

Ian Murray Excerpts

Wednesday 17th December 2014 Westminster Hall

[Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab)]

It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Dorries. I pay tribute to the right hon. Member for North East Hampshire (Mr Arbuthnot) for securing this debate. I cannot believe that this is his first Adjournment debate after 28 years of distinguished service in the House. It is probably better late than never given the content of his speech. I wish him well when he goes on to other things after May.

I am disturbed by what we have heard this afternoon. I have been involved in the matter since the Minister made her statement to the House last year, but we have heard troubling stories about people having their lives turned completely upside down through no fault of their own. I was particularly concerned by the story of my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr Jones), who will be a fantastic new leading Member for the Justice for Subpostmasters Alliance, about his constituent, Tom Brown. He gave 30 years’ service to the Post Office, but he has now lost his home and lives with his son and has been declared bankrupt after losing more than £250,000, which has been described by the Post Office as a lifestyle choice. I hope that Post Office representatives, who will be watching this debate, will reflect on the stories that Members have described today and do something about this.

At the statement last year, I made the point that we welcomed the fact that the Post Office had recognised that there were problems with the Horizon system. At that point, it seemed that the Post Office would do something about it. Since then, however, nothing has been done. Like everyone else, I have in front of me the letter from Sir Anthony Hooper, the chair of the working group, the reverse of which details how the 150 cases have been progressing over the past few months. The information seems incomplete, and it would be useful to hear about the conclusions in the seven cases that have been mediated. Was it found that the Horizon system was incorrect? Was it found that the sub-postmaster lacked training or support? The conclusions and information need to be reflected back, perhaps privately, to the Minister and the working group.

I was struck by the contributions of the hon. Member for North West Leicestershire (Andrew Bridgen) and my hon. Friend the Member for Batley and Spen (Mike Wood), who made the point that the Post Office’s contracts mean that sub-postmasters are completely responsible for any losses incurred. There is no carrot and stick approach in stealing from one’s own business. Instead of robbing Peter to pay Paul, sub-postmasters would be robbing Peter to pay Peter because their contracts mean that they are completely responsible for the losses incurred.

The Second Sight report came up with some preliminary conclusions that are worth reflecting on in the context of today’s debate. It found no evidence of system-wide problems, which causes me a great deal of concern because we continually hear about significant issues, which may point to deeper problems in the system if the professionals cannot find major problems. It found two incidents where defects or bugs in the Horizon software gave rise to losses of some £9,000 in 76 branches. It mentioned individual postmaster experiences when reporting problems and the lack of support and of a user forum. It described a lack of an outreach investigations function within the Post Office to investigate problems. It also mentioned problems with the trading period and the process for transactional corrections and that there was no “suspense account” option, which made it difficult for transactional corrections to be dealt with in a neutral manner.

I am concerned by the language used in this interim report. Conclusions have been made, but we continue to hear about the significant problems experienced by sub-postmasters up and down the country. We must also reflect on the fact that the Post Office was encouraging postmasters to break the law on accounting. Asking someone to allocate accounting to a different period in order to make up losses is creative accountancy.

More than 144 Members have supported the campaign. The right hon. Member for North East Hampshire has written to the Post Office to say that he has no confidence that the Post Office board is committed to finding a fair solution to this particular problem. The Post Office board must reflect on that, but the Minister has a role to play here. I agree with the hon. Member for North Durham that she must get a hold of the situation and find a conclusion to it. The more it goes on, the more we will hear of sub-postmasters ending up in prison or declaring guilt for something that they have not done in order to avoid a custodial sentence. That is not how justice works in this country and it is not how justice should be seen to be working.

I want to pose several questions to the Minister, and I will sit down early to allow her time to respond to the significant questions that have been asked during the debate. First, what is her response to the letter to the Post Office from the right hon. Member for North East Hampshire about the cases that were recommended for mediation by Second Sight? Can she confirm that that is happening? If so, what is the solution?

Secondly, what discussions has the Minister had with the Post Office about cases that have been refused mediation and where the sub-postmaster involved has previously pleaded guilty to allegations of impropriety? When people have been given custodial sentences or criminal records, those cases must be looked at seriously.

Thirdly, will the Minister take urgent action to resolve not only the outstanding cases, which we can see in the letter from the chair of the working group, but the cases described by hon. Members that have arisen since the closing date of the mediation scheme?

Fourthly, will the Minister address the JFSA’s loss of confidence in the Post Office system, as highlighted in the letter from the right hon. Member for North East Hampshire?

Fifthly, what discussions has the Minister had with the Post Office and the prosecution services regarding the prosecution of sub-postmasters? Will she make a statement to the House regarding that?

Finally, do the Government have any further concerns regarding not only the Post Office’s handling of the matter, but the Horizon system?

We must reflect on the horrendous worst-case scenarios that we have heard from hon. Members. I plead with the Minister really to get a hold of the matter, to answer Members’ concerns, to do justice for the many hard-working sub-postmasters up and down the country who feel that they can no longer have confidence that things are being dealt with correctly and to ensure that such issues do not occur again.

UK Company Supply Chains

Ian Murray Excerpts

Tuesday 16th December 2014 Westminster Hall

[Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship in this important debate, Mr Crausby.

I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Wansbeck (Ian Lavery) not only for bringing this issue here for debate, but for visiting Colombia and the North Carolina tobacco fields and for his report, which I would encourage all Members of the House to read to see what he experienced. We should all reflect on the personal, real-life stories he has told us this morning and do everything we can to resolve some of the issues.

I also pay special tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North (Jim Sheridan) for all his work on these issues not only in the UK, where he has stood up for the rights of individual workers, but across the world. It is no exaggeration to say that, without his dedication, the Gangmasters Licensing Authority may never have come into being. The authority has transformed the lives of many in the UK, and I hope it will be a blueprint for transforming many other lives across the world.

The issue is huge: global exploitation in UK companies’ supply chains cannot be tolerated and we should say that clearly. We cannot be serious about tolerating slavery in the United Kingdom if we are prepared to accept the use of slave labour for products or in construction in other parts of the world. We have heard many examples this morning of such forced labour, including blood bricks. The 1,200 people killed in the collapse of the Rana Plaza were supplying clothing to some of our main high street stores, many of which will do quite brisk trade over the festive season as the public do their Christmas shopping with them. We heard, particularly from my hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore (Huw Irranca-Davies), about prawn fishermen held in a lifetime of slavery. We have heard, and I have certainly read, about the human rights issues affecting them, and about bodies torn apart by vessels for fun. The prawns were being sold to many high street stores—Tesco, and even the Co-op. It is not good enough for those companies to say “We didn’t realise it was happening.” Our conclusion today—the whole point of the debate—should be for the Government to say it is unacceptable and that ignorance is no defence, and that we should do something about it. We should put the onus on companies to investigate their supply chains.

We have heard many times about small children being paid pennies a day for sewing sequins on to children’s clothes, and we heard reports from the tobacco fields of North Carolina. I was much struck by the wonderful speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Derby North (Chris Williamson) about serious exploitation in Qatar, in the building of World cup venues. It is the primary sporting event in the world, and those workers are being exploited. How can we possibly tolerate the possibility that in a few years’ time Scottish football fans may celebrate, in the patriotic way of passionate fans, goals scored by a Scottish football team at those venues—when the death toll for building those very terraces could be as high as 4,000? That must be unacceptable, because there is a blueprint for how to carry out such projects properly. The UK Olympics in London was a major construction project—one of the biggest in the world at the time. There was not one death. It can be done, and we should secure legislation to prevent such deaths.

There are various studies showing that the public are highly aware of the issue; 84% of the UK public want legislation and so do the overwhelming majority of companies. The Government have come some way on the question of supply chains, as we shall probably hear from the Minister, with regard to the Modern Slavery Bill; but the Opposition think that they should go an awful lot further. Some of the stories that we have heard today reinforce that.

Most large retailers are implementing policies to tackle the issue, but it is hard to see tangible progress that would enable consumers to make direct comparisons between companies, as my hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore mentioned. We must be able to compare apples with apples rather than pears. That is why we must introduce mandatory standards for reporting, to force companies to adopt standard procedures. We must be able to assess supply chains, because we want to support British businesses that act on the issue, and create a level playing field. It is a pro-business agenda, and the hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan) was right to suggest that. Businesses want to stamp out the practices in question. However, we will not get to the stage where the advantage to business is clear unless there is a level playing field to allow comparisons to be made and businesses that do not take action to be exposed. Many large companies have backed legislation to create a level playing field, and so have the British Retail Consortium and the Ethical Trading Initiative, which was set up with 81 corporate members. Retailers are also acting. Sainsbury’s, Next and even Primark have complained about competitors who have not acted.

A community of NGOs and businesses has coalesced around the Ethical Trading Initiative to recognise that three fundamental things are needed. First, it concluded that there must be more regulation of national and international supply chains to establish the level playing field. Secondly, there should be a partnership with unions and non-governmental organisations; that would be essential to tackling forced labour issues in international supply chains. Thirdly, Governments would need to shoulder their portion of the burden in tackling those issues. I believe that when Governments regulate in such matters, although it is necessary, it is because there has been a significant business failure. I think that businesses have recognised that and that they must do something about it.

UK companies undoubtedly have hugely complex supply chains, as we have heard in the debate. That is particularly true of the fishing matters set out by my hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore. Even best practice in auditing is not foolproof. That is why the approach must be about changing market conditions and creating incentives for the suppliers to be shown to be fair. That would mean suppliers being able to show that they meet International Labour Organisation standards, backed up by kite marking and a proper inspection regime.

I acknowledge, as I think that everyone would, that it is hard for UK companies to implement that approach individually. They say that to us consistently; but collective action could make it the norm. The Bribery Act 2010 has reduced the burden on business by creating consistent standards and an industry to audit them. It is regulation, and the Government will talk about their one in, two out approach to regulation; but the Act has brought in consistent standards, reducing the burden on business and creating a level playing field.

As to the Modern Slavery Bill, the Government have to some extent had to be dragged along kicking and screaming. It took them until Report to introduce relevant provisions, and there was massive criticism of their proposals, questioning whether they are appropriate. My hon. Friend the Member for Wansbeck concluded that the lack of proper, enforceable regulation led to the removal of all humane conditions from the supply chain—something he witnessed on his many visits.

We proposed amendments to the Modern Slavery Bill in Committee. They would have built on proposals from the Joint Committee that dealt with the draft Bill, and would have allowed for legal reporting on the supply chain within the Companies Act 2006, and regulations including four standard reporting elements, with definitive actions for companies. It is not good enough for companies just to report on those issues. They must also show that they have taken action.

The first of the four elements was accountability for tackling modern slavery and forced labour, including policy commitments, resourcing and actions to exercise due diligence. The second was that modern slavery and forced labour risks should be investigated, monitored and audited in the UK and throughout global supply chains. The third was that victims of forced labour and modern slavery should have support, and access to remedy. It is not good enough just to deal with today’s problem. Things that have happened in the past must also be dealt with. The fourth thing on the list was, crucially, that staff and suppliers should be trained and have access to expertise and advice in dealing with the issues. Those are the critical things that we need to think about to get robust and legally enforceable reporting mechanisms.

We welcome the measures that the Government have introduced, as far as they go, but they need to go further. In the other place, Lord Rosser, who tabled some amendments, concluded:

“I can only comment that it is very difficult for civil society to make a judgment if there is not enough information in the statements in the first place.”

He added that there is no legal requirement to produce the relevant statements and that the Bill

“still does not go far enough and will not enable those judgments to be made by society, whether it be consumers, voluntary organisations, the media or others.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 10 December 2014; Vol. 757, c. 1892.]

We can see that proper regulations work. The Gangmasters Licensing Authority works. The groceries code adjudicator is limited but seems to be working. Where there is good regulation, such as the Bribery Act 2010, it can work.

I will be interested to hear whether the Minister will respond to the debate by saying that the Government will present proper, strong, robust regulations. It is clear from what we have heard this morning that morally unjustifiable things are happening in our supply chains. As consumers in the marketplace going shopping we should know clearly where products come from and how the companies look after their employees. If we do not act we will have missed an opportunity. Not only that, but the United Kingdom will be ducking its responsibilities on the international stage to do something about what is happening.

Oral Answers to Questions

Ian Murray Excerpts

Thursday 20th November 2014 Commons Chamber

[Vince Cable]

Yes, it is often forgotten when we talk about manufacturers that the food and drinks sector is the largest by a considerable measure. It is a considerable success and we are supporting it, not just through the work of UKTI, but through our work on agri-tech industries, innovation and the skills strategy.

[Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab)]

The Government promised an export-led recovery, but as my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham East (Heidi Alexander) mentioned, the trade gap is widening and exports are going backwards. Why, then, have the Government, mid-year, slashed the budget for the trade show access programme that helps small businesses new to exporting or new to markets to gain access to international trade shows? I have had sight of a private letter from the trade association, the Sponsors Alliance, to the Prime Minister asking him to reverse this dreadful decision. Will the Secretary of State support this plea from small businesses and not slash the funding they desperately need to support their exporting activities?

[Vince Cable]

First, there is no question of the budget being slashed; it has been substantially increased, and the question is how much it should have been increased by. I am aware of the concerns of trade associations, however, and have met them and discussed the matter with them, and we are endeavouring to ensure they have the maximum support.

Small Business, Enterprise and Employment Bill

Ian Murray Excerpts

Wednesday 19th November 2014 Commons Chamber

[Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab)]

I beg to move amendment 8, page 134, line 4, at end insert—

‘(6A) The Secretary of State shall provide an annual report to Parliament on the effectiveness of—

(a) enforcement of the national minimum wage;

(b) the level of the financial penalty for underpayment, including but not limited to its impact on compliance; and

(c) changes in provisions relating to the national minimum wage improving other measures of pay in the labour market.”

[Mr Speaker]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 9, in clause 145, page 134, line 27, at end insert—

‘(3A) The Secretary of State shall make regulations containing provisions and measures enabling and facilitating the enforcement by workers of the rights conferred under this section. Those regulations shall be laid before each House of Parliament in draft before being made, subject to affirmative resolution procedure.”

Amendment 10, page 134, line 36, at end insert—

‘(1A) Regulations made under section 27B, subsection (1), shall include provisions—

(a) giving zero hours workers the right to be awarded financial compensation of amounts, and in circumstances, to be determined by the Secretary of State;

(b) giving employment tribunals powers to enforce their adjudications, including the award of any applicable compensation as referred to in section (1A)(a), or imposition of any applicable penalty, in cases involving zero hours workers; and

(c) imposing an obligation on an employer to offer a fixed hours contract when a worker has worked regular hours for a continuous period, or series of continuous periods, of employment, to be determined by the Secretary of State.”

Government amendments 61 to 64.

[Ian Murray]

It is worth reflecting on the debate yesterday. The Minister for Business and Enterprise, who is not in his place and was not in his place for most of the debate yesterday, said that we would take part 4, which deals with pubs, first yesterday because that was most important. By definition, it seems that the Government do not see the national minimum wage and zero-hours contracts as being important. The programme motion has restricted this debate and that on the important topic of insolvency to just two hours, which shows the Government’s view on these matters.

We have tabled the amendments in the same spirit as we did in Committee, to try to make the Bill a much better Bill than it was when it started its passage through the House. We hear from our constituents throughout the country concerns about pay and insecurity in the workplace. Part 11 is an opportunity missed by the Government to deal with the problems of national minimum wage enforcement and exploitative zero-hours contracts. They need to show that they are on the side of ordinary people who have had their wages cut by more than £1,600 per year since 2010, but again the Government have missed the opportunity to do so.

Fifteen years have passed since the introduction of the minimum wage and the Opposition will keeping saying, time and again, that it is one of the Labour Government’s proudest achievements, despite the significant opposition—I was going to say from the Government Benches, but there does not seem to be anybody on the Government Benches, so it would be unfair to level that charge at the Under-Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, the hon. Member for East Dunbartonshire (Jo Swinson), who supported the national minimum wage. This is another example of the pitfalls of writing one’s speech before one sees who turns up to the Chamber. I apologise for aiming my comments at the hon. Lady. The lack of support from her colleagues on the Conservative Benches this afternoon highlights the seriousness with which they take the issue of national minimum wage enforcement and zero-hours contracts. In the run-up to the May election, their constituents will reflect on the fact that they decided not to participate in today’s serious debate on amendments to part 11.

The introduction of the national minimum wage gave 1 million workers a significant pay rise, and now nearly 2 million workers benefit directly from the minimum wage. For women especially, who are most often susceptible to poor pay, the national minimum wage has had a significant impact for the better on their salaries, their pay and their working lives. It has not affected job retention, despite cries from the Government Benches—although there is no one there today—that it would cost 1 million jobs when it was introduced back in 1998.

However, the problem is that the minimum wage has become the maximum wage for far too many, and has fallen in real terms since 2010. That is why the Labour party is pledging to increase the national minimum wage to a minimum of £8 per hour and significantly to promote the living wage in partnership with employers. Amendment 8 would require the Secretary of State to provide an annual report to Parliament on three crucial aspects of the national minimum wage—first, its enforcement; secondly, the level of the financial payment for underpayment; and thirdly and crucially, the relationship between the national minimum wage and how it reflects pay in the wider labour market, particularly in interaction with the living wage. I shall deal with each of those aspects.

[Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)]

My hon. Friend makes some very good points, but does he not think that we restrict ourselves in our brave attempts to get a good standard of living for everyone in this country, and that the national minimum wage should be a national minimum wage plus? The plus should be a guarantee of skills training and much else that supports the minimum wage. I came into politics to provide the good life for the people in my constituency and the people of this country. I am sure my hon. Friend would agree.

[Ian Murray]

I am grateful for the intervention from my hon. Friend. Pay is a only a small element in the workplace, and skills, education and progression are key. As I said, the national minimum wage should be the very bottom, not the top, of people’s aspiration for pay in the workplace. My hon. Friend raises some important points for his constituents and those throughout the country.

I am delighted that the Minister for Business and Enterprise has now joined us. Without proper enforcement, the regulations will be rendered ineffective. Under this Government, enforcement of the national minimum wage has been poor. That is why we are asking the Secretary of State to produce an annual report on the effectiveness of enforcement overall.

The figures speak for themselves. Reports published earlier this year show that the number of national minimum wage compliance investigations has more than halved since 2010. The response to a parliamentary question tabled earlier this year revealed that the number of investigations had fallen from over 3,500 in 2010 to just under 1,700 by the end of 2013. In addition, the number of cases resulting from Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs risk profiling or targeting enforcement action had fallen from 1,500 in 2010 to a mere 431 by the end of 2013.

On top of that, the naming and shaming policy, which the Under-Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, the hon. Member for East Dunbartonshire, announced four times—I am sure she is expecting me to say this—up until recently had been announced more times than it had been used. To be fair, I appreciate that there have been more instances of naming and shaming recently, but it shows why an annual report is necessary to ensure that the regulations are working, the deterrents are robust and all avenues are being explored to prevent exploitation of the national minimum wage.

The Opposition have also been clear that local authorities should be given the power to enforce the national minimum wage alongside HMRC. We know that joint working between HMRC and other enforcement agencies, such as local authorities, is sometimes weak, which limits opportunities to maximise resources across different Government bodies. Local authorities, by their nature, have good knowledge of local employers and already conduct significant enforcement activity through their responsibilities for licensing, planning, health and safety and environmental health inspections. In carrying out those duties, councils sometimes come across cases where they suspect national minimum wage violations, but they have no power to investigate them directly and can merely refer them to HMRC’s enforcement helpline.

Local authorities are perfectly placed to enforce the national minimum wage, given their knowledge on the ground. That move is supported by the report “Settle for Nothing Less: Enhancing National Minimum Wage Compliance and Enforcement”, published last year by the Centre for London, which recommended partially devolving enforcement to local authority level to sit alongside and complement the current central function. It would be interesting to hear whether the Minister has considered having local authorities take an active role in national minimum wage enforcement.

[Mr Sheerman]

My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech, but will he also mention local enterprise partnerships, which are becoming more mature and powerful at bringing a focus to matters? I have noticed recently that their links to small businesses, in particular, are better than those of some local authorities I know.

[Ian Murray]

My hon. Friend makes a good point. There are many agencies dealing directly with businesses, particularly small businesses, that could play a role in national minimum wage enforcement. Poor pay and enforcement should be a job for all of us, whether LEPs, local authorities, the national minimum wage enforcement section, Members of Parliament or whistleblowers. We need a drive towards ensuring that anyone who decides to flout the rules on the national minimum wage knows that there is an organisation out there that can report them and take action against them.

Amendment 8 would also require the Secretary of State to report on the level of financial penalty. Although an increase in the maximum fine to £20,000 per employee is welcome, we are disappointed that the Government did not follow Labour’s lead in Committee by increasing it to £50,000. By setting the penalty at £50,000, Ministers would send a clear message to rogue businesses that they run a real financial risk by not paying the minimum wage. It would also put the fine on a par with other fines, such as those for fly-tipping.

As the Minister might be aware, her colleague and party president, the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron), at the start of the year echoed Labour’s calls for a higher financial penalty, stating:

“A £50,000 fine for fly-tipping versus a £20,000 fine for exploiting a human being is just ludicrous. It tells you all you need to know how we, as a society, have our priorities wrong.”

I suggest that it is not society that has its priorities wrong in that regard, but the Government.

[Graham Jones (Hyndburn) (Lab)]

Would these changes have an impact on people working in the informal economy who are not paid the minimum wage?

[Ian Murray]

Absolutely. We see in the informal economy forced self-employment, bogus self-employment and people not being paid the national minimum wage. It is a big issue in relation to migrant workers and agency workers. It is a huge issue across not only the formal economy, but the informal economy. It is something we must stamp down on, because it undermines people’s wages and the ability to be paid properly. The crucial point is that it is also uncompetitive for business, because the businesses that do the right thing, pay proper wages and abide by all the legislation are undercut by those that do not, and we have to deal with that. These measures are both pro-business and pro-employee.

Finally, amendment 8 is also crucial to ensuring that the Government consider wider improvements in pay in our labour market—namely, the promotion of the living wage. Under this Government, the number of people paid less than the living wage has risen from 3.4 million to just under 5 million in just four years. That not only impacts on low-paid workers, their families and communities, but piles up costs for the country as more people in work have to rely on the social security system, with tax credits topping up their poverty pay.

Labour councils have led the way in paying their workers a living wage, even within tight budget constraints, and getting more workers in the private sector paid a living wage by using their procurement powers and encouraging the creation of local living wage zones. My local council, City of Edinburgh council, has been paying the living wage for some time now. Other organisations in the private sector are now seeing that paying the living wage is something they should be doing. I must declare an interest as a member of the board of Heart of Midlothian football club, which a few weeks ago took the historic decision to become the first football club in Scotland to pay the living wage to not only all its staff, but all its subcontractors.

[Mr Sheerman]

Before my hon. Friend moves on, may I commiserate with him about last night’s football result? On a serious point, I do not know what his local university is, but the university of Huddersfield, which is the biggest employer in my constituency, pays the living wage. If universities up and down the country could lead the way, that would have a powerful effect, especially if they pressed that on their supply chains.

[Ian Murray]

I appreciate what my hon. Friend says about what happens in his constituency. Public bodies could really take the lead in promoting the living wage. However, his initial comment about last night’s result means that I will have to demote him from being my hon. Friend to being the hon. Gentleman, but I will not hold it against him for too long.

The Labour party has a proper plan to encourage businesses to pay their employees the living wage. If this Government will not do this, the next Labour Government will launch a national campaign to agree “make work pay” contracts with British businesses, working in partnership with businesses to share in the benefits of the living wage and ensure that people are paid properly for a decent day’s work. The living wage is about bringing employers, employees, campaigners and communities together to build a stronger, fairer economy from the bottom up. The living wage improves the living standards of employees and benefits employers, too. They have found that paying the living wage can make good business sense, generating savings by boosting productivity and increasing staff morale.

I hope that the Government are minded to support amendment 8. It would be a step towards improving the enforcement of the national minimum wage and then improving pay for all working people. If Ministers do not, it will be up to Labour, the party that created the national minimum wage, to strengthen it for all the low-paid. Amendment 8 is about having a report from the Secretary of State to bring forward some of these issues and highlight them through Parliament so that we can ensure that the national minimum wage is being enforced properly, that the level of financial fines is appropriate and that the Government are doing everything they possibly can to promote additional wages through the living wage.

Amendments 9 and 10 to clause 145 relate to zero-hours contracts. The explosion in the use of zero-hours contracts is a trend that should concern Members right across the House. Although a small number of people find that type of contract suitable, too many are at the mercy of unscrupulous employers who exploit it. For many employees, zero-hours contracts present huge drawbacks in comparison with permanent, regular work. The increasing problem of underemployment and zero-hours contracts is highlighted by the recent reports from Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs stating that income tax take has been flat over the past year despite the Government predicting a substantial increase. Do the Government not worry that they are creating the kind of economy where unemployment drops but there is no additional income tax take to the Treasury? We must use the opportunity of this Bill to prevent exploitative zero-hours contracts and do something about underemployment. It is not just me who is saying this. The Exchequer Secretary told the Bill Committee’s evidence session that it was the Treasury’s goal to have people on better contracts as it is better for tax receipts. I could not agree more.

[Tom Blenkinsop (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is no doubt aware that even the Treasury has admitted in statistical analysis that in the case of someone on a fixed-term contract of 20 hours as opposed to someone on a zero-hours contract with potentially 40 hours—although it will fluctuate over time—the person on the zero-hours contract pays more in national insurance contributions than a similar worker doing the same amount of hours annually. The Treasury estimated that they were about £300 a year worse off than a person on a fixed-term contract doing fewer hours.

[Ian Murray]

That is the way the tax system works. People are allocated their national insurance and tax thresholds on the basis of when they work on a monthly basis. It can be aggregated over the year only if they are in permanent employment through pay-as-you-earn and the national insurance contributions that are made. In Committee, we had the strange scenario of Government Back Benchers saying that it does not matter what the tax take is because the aggregate would be the same if 100,000 people were working on zero-hours contracts than if the same number of hours were being worked by those in permanent employment. That is primary school economics, because the analysis does not work.

The Government have to reflect on the fact that while unemployment is falling, and has fallen by a substantial amount over the past 12 months, tax take, including income tax take, is exactly the same as it was the year before. That means that people are not being paid properly for the work that they are doing, that they are under-employed, or that they are in part-time jobs or on zero-hours contracts. So while they may not be an unemployment statistic, they are certainly not contributing to the economy.

[Gordon Birtwistle (Burnley) (LD)]

Does the shadow Minister accept that the tax take is possibly down by a lot because of the increased allowances that people now get before they start paying tax? Surely the fact that people are not paying as much and keeping more of their salary would affect tax take.

[Ian Murray]

The hon. Gentleman misses the point. If he was in his place earlier—I have no reason to doubt that he was not; I just did not notice when he came in—he would have heard me say that HMRC had predicted a significant increase in tax take having already factored in the increase to £10,000 in the taxable allowance. Even taking that into account, it was projecting a significant increase in tax take, yet it has been flat. HMRC had accounted for the change in the personal allowance threshold and for the fact that unemployment is falling. Taking all those things into consideration, it projected that it should be getting substantially higher tax revenues, but it is not. That tells us something about the kind of employment market that this Government want to create.

[Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)]

This Government have made much of increasing the personal allowance, as some of us advocated many years ago. Now we are at the point where the personal allowance level is not offering any tangible benefit to those who are on the national minimum wage and are in part-time employment, because they are at or below the level to which the personal allowance has been raised. A combination of factors is required rather than merely raising the allowance.

[Ian Murray]

There is a key balance in terms of raising the allowance. The poorest paid are not affected by any increases in the personal allowance, while everyone else benefits. There is a significant decrease in tax take from every taxpayer, but the lowest paid are not included in that.

[Graham Jones]

One of the pernicious elements of this situation is what we are starting to see in my constituency with agency work, whereby people on zero-hours contracts are being pushed into self-employment when they take hours through an agency. With reference to the tax take, there is some concern that this practice is pushing people into the informal economy and tax is not being paid at the full rate. It is also pernicious in terms of the hours that are offered to people and the insecurity of being in self-employment as opposed even to agency-paid employment.

[Ian Murray]

Absolutely. We are creeping into the wider problems with the employment market. There is a huge issue with bogus self-employment and a huge issue for the Treasury as regards the informal economy. That is why the shadow Work and Pensions Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds West (Rachel Reeves), has said that, particularly with regard to the construction sector, we should deem people to be employed unless it can be proven otherwise.

[Graham Jones]

It is certainly an issue in the construction sector in my constituency, but it is now spreading into other sectors, including catering.

[Ian Murray]

It is most prevalent in the construction sector, but it affects other low-paid sectors as well. This goes back to the point I made in response to one of my hon. Friend’s previous interventions about good businesses being hit by the playing field not being level because of people undercutting wages and undermining their responsibilities to society in terms of paying the appropriate tax that they should be paying on the wages that they are generating.

So as not to be too uncharitable to the Minister, let me say that we welcome clause 145, which introduces an exclusivity ban into zero-hour contracts. However, as with yesterday’s pubs debate, the Government have been dragged kicking and screaming into doing anything at all about this issue. They have fallen far short of introducing measures that really tackle the exploitative use of these contracts. They are doing nothing to change the practices of companies that base their entire work force management strategy on zero-hours contracts. As my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition said last week, zero-hours contracts have

“left too many people not knowing how they will make ends meet from one week to the next and unable to plan for the future. And this government won’t do anything to stop it. But we will.”

Our amendments attempt to build on the fact that the Government have tabled an amendment to the law, albeit a minor one, to stop exclusivity by suggesting that they take that one step further. Amendment 9 would require the Secretary of State to introduce regulations so that workers on zero-hours contracts can enforce their rights. It is completely ludicrous that we have been left in a situation where the Government have introduced legislation to ban exclusivity clauses in zero-hour contracts but have not put in any enforcement action so as to be able to remedy the problem. The Minister for Business and Enterprise was pressed repeatedly on this in Committee but could offer only the option of enforcement through the usual employment tribunal channel. Perhaps he should spend less time apologising to the Prime Minister and more time apologising to the millions of workers he is letting down through this clause.

[Guy Opperman (Hexham) (Con)]

Is that the best you can do?

[Ian Murray]

I haven’t finished yet—just you wait!

Let me go through why not being able to enforce these rights is a real problem. If, as the Minister suggested, people go through the normal employment tribunal channel, there would be a two-year qualification period for unfair dismissal. They would then have to go through compulsory early conciliation at ACAS. If that failed, they would have to pay a disproportionately high fee to enter the employment tribunal system. If they were found to have been wronged in the workplace, they could receive a compensatory award, but in up to 50% of cases those awards are no longer paid, and the chances of them getting their job back, or any job, would be much diminished.

[Mr Brian H. Donohoe (Central Ayrshire) (Lab)]

When I used to deal with what were then known as industrial tribunals, I understood that someone had to earn a certain wage before they could make any application to a tribunal. In those circumstances, how does someone on a zero-hours contract get into the position of being able to apply?

[Ian Murray]

That is part of the problem of enforcement, in that we do not know what mechanisms could be used for it. That is why we tabled the amendment to ask the Secretary of State to bring forward proper proposals for enforcing these rights. My hon. Friend is right. If an employer has offered someone a zero-hours contract containing an exclusivity clause, I suspect that most will have done so on a take-it-or-leave-it basis. Does that person then have the qualification period needed to enter the employment tribunal system? The answer is clearly no, because they have not worked for two years. Do they have the status of being a worker or an employee? The chances are that the courts would probably deem them not to be in employment at that stage. That is why it is important for the Government to come back with proposals on how they will prevent exclusivity clauses.

Sarah Veale from the Trades Union Congress said in one of the evidence sessions:

“It is actually quite extraordinary to have a breach of employment rights proposed in a Bill without any kind of penalty—or rather, without any compensation for the individual, because that is largely the way it works in employment law.”––[Official Report, Small Business, Enterprise and Employment Public Bill Committee, 14 October 2014; c. 71, Q162.]

The Government need to be clear about how individuals can enforce the provision against exclusivity. We cannot just hope that employees who refuse to work exclusively for an employer will not subsequently be discriminated against in the workplace.

It is very easy to construct a scenario in which that might be the case, and I have already mentioned one to my hon. Friend. In future, if an employer offers a zero-hours contract with an exclusivity clause, the employee might be incredibly knowledgeable about employment rights, and say, “Under section 145 of the Small Business, Enterprise and Employment Public Act, an exclusivity clause is against the law.” However, the employer could turn round, and ask, “Well, what are you going to do about it? You can either take or refuse the job and the contract, but if you do not abide by its terms, we’ll zero you out,” meaning that the employee would not be offered any hours at all. The employer could in effect have exclusivity by threatening the employee with losing their employment altogether.

That is a very real issue for the economy. I am not talking about businesses or individuals that welcome the use of zero-hours contracts, but mainly about people at the lower end of the employment scale who need to be properly protected. We need to ensure that there is effectively no exclusivity and that people are not zeroed out.

We need the Government to make a proper proposal about how they will enforce the prevention of a practice that is against the law. If someone driving down the motorway at slightly over the speed limit is caught doing 75 or 77 mph in a 70 mph zone, they receive a ticking off and a fine, but if there were no need to pay the fine or if no fine were levied, where would be the deterrent against breaking the law? I shall be interested to hear the Minister’s response on that point.

Amendment 10 is about compensation. People often go to great expense to turn up at work: they arrange child care or pay train or bus fares, and that takes time to organise and costs money from their much-reduced resources. Having been told that they are needed for work, people sometimes get a text a couple of hours beforehand or on arriving at their workplace saying that they are not needed that day. In a modern workplace, that is completely and utterly unacceptable.

The CBI has recognised that point and has expressed its support for it. In its March 2014 zero-hours briefing, it stated:

“a ban on offering short notice for work…is not in the interests of the workers on zero hours contracts, whose interests are best served by always being offered work opportunities with the freedom to decline them. An intervention which creates a simple formula for compensation due to zero hours employees when a shift is cancelled at short notice—two hours’ pay for example—would be better targeted.”

I think that everyone in the House would agree that there should be some kind of compensation if people are unable to do their shift at short notice because the employer has changed the particular shift pattern.

The House needs to look seriously at this matter. It is quite clear that the vast majority of employers in this country are respected for looking after their employees as their business’s No. 1 asset. Many businesses that do the right thing spend an inordinate amount of time—I did when I ran my own small business—making sure that all employees get the hours they want and are contracted to do, so that they can gain the salary they are contracted to earn and can pay their rent or mortgage and maintain their standard of living.

Most reasonable people would say that it was unacceptable for such businesses to be undercut by companies that decide to take on a vast number of workers on zero-hours contracts without offering them regular hours and regular pay. That is why I think that the Government have really missed an opportunity by not going slightly further on zero-hours contracts.

I now move on to the right to fixed hours. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition said last week:

“We are going to change…the zero-zero economy…Under Labour, if you work regular hours you will have a legal right to a regular contract.”

Iain Birrell, a partner at Thompsons Solicitors, said in his evidence in Committee:

“The Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development research of last November noted that 83% of staff on zero-hours contracts have been engaged for longer than six months and 65% have been engaged for two years or more. We have a situation, then, in which 65% of staff on zero-hours contracts have been there for two years or more. That is not short-term need”.––[Official Report, Small Business, Enterprise and Employment Public Bill Committee, 14 October 2014; c. 27-28, Q54.]

We appreciate that there are situations in which employers require workers on a zero-hours basis. However, employers should be able to refuse an employee’s request not to be on a zero-hours contract only if they can demonstrate that their business needs cannot be met by any other form of flexible contract. For example, seasonal work may be a legitimate exemption. In the United Kingdom, someone who makes ice cream might require people on zero-hours contracts to deal with seasonal needs.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ian Murray]

My hon. Friend makes an incredibly important point. As he will agree, the fact that unemployment is falling but tax take is flat tells us a little about employment in this country. On that basis, it is little wonder that the deficit is rising, not falling.

--- Later in debate ---

Amendment 8 is unnecessary because it duplicates the existing reporting requirements. It is not just the final evidence from the Government to the Low Pay Commission that is published, as the interim evidence is published, too. On two occasions every year, there is a written ministerial statement publishing this significant evidence, and it contains the information that is desired in amendment 8.

[Ian Murray]

The Minister is always incredibly generous in giving way. She has explained how the reports go to the Low Pay Commission and are then reported back to this House, but our amendment asks that to be extended and to be linked to enforcement. It asks the Government to extend the living wage and to look at whether the financial penalties act as an effective deterrent. It thus goes much wider than the Low Pay Commission.

[Jo Swinson]

The evidence submitted in the reports is pretty comprehensive, so I think it does meet the requirements set out, particularly when combined with the assessment of the latest hourly earnings and the impact of the minimum wage and what it does to living standards and hourly earning. I think that the existing reporting requirements are adequate and that the amendment would bring about a duplication. I welcome the interest in the issue, however, and I welcome the fact that as well as those formal reporting requirements, we have had various debates—sometimes in Westminster Hall, sometimes here in the Chamber—on these issues. Furthermore, these topics are returned to frequently at BIS oral questions, and I expect that to happen tomorrow. It is right that we have these opportunities to discuss these issues because they are important.

Let me deal with some of the specifics that came up in the debate about enforcement of the national minimum wage. In particular, we heard the charge that the number of investigations had gone down and that this was some sign of failure, but I believe the picture is more nuanced than that. Since the national minimum wage was introduced and HMRC has been the enforcement body, that body has continually assessed how it undertakes enforcement activity and how it can be improved. It is true that the number of individual investigations has gone down, but that has been coupled with a much more efficient undertaking of investigations. In particular, HMRC often now has larger and more complex investigations as part of the risk assessment work being undertaken. Sometimes those cases take longer to complete, so there will be fewer overall cases. The number of people covered by each case, however, has been increasing.

In addition, when someone makes a complaint to HMRC about the national minimum wage, rather than just going in to investigate the particular worker, Joe Bloggs, and their circumstances, HMRC has the power to widen the investigation—not only to ensure that the anonymity of the complainant is preserved, but to recognise that if there are anomalies in one particular worker’s payment, it might well be the case for other workers within the organisation. It has the power to expand the investigation more widely. Although that has reduced the number of cases that have been completed, the number of workers helped and the amount of arrears recovered has increased, so that is a good thing.

The number of workers helped, for example, has risen between 2009-10 and 2013-14 by more than 17%. The average number of workers per case has nearly tripled, and the average amount of arrears per case has increased by 260%. I think that is a good news story on enforcement, particularly concerning the resources available for enforcement, about which the hon. Member for Sefton Central (Bill Esterson) was concerned. Some 144 officers have been involved in HMRC. As a result of the additional resource dedicated by BIS—the budget has increased by £1 million to £9.2 million—a further 26 individuals have just been hired. A team of 170 is now working to ensure that there is compliance with the enforcement of the national minimum wage. It is clear from the figures that that significant increase in resources has already been delivering, and it will continue to deliver.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jo Swinson]

It certainly is a sign of a flexible employment market, which is good for the UK economy. It ensures that we are able to have a stronger economy and increased prosperity. As for whether a zero-hours contract is a good thing, that depends on individual circumstances. There are plenty of people for whom such contracts work well and plenty of people who are happy with them, but I entirely recognise that there are plenty of people who are not happy, and that there are employers who are not behaving as they should.

Some of those issues arose in the consultation on exclusivity, which is why we inserted the clauses that we are discussing. Other issues arose from it as well, and we agree that those too need to be addressed. The Opposition tabled amendments 9 and 10, and I welcome their contribution to the debate. We have argued that it is better to ensure that we can work with industry, sector by sector, in producing guidance on what constitutes responsible use of zero-hours contracts, so that employers are clearer about how they should be using them and employees can know what it is reasonable for them to expect.

[Ian Murray]

If the Minister thinks that there is no problem with zero-hours contracts, can she explain why the tax take from income is flat but unemployment has fallen by 500,000?

[Jo Swinson]

Various issues affect the tax take and employment, not least the amounts that people are earning, For instance, if people are working for fewer hours, they will pay less income tax, because there will be more people within the tax threshold. That said, we are proud of the fact that we have raised the threshold. I campaigned hard for that in the last Parliament, and I am delighted that we have delivered it.

The hon. Gentleman accused me of saying that there was no problem with zero-hours contracts. Of course we accept that there is a problem with them. That is why we have produced legislative proposals, which, despite the promises of the former Labour party leader Tony Blair, his party did not manage to do when it was in government.

Amendment 9 is intended to ensure that zero-hours contract workers have a route to redress to enforce the rights in clause 145. I recognise the serious point that the hon. Gentleman is making, but, as I reassured him in Committee, that is already possible through the order-making power in new section 27B. His amendment is therefore unnecessary.

--- Later in debate ---

I hope, with those reassurances, that the hon. Member for Edinburgh South (Ian Murray) will withdraw his amendment and that the House will be happy to support Government amendments 61 to 64.

[Ian Murray]

I am grateful to the Minister for answering some of the questions but, on amendment 8, it is not clear that the Low Pay Commission has the remit to look at enforcement of the national minimum wage to ensure that that is working properly; to ensure that the financial penalties are a deterrent; and to ensure that there is a greater link with the living wage. Therefore, I would like to test the will of the House on amendment 8.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Minister for Business and Enterprise (Matthew Hancock)]

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

I would like to start by thanking all hon. Members who have contributed to the scrutiny of the Bill, both in Committee and on Report. There has been considerable consensus and agreement on many of the measures, and I welcome the support from Members on both sides of the House for our doing everything we can to improve the environment for small businesses. It is a clear goal of this Government to make Britain the best place in the world to start and grow a business, and this Bill, the first of its kind, will make a significant contribution to that. Small businesses make a huge contribution to the UK, accounting for around half of UK jobs and a third of private sector turnover, and they are vital to our prosperity and to the UK economy.

The Bill strengthens and improves the way in which regulation is dealt with in government. We have introduced the one-in, one-out and the one-in, two-out approaches to regulatory management, and these have delivered over £1.5 billion of savings per year to businesses since January 2011. I am delighted that there has been support for enshrining the principles of transparent regulatory management in legislation through the regulatory reform measures.

The Bill makes significant inroads into improving the business environment for small businesses even further while also, crucially, providing new protections for the employees who lie at the heart of our recovery. For the first time, we have addressed the abuses of zero-hours contracts. Despite Labour’s promises going back 20 years, no action was taken. Now, however, we have passed legislation to address exclusivity in zero-hours contracts.

[Ian Murray]

Will the Minister tell the House how he can enforce the provisions on exclusivity clauses?

[Matthew Hancock]

Thanks to the Bill, exclusivity clauses will no longer be valid; they will be null and void. The Opposition promised to do this in opposition last time around, they did nothing about it for 13 years and now they witter on about impractical solutions, whereas this Government are interested in making changes that will improve the labour market. I am proud that we are doing this at the same time as increasing the number of jobs in this economy to record levels.

Universal Postal Service

Ian Murray Excerpts

Thursday 17th July 2014 Commons Chamber

[Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab)]

The hon. Gentleman is making an incredibly powerful case about the potential consequences on the USO that Ofcom may bring forward. Will he confirm that a statutory instrument upstairs would not necessarily be a full vote of both Houses? It would be a statutory instrument that goes through both Houses.

[Mr Weir]

Indeed, that is my understanding.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab)]

I am pleased to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell). This is the fifth debate in a row in which I have answered for the Opposition on this subject, and my hon. Friend has always been the last to speak and has been curtailed in his contribution. I hope that he will not listen to his doctor, because we would certainly miss the passion and anger he brings to the Chamber and the good sense that he always talks. I would like to thank, too, the Backbench Business Committee for bringing forward timeously before the summer recess this really important debate. I pay a huge tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Katy Clark) who, beyond anyone else in this place, has kept this issue of Royal Mail and postal services on the agenda. Without her passion and energy, we would not be able to take forward some of the significant contributions that we all want to see on a cross-party basis. The hon. Member for Northampton South (Mr Binley) was quite right to say that this is indeed a cross-party issue.

It is worth putting the issue into context. It is a six-day, one-price-goes-anywhere service that Royal Mail provides, and its posties deliver to 29 million addresses each day of the week. It is a particularly important service for small businesses as consumers, although we have not spoken much about small businesses in that context today.

The botched privatisation of Royal Mail, mentioned a number of times this afternoon, cost the taxpayer £1 billion and we have seen the architect of it promoted to Defence Secretary. We have lost a national asset that the public did not want to see privatised. The hon. Member for Angus (Mr Weir) was absolutely right to refer to the process in this place. Time and again the Business Secretary has said that “the overarching objective” of privatisation was “to secure” the “universal postal service”. Yet just a few months after that privatisation, we are back here debating the dangers to the universal service obligation. That is why we are calling on the Secretary of State to use any powers he has under section 44 of the Postal Services Act 2011 to try to put pressure on Ofcom to bring this forward, so we can make sure that the USO remains viable.

We know that the volume of letters is in decline. Last year alone, the volume fell between 4% and 6%. The wonderful work of all Royal Mail’s staff to try to cope with that decline is to be commended, but this does underpin the fragility of the universal service obligation. Its sustainability depends on Royal Mail being able to use the revenues from easier-to-serve urban areas to cover the cost of the nationwide network. It does not require a postal economist to see that the geography of the UK means that delivery to the Scottish islands or to rural Wales is an expensive business and can be sustained only by cross-subsidy from more profitable areas. The hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Sir Robert Smith), my hon. Friends the Members for Ynys Môn (Albert Owen) and for North Ayrshire and Arran, the hon. Members for Argyll and Bute (Mr Reid) and for Angus and my right hon. Friend the Member for Neath (Mr Hain), who all represent rural constituencies, mentioned that in their contributions.

The genesis of this debate is the need to consider the impact that direct end-to-end competition is having on Royal Mail’s ability to sustain the USO. Royal Mail has submitted a quite extensive report to Ofcom on the effect of end-to-end competition and the threats to the USO, encouraging Ofcom to bring forward the review promised for 2015. The report says in great detail that the alternative providers, especially TNT, have grown quickly and have plans to expand to over 40% of mail delivery by 2017. This expansion will cover only 8.5% of the geography of the UK. It is this “cherry-picking” of low-cost, profitable inner city postcodes that threatens the economics of the USO.

These plans have been calculated by Royal Mail to represent an approximate revenue loss of around £200 million, but it is not simply about profitability; it is about the viability of fulfilling its USO. The end-to-end competition issues are magnified by the lack of a level playing field with rival operators. That was mentioned by both my right hon. Friend the Member for Neath and my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott).

Royal Mail is—rightly, I think—subject to a complicated matrix of delivery standards, reporting and service levels, but the competition is not. For example, rival operators are able to cherry-pick when they deliver. TNT Post UK provides an every-other-day service, which reduces its costs. Rival operators are able to cherry-pick the type of mail they deliver—business mail is the easiest to handle and the most profitable—and they are also able to put mail they do not want to deliver back into the Royal Mail system. As right hon. and hon. Members have said, where they cannot deliver, they need to put it back into the system. That highlights the importance of the universal service to rival operators. They require a viable USO to make their own business models work so it is really important for Ofcom to take that into account in any analysis.

Royal Mail’s ability to compete on price is constrained, as we have heard this afternoon, and it is unable to alter downstream access prices that now make up almost 50% of all mail volumes. There is an ongoing Ofcom investigation into access pricing, which the hon. Member for Edinburgh West (Mike Crockart) mentioned in one of his interventions. Rival operators use a plethora of alternative employment contracts which mean that their staff are lower paid and more insecure than those of Royal Mail. That has the potential to create a race to the bottom in postal services which, in turn, has the potential to undermine the universal service obligation.

Many Members have referred to TNT Post, because many of the issues that we are discussing are relevant to its business model. I realise that TNT has become a lightning conductor for concern about the liberation of the postal market and the impact that it could have on the USO, but it should be borne in mind that it is operating according to the regulations that currently apply to it. That is why it is important for Ofcom to look at everything in the round. Major issues involving TNT are well documented, but I know that members of its union, Community, are working closely with the company to eradicate zero-hours contracts and introduce the living wage and better conditions for its work force. It is worth emphasising that it would be very much in TNT’s interest as well for Ofcom to conduct its review now.

We are calling on the Government to pull all the levers that they can possibly pull to encourage Ofcom to bring forward its review. Even if Royal Mail’s arguments, contained in the dusty tome that it has submitted to Ofcom, are found not to be wholly valid, or not as compelling as it has suggested—and the hon. Member for Angus implied that they should be tested—that will be known only once they have been fully investigated. Ofcom’s current programme for the review means that we shall have to wait until the end of 2015, and that could be far too late. Those issues were also raised by my favourite Conservative Member of Parliament, the hon. Member for Northampton South. I am sure that there is a keen socialist hiding somewhere in that Conservative body of his.

If Ofcom began its review now, any recommendations for changes in the regulatory environment could be implemented very quickly to ensure that we do not lose sight of the universal service obligation. There is a danger that the door could be closed after the horse had bolted. Every Member who has spoken today has raised that issue. If Royal Mail is right, the planned 2015 review could be brought forward. Remedial action will be severely limited if that does not happen. Surely it is best for all concerned—Royal Mail, rival providers and, crucially, customers—for the future of the USO to be secured and for what lies on the horizon to be made clear as soon as possible.

Let me list Labour’s proposals for the future of Royal Mail as we approach the 2015 election. We would secure the USO well beyond 2015; we would prioritise the continuation of the inter-service agreement with the Post Office beyond 2022; we would ensure that there was an appropriate degree of price certainty for Royal Mail and its customers; and we would ensure that regulations provided a level playing field for all operators.

[Sir Robert Smith]

I am sure that, given the badge that the hon. Gentleman is wearing, he will also point out that by voting “no thanks” in the forthcoming referendum we will maintain the universal service for the whole United Kingdom, ensuring that subsidies continue to go to those difficult areas in Scotland.

[Ian Murray]

I did not want to go into the independence referendum arguments, for two simple reasons: first, they are incredibly complex, and secondly, the issue is not entirely relevant to the debate. I think that we are all slightly sick of the independence referendum. I hoped that we could be “independence free” today, but perhaps that is not possible after all. However, the hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. Whichever way we view the issue, it is clear from the geography of Scotland that it would be much more difficult and expensive to deliver postal services there following independence. Scotland’s postal services are cross-subsidised because of that geography. That is one very simple argument about what would happen to postal services in an independent Scotland.

[Mr Weir]

rose—

[Ian Murray]

I have awoken the beast of Angus. If he will excuse me, I will not give way because of the time constraints—or perhaps I will, just for the sheer fun of it.

[Mr Weir]

The hon. Gentleman talks of the geography of Scotland, but what we are debating is whether the universal service obligation will continue within the Union. It is the Union that is a danger to the universal service throughout the United Kingdom, not Scottish independence. Scotland, like any other country, can run a postal service to suit Scottish needs.

[Ian Murray]

I think the hon. Gentleman should go to see the doctor that my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) sees and perhaps get some advice on how to calm down a little about the independence referendum.

I am looking at the time, so I will conclude now by paying tribute to our posties up and down the country. I went on a round last year with Michael Lunn, one of my local posties from the Strathearn road delivery office, in the most tenemental part of my constituency. I can assure hon. Members that it was quite a hard round without lifts in those tenements. Not only did he deliver the mail efficiently, but he knew where people lived, which buzzers to press to get in when people were at work, whether people were on holiday and whether people were expecting parcels. He knew everything about anybody in his round. When we put it in that context, we see that it is not just a postal service; it is a service to all our communities. It is a valuable social service that we should make sure we do not jeopardise, because if we do, that will be detrimental to everyone in the country.

Children with Autism (Education)

Ian Murray Excerpts

Thursday 17th July 2014 Commons Chamber

[Gordon Birtwistle]

I am grateful for that intervention. My only aim is that we all work with the Government and education authorities to come to a conclusion on how to address early diagnosis and to deliver for these young people—who in the main have amazing talents—educational facilities that will take them on, help them succeed and be superb members of the community, and enable them to live normal lives. My argument is that we are not doing that, and the hon. Gentleman obviously agrees with me.

[Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab)]

The education system in Scotland is devolved, but, as has been said, this is a problem across the country, because the condition is prevalent across the country. Does he agree that this is not just about local authorities and that there should be proper training for the teaching profession? There is also a body of work to be done on teaching schoolchildren to treat those in their classes who have autism slightly differently and to be a more aware of their condition so that they can thrive in a mainstream environment.

[Gordon Birtwistle]

Absolutely. I pretty much agree with everything that has been said and most people seem to agree with what I am saying. My argument is that, although the hon. Members for Liverpool, Walton (Steve Rotheram) and for Edinburgh South (Ian Murray) and my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) have all made amazing suggestions, we do not act on them. While we sit here and talk, why are thousands of young people and families across the country suffering? I have met some of those families and they are at the edge of life. It should not have to be like that. Proper facilities should be provided.