Consumer Rights Bill

Debate between Ian Murray and Jo Swinson

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and reforms are necessary and important, but there are costs to business in implementing a new regime, and to have it repealed wholesale after two years would incur significant costs.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.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Ian Murray and Jo Swinson

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.

Small Business, Enterprise and Employment Bill

Debate between Ian Murray and Jo Swinson

Wednesday 19th November 2014 Commons Chamber

[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.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Ian Murray and Jo Swinson

Thursday 5th December 2013 Commons Chamber

[Jo Swinson]

The hon. Gentleman understandably raises a constituency case, and I am sure the whole House feels for people in that position. Insecurity in that kind of circumstance, where jobs are lost or people fear for their jobs, is something we all understand. The best way to deliver the security that everybody wants to see for their constituents in work is to continue the recovery that the Government have started, ensure that we keep interest rates low, have a thriving economy and support the small businesses up and down the country that are the engine of growth. That is what the Government’s plan for recovery is delivering.

[Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab)]

One of the main contributors to the rise in the number of people feeling insecure at work is their inability to seek justice through the employment tribunals system. Data announced last week by solicitors Pinsent Masons showed that in some regions the number of employment tribunal claims had fallen by almost 80% since the introduction of fees, despite the Government’s impact assessment measuring it at just 20%. In the light of these figures, does the Minister agree that the level of fees is fundamentally restricting access to justice, and does she agree with the Scottish Women’s Convention that fees are disproportionately affecting women and they are discriminated against in the workplace?

[Jo Swinson]

The hon. Gentleman needs to be careful with his use of statistics, because we have introduced a range of changes to the tribunals system aimed at getting employers and employees to resolve disputes outside the tribunals system, which I would have thought everybody would welcome, given that tribunals are costly in terms of time, stress and money for everybody involved on both sides of the dispute. Our proposals, which we are implementing, on early conciliation and making it easier for disputes to be resolved should be working to reduce the number of tribunals, but the Ministry of Justice has committed to keeping these issues under review, particularly the equality aspects and whether there is any disproportionate effect on one particular group.

Post Office

Debate between Ian Murray and Jo Swinson

Wednesday 27th November 2013 Commons Chamber

[Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for her statement and for advance sight of it. Let me start by paying tribute to our sub-postmasters up and down the country. They are integral to all our local communities across our constituencies, and are indeed the social fabric of this country. However, the job of a sub-postmaster has become much more difficult in recent years. Research from the National Federation of SubPostmasters shows that incomes have fallen and many sub-postmasters work very hard, over very long hours, for very little return. That situation has not been assisted by the Government, who in 2010 announced plans to use post offices as the “front office for government”. The Government have failed to deliver on their pledge. No new major government services have been awarded to post offices since May 2010. The Minister says that the Post Office has won all that it has bid for, but these were contracts that it already had, and, according to the National Federation of SubPostmasters, many services do not make the Post Office any money at all.

The situation resulted in the NFSP removing its support for the Postal Services Act 2011, because the Government promised £466 million of government work but the Post Office is currently gaining only £130 million from government business—that is 7% less than last year. That failure has resulted in the post office network being under more pressure than ever before. In addition to that is the abject failure of the network transformation programme to do what the Government planned. Consumer Futures wrote to the Business, Innovation and Skills Committee last month saying that of the 6,000 branches that were predicted by the Government to convert to the new model, only 1,100 have done so. That shows that the programme is not working, which is why a degree of compulsion has been introduced, with additional funding to deliver it.

The Minister dresses up this statement as good news, but today’s announcement of an additional £200 million on top of the £440 million already trailed beyond 2015 means that we can firmly say that this is a vote of no confidence in what the Government are doing to the post office network. In effect, the Government are increasing the compensation for people to leave and providing more money to convert. Of that, £23 million alone is for completing a retail survey to determine who should be converted or removed from the network on a compulsory basis. If the Government had delivered on their front office for government work that they promised back in 2010, the £640 million would not be required. It is a payment for abject failure and for yet another broken Government promise.

The National Federation of SubPostmasters voted to approve the package yesterday, because most operators feel that the traditional post office model under this Government is not working. Sub-postmasters know that they face a degree of compulsion, but they will take the package as they are struggling on their incomes. The fact that members of the National Federation of SubPostmasters voted so wholeheartedly to support this package shows that they want out. It is the epitome of taking the money and running. Crucially, the money will be used to subsidise exit from the network rather than to go into the network to make it sustainable in the long term.

I welcome the last shop in the village and community post office funding and support the fact that there will be no compulsion in that area. The £20 million will assist in modernisation and help these critical community assets. Rural communities in particular need their post office services to survive.

By the end of the process, the Government will have spent £2 billion on network transformation, and there is a concern that we still do not have a model that is sufficiently attractive to current or future operators. If the model were attractive, it would not require additional funding, as the current programme would not be failing. Given that the National Federation of SubPostmasters has called the privatisation of Royal Mail a “reckless gamble” for the post office network, is it not the case that although the Minister is throwing as many sub-postmasters as she can into lifeboats, those lifeboats could already be sinking as retailers will not take on the local model? The Government are content not just with selling off the Royal Mail for a song but with hastening the demise of yet another cherished national institution.

In answer to a question from the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mr Reid) a few weeks ago, the Prime Minister said that

“we have committed that no post office will close in this Parliament.”—[Official Report, 23 October 2013; Vol. 569, c. 296.]

If that is the case, post offices in which owners are paid to leave with no alternative in place are closing by stealth, showing that the Prime Minister’s claim is indeed hollow and shallow.

Let me ask the Minister a series of questions. First, will the current criteria be used for compulsion, or will it be updated? Secondly, will the new announcement require new state aid applications to the European Union? Thirdly, if a sub-postmaster stays and converts to a new model, they will have their salary subsidised until 2015, but what happens beyond that? Despite the fact that more than 1,000 sub-postmasters have said that they wish to leave the network voluntarily, only 94 retailers have been found to replace them in the past two years. What happens to the post office if other retailers are not prepared to take it on after a postmaster leaves the network on a compulsory basis?

As shareholders get a significant financial benefit from a privatised Royal Mail, the taxpayer picks up a new £650 million plan B for post office network transformation. It is clear that the Government have created chaos in our postal services, and that the era of Postman Pat and Mrs Goggins is well and truly over.

[Jo Swinson]

I thank the hon. Member for Edinburgh South (Ian Murray) for his contribution. I agreed with some parts of it. Of course we all join him in paying tribute to the sub-postmasters who do such a fantastic job in all our constituencies up and down the country. I also agree that it has been a very difficult environment for sub-postmasters. However, small businesses and retailers have also found the past few years difficult. We could go over the argument that takes place in this House on a regular basis about where blame for that lies, but suffice it to say that we have seen a challenging set of economic times, and that has had an impact on the post offices, as it has on other businesses in the high street. However, the Post Office is a key partner of the front office for government, and it has won all the contracts that have come forward. Potential streams of income are coming down the track in the form of assisted digital services and identity verification. A whole range of different models are being explored, including those with local government. Indeed, a number of contracts have been won with various local government services, and there is probably more that can be done there, too. However, it is about not only the front office for government or mail, but having a diverse range of income streams for the post office. Financial services is one on which we have focused. For example, the roll out of the current account, which was piloted earlier this year in East Anglia, will be welcomed by many sub-postmasters, as it will provide regular transactions and regular footfall into post offices to give them the customer input they need to run thriving businesses.

I do not recognise the hon. Gentleman’s comments on network transformation. We are talking about a process in which more than 2,000 post offices are already signed up to convert to network transformation. I am sure that Members will report that customers have been positive about it, and the customer satisfaction statistics speak for themselves. Indeed, retailers in some of the new models, with the brighter and more modern environments, have experienced a 10% uplift in sales. This is about building a sustainable future. The hon. Gentleman tries to talk down the network transformation, but we should be talking it up.

I make no apologies for providing welcome funding to sub-postmasters for participating in important surveys, which will also help to gather valuable management data across the network. We are dealing with a diverse and dispersed network of nearly 12,000 branches across the country. It is important to have that management data for the Post Office to work out how best to plan the network for the future. Ensuring that sub-postmasters are properly remunerated for undertaking those surveys is particularly helpful.

The hon. Gentleman asked a few questions about whether new state aid applications will be required. The answer is yes, but as the package runs from 2015, there is plenty of time to ensure that we get through that necessary process. On the payments that sub-postmasters will receive, he is right that there will be an enhanced package up until 2015 because we recognise that in making a change and a transition, new customer bases and income streams will have to be built up. It is important that sub-postmasters are helped and encouraged to do that.

The hon. Gentleman was wrong to say that we were subsidising the exit of sub-postmasters and leaving communities stranded without post offices. That would be taking a leaf out of the previous Government’s book. Under this plan and under this Government, that cannot happen. There cannot be a subsidised exit if there is not already alternative provision in that community. Importantly, communities have to be happy with the changes that are being made, and provision has to continue. In those circumstances, if some sub-postmasters want to leave the network and retire or perhaps take on a new challenge, we will compensate them for doing so, as long as the service continues. That is the key difference between what the hon. Gentleman’s party did in government and what this coalition Government are doing. Labour closed 7,000 post offices. That was its answer to these particular challenges. We are creating a sustainable future for the post office network at a stable level. That is the difference between what they would have done and what we are doing.

Transparency of Lobbying, Non-Party Campaigning and Trade Union Administration Bill

Debate between Ian Murray and Jo Swinson

Wednesday 11th September 2013 Commons Chamber

[Ian Murray]

There is a very strong view that part 3 contravenes the European convention on human rights. The Committee will discuss that in some detail when it considers clause 37. That just shows how part 3 is being rushed through.

I say to the Minister that I am happy to pass around a hat so that Opposition Members who want to see the impact assessment can pay for the photocopying and so that her office does not have to waste paper. Perhaps she could come to the Dispatch Box and tell us whether it is available.

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

I will happily explain. The assessment has been in the public domain for more than eight days on gov.uk. My understanding is that it has been sent to the Vote Office, but we are investigating whether there has been a problem in communication.

[Ian Murray]

Problems of communication are not the responsibility of the Opposition. My hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool, the staff in my office in Edinburgh and the office of the shadow Business Secretary have been searching for the impact assessment. I think that the Minister might be referring to the equality assessment, not the impact assessment. We will wait for it to be photocopied and handed round.

[Ian Murray]

We are compiling a rather expensive list of photocopying.

[Jo Swinson]

I say gently to the hon. Gentleman that although he has been searching so hard for the impact assessment, he clearly has not looked on gov.uk, which one might have expected would be an obvious place to look.

[Jo Swinson]

I happily accept that it should be in the Vote Office. We are looking into that now.

[Ian Murray]

I have looked at the pages of the gov.uk website that relate to the Bill incessantly over the past week or so. The only thing I have been able to find is the equality assessment for the Bill. As far as I am aware, the impact assessment is not there. I am not trying to be difficult with the Minister. If it has been published on the website, we would certainly be talking about its contents.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jo Swinson]

I want to make progress, because we want to scrutinise other elements of the Bill today.

My hon. Friend the Member for Stevenage (Stephen McPartland) made a powerful contribution. He mentioned that social pressure can be applied to make people go on strike; those at the workplace who are not members of a particular union may be affected by industrial action. They might be an example of those who would like reassurance about the updating processes for the membership lists.

The right hon. Member for Wentworth and Dearne (John Healey) asked whether we would commit to publishing legal advice. As he will know from his time as a Minister, the convention is that the Government do not publish such advice. I am, of course, happy to give reassurance on his point. Clause 36 requires the provision of the certificate but will not contain information about individual members, so the article 8 right to privacy is not breached. I am sure that when we discuss the next group of amendments we will come to some of those human rights, privacy and confidentiality issues.

The hon. Member for Inverclyde (Mr McKenzie) said that data would be revealed in some way, but the confidentiality of members’ details will still be subject to data protection rules, the Human Rights Act and the obligations of confidentiality in clause 37.

The hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) said that the provisions would displace core union activity, but we should recognise that the changes are modest. Unions are already required to keep the register of names and addresses and of course we will work with unions and others to ensure that there is a smooth transition to the new system, supported by appropriate guidance.

Analogies with other membership organisations were raised by various Members. As I outlined to the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran, charities are regulated by the Charity Commission, which has widespread powers that focus on financial management because of the importance of donors and beneficiaries. The commission can carry out regular supervision and monitoring, including compliance visits. If a charity is under investigation, the commission can freeze assets and suspend or remove trustees. In the case of companies, the Companies Act provides the regulatory powers. The information has to include names and addresses and dates of membership, and fines and penalties are in place for non-compliance with these duties. The IOD and the CBI are lobbying organisations incorporated by royal charter, which means that the Privy Council is responsible for significant aspects of their internal control. I doubt that unions would think that those regulatory frameworks were appropriate to their unique status. Trade unions have a unique set of powers. They have rights and obligations—for example, the ability to take industrial action without financial liability for the consequences on those it affects. That is a special set of rights and it is therefore appropriate that they have a tailored set of regulations.

The hon. Member for Leyton and Wanstead (John Cryer) said that it is hard to keep accurate records of a work force, particularly in sectors where they are very fluid, such as construction, where there is significant churn. I absolutely appreciate those points and agree with him. That is why it is important that good procedures are in place to provide assurance that the lists are up to date. That is qualified by the phrase,

“as far as reasonably practicable.”

We will take into account the difficulties that are encountered.

The hon. Member for Aberdeen North made a thoughtful contribution in which he made good points about previous problems with great swings in policy direction from one Government to the next and the importance of trying to get agreement between the TUC and the CBI. There can often be common ground, as we find through the agreements on, say, the agency worker regulations or the way in which such organisations are able to work together through institutions such as the Low Pay Commission. He thinks that we are demonising trade unions, but I respectfully disagree. Many companies have very good relations with trade unions which play an important and welcome role. He over-eggs the impact that this measure will have.

I have dealt with the consultation issue raised by the hon. Member for Wansbeck. The hon. Member for Blaydon (Mr Anderson) made a number of points that mainly echoed others that had already been made and that I think I have dealt with. I appreciate that I may not have satisfied every member of the Committee. None the less, I have set out why clause 36 should stand part of the Bill and the amendments should be rejected.

[Ian Murray]

Thank you, Mr Sheridan, for chairing this debate.

I thank all hon. Members who have spoken—my right hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth and Dearne (John Healey) and my hon. Friends the Member for Blaydon (Mr Anderson), for Wansbeck (Ian Lavery), for Aberdeen North (Mr Doran), for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell), for Inverclyde (Mr McKenzie), for Bolton South East (Yasmin Qureshi) and for Leyton and Wanstead (John Cryer). We also heard from two Government Members—the hon. Members for Huntingdon (Mr Djanogly) and for Stevenage (Stephen McPartland).

I have a tremendous amount of respect for the Minister, but let me put on record that this is yet another case of a Liberal Democrat doing the Tories’ dirty work for them in this Chamber: again, that has been left to her. We are over four hours into this debate and we have yet to hear one bit of evidence for clause 36 being necessary or what problem it is trying to remedy. The Minister has said absolutely nothing about that. The TUC, the certification officer, ACAS and BIS officials are still to produce any evidence at all about the problem in the system that this clause is trying to remedy.

Before we test the will of the Committee on amendment 103, let me point out that Labour Members are saying clearly that if there is a problem, the Government should bring forward the evidence. The amendment would say to the certification officer that if a complaint is made by any third party and he decides that it is verifiable, he can then take the power, if he so wishes, to instigate action under the clause. That is a very modest change to a very draconian part of this ramshackle Bill.

Finally, I remind Members that we are not talking about trade unions in the round; we are talking about the people who deliver the mail, serve in the shops, teach our children, care for the sick, look after the elderly, clean our streets, assemble our cars and build our houses. The Liberal Democrats should remember that and come into the Lobby to vote for amendment 103.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jo Swinson]

That was discussed at length in the debate on the previous group of amendments and I refer the hon. Gentleman to my remarks in that debate. Clearly, we want to ensure that there is confidence in the names and addresses that trade unions use for the membership lists. There is agreement on both sides of the Committee that it is important that membership lists are accurate and up to date. That is an existing responsibility and duty on unions. The membership audit certificate will provide confidence in the list. It is much more proportionate for smaller unions, for which it is much easier to keep details up to date—smaller unions have fewer than 10,000 members, whereas some of the larger unions have more than 1 million members—to provide an assurance themselves. However, to have the credibility required for the larger unions, we must have that independence, which is where the assurer comes in.

[Ian Murray]

Regarding the example we heard earlier, would it be helpful for the Minister to tell the Committee categorically whether my hon. Friend the Member for Wansbeck (Ian Lavery) could or could not be an assurer?

--- Later in debate ---

[Jo Swinson]

I have already given way to the hon. Gentleman and I want to make some progress.

Amendment 110 would mean that unions do not have to set out in their rules how they will appoint and remove an assurer. Not only is the amendment unnecessary, but it is more prescriptive than what we have set out in the Bill. Our intention is to allow unions more discretion over when they remove or appoint an assurer.

Amendment 109 would prevent the appointment or reappointment of an assurer when there was a breach of confidentiality or a breach of their statutory duties or terms of appointment, or when there were reasonable circumstances not to reappoint. Of course it is important that the assurer should take their duty of confidentiality seriously, but the amendments are not necessary to achieve that aim. We can trust the unions to do this, and they will be able to pass a resolution to get rid of an assurer for any reason. It will be up to the unions to decide. The relationship between the assurer and the union is rightly one for the union to define. We have added a minimum level of protection in the Bill to ensure that an assurer is not reappointed if they are not qualified, are incapacitated or have decided that they do not wish to be reappointed. In general, however, it is better that the union should be responsible for the terms of the relationship with the assurer. That will allow much more flexibility to deal with the individual circumstances of each union.

Amendment 111 would expect the assurer to give an opinion as to whether the union had complied with the duty to keep its membership register accurate and up to date. This would replace the current proposal to give an opinion on whether the union’s system for compiling the register was satisfactory for that purpose. What is being proposed in the amendment would be far more costly and onerous to the union. In some cases, the assurer might conclude that they needed to carry out a thorough audit of all the content of the register. We believe that a systems check is more proportionate, and that is what we are setting out.

Amendment 112 has been mentioned by the hon. Member for Sunderland Central (Julie Elliott) and others. It would add an additional requirement to the membership audit certificate. This would be to include the assurer’s opinion as to whether the employer had shared “timely and accurate details” with the union. The hon. Lady took the view that bad employers would try to prevent unions from having the right information. As I mentioned earlier, there is already statutory protection to ensure that unions cannot be held accountable for information that they do not possess, or for inaccuracies that are beyond their control. It is also important to note that we will produce guidance for employers, to help them to assist unions to comply. It is important that employers should comply with their requirement to provide information to unions, and we believe that that additional guidance will be helpful in that regard.

Amendment 166 seeks to assist the assurer by requiring the Secretary of State to produce guidance and define in statute what is “satisfactory” and “not satisfactory”. The amendment is either necessary or desirable. What is satisfactory or not will vary from one union to another, and a one-size-fits-all definition would be onerous for some and ineffective for others. Our approach is to retain flexibility. Assurers will be professionals, and it is reasonable to rely on their professional judgment and ability to apply these phrases appropriately. Ultimately, the membership audit certificate represents only the opinion of the assurer. It is only the certification officer who has the power to make a determination.

Amendment 116 would mean that the union’s assurer was entitled to require only the union’s data controller to provide the necessary information. This would be instead of being able to approach

“the union’s officers, or the officers of any of its branches or sections”,

as set out in the Bill. That could result in the assurer being unable to ask questions of the right people. They should obviously be able to question those who handle sensitive membership data, but they should also be able to question others who understand how those data are kept up to date. In some cases, that might be one and the same individual, but in others it might not be. So the form of words that we have used in the Bill, which is also used throughout the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act, is much better.

Amendment 115 seems to suggest that a union should not be penalised for errors when the correct details are held by the employer. I have already set out why existing legislation renders such an amendment unnecessary. There is already a “reasonably practicable” test, and we will be issuing improved guidance. Amendment 117 would mean that the union could supply information to the assurer to help them to carry out their role only if it did not conflict with the union’s responsibility to comply with data protection requirements. I have already outlined the safeguards relating to data protection. The assurer will have to be able to see the register if they are to carry out their responsibilities effectively, and the amendment could prevent that from happening.

Amendment 119 also seeks further reassurance on the Data Protection Act, but that is unnecessary because it will already apply. Amendments 118 and 128 propose replacing the words “all reasonable steps” with “all steps necessary”. I must ask the hon. Member for Edinburgh South what steps he can imagine that are necessary yet unreasonable. Is he really suggesting that we want necessary and unreasonable steps to be taken?

Amendment 120 would change the disclosure requirements, but I have already set out the safeguards, so the amendment is unnecessary.

I hope that I have been able to reassure the Committee on a few points of concern. These measures will not present an unreasonable burden on unions and the safeguards in place against the misuse of data are more than adequate. This clause is necessary to provide independent assurance of the maintenance of large and complex registers. Clause 37 should stand part of the Bill, and I urge the hon. Member for Edinburgh South not to press his amendments.

[Ian Murray]

Given the time, all I will say in summing up is that the Government cannot win the next general election on the arguments, so they will win it on—

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Ian Murray and Jo Swinson

Thursday 18th July 2013 Commons Chamber

[Jo Swinson]

My hon. Friend makes an extremely important point. We are introducing financial education in schools, which is an important development to make sure that people have the tools to make decisions, but it is also important to note that half of the people who take out a payday loan are already showing signs of financial stress. So although we need to tackle the problems of payday lending, we also need to tackle the problems that get people there in the first place, and make sure that they have good access to the free and confidential debt advice available. I encourage anyone in financial difficulty to seek help sooner rather than later.

[Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab)]

A recent report by the Office of Fair Trading accused payday lenders of causing “misery and hardship”. The Minister herself said that

“the scale of unscrupulous behaviour . . . and the impact on consumers is deeply concerning”

and that the Government

“wants to see tough action”.

Despite an amendment in the other place last year, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Jonathan Reynolds) referred, to give the regulators the ability to curb costs, the Minister is still failing to act. The public will note with interest that a major donor to the Conservative party, Adrian Beecroft, has a significant interest in this industry. Is that what is holding the hon. Lady back from stronger regulation? She is in severe danger of becoming known as the Minister for APR.

[Jo Swinson]

The short answer to the hon. Gentleman’s question is no, because the Government are taking significant action. I think he misunderstands; the OFT report shows the biggest set of problems in the industry. I know that much of the focus ends up on the APR headlines, but the surveys and the consumer organisations working with the issue day in, day out show the problems around issues such as affordability assessments, continuous payment authority abuse and abuse of the way in which roll-overs are used. The FCA has said specifically that it is looking to plug any gaps in regulation in all those areas when it takes on the role of regulator next April. We do not have to wait very long to see its draft rule book, which will be published this September.

Postal Services in Scotland after 2014

Debate between Ian Murray and Jo Swinson

Wednesday 10th July 2013 Westminster Hall

[Ian Murray]

Which half?

[Jo Swinson]

I wonder which half. For clarity, I mean on the voting no to independence in 2014.

We have had queries about the price of a stamp and about the universal service operating for six days a week rather than for the number of days required by the EU. Those questions are for the Scottish Government. Indeed, the hon. Member for Glasgow North West outlined a whole host of questions that the Scottish Government need to answer.

I want to turn now to the hon. Member for Dumfries and Galloway (Mr Brown). I welcomed his contribution about post offices, a topic that was missing from this debate on postal services in Scotland. As I have tried to make clear, the subject under debate is a very separate issue to that of the Royal Mail. We have had a fair amount of confusion. Royal Mail and the Post Office are now separate entities. The latter is a separate company with its own board, which will be helpful to its ultimate success. We do not want to get confused, particularly when we are talking about privatisation.

The hon. Member for Glasgow South West said that he was astonished that Liberal Democrats were proposing the privatisation of Royal Mail. I accept that our 2010 manifesto was probably not high on his reading list, but it is bizarre to be accused of something being a huge surprise when it was clearly set out in our manifesto at the last election. We want Royal Mail to be able to access private capital so that it can provide a good service to customers because, ultimately, that is what is important, and when Royal Mail has to compete with schools and hospitals for capital it is not able to do that.

The situation for the Post Office is incredibly different. We are aiming for mutualisation, and the process is under way with a stakeholder forum that includes the National Federation of SubPostmasters, the Communication Workers Union, Government and others. It is important that we work towards a sustainable future for the Post Office.

Time is against me today. I conclude by saying that the post office network plays an important role in Scotland. The hon. Member for Dumfries and Galloway outlined some statistics and, as I promised yesterday, I will write to him on the issue he raised. The fact that Scotland has 12% of all post office branches and 15% of all rural branches shows that we have higher than our population share’s worth of post office services. Under an independent Scotland the service would, therefore, cost more, and the Scottish Government need to give answers to the Scottish people.

Post Office - Horizon System

Debate between Ian Murray and Jo Swinson

Tuesday 9th July 2013 Commons Chamber

[Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for the advanced copy of the statement and for coming to the House.

This is a disturbing affair. At a time when sub-postmasters’ income is being squeezed, the last thing they need is to lose confidence in the system they use to operate their businesses. The people in the post office network are the lifeblood of our communities and must be supported in every way possible. A recent National Federation of SubPostmasters survey found that operating costs were rising while personal drawings were falling, and that one in four sub-postmasters take no salary from their businesses. Most sub-postmasters earn little or no income from either financial or Government services, the two areas that Ministers identify as having real growth potential for post offices. The NFSP removed its support for the Postal Services Bill on the basis of the abject failure of the Government to deliver the “front office for Government” services they promised at the previous election. That is what makes today’s revelations on the Horizon system all the more worrying.

I welcome the steps taken by Post Office Ltd to investigate the concerns raised by the Justice for Subpostmasters Alliance and the right hon. Member for North East Hampshire (Mr Arbuthnot). Its website has a case-by-case analysis of sub-postmasters who did nothing wrong, but for whom alleged defects in the system had resulted in problems with cash reconciliation and processing payments. Press reports this morning say that the Post Office has admitted to software defects in the Horizon system, but the Post Office press release would have us think that this is a mere training problem.

Second Sight, the independent company employed by the Post Office to investigate these issues, said that while there was no fundamental problem with the Horizon system, there were bugs in the system that resulted in it identifying defects resulting in a shortfall of up to £9000 at 76 branches. The Post Office has recognised, however, that the report raises questions about the training and support being offered to some sub-postmasters. This raises wider questions on the current network transformation programme. Training concerns have been consistently raised by Opposition Members, the Select Committee on Business, Innovation and Skills and Consumer Futures, but the move to a Locals model could result in fewer fully-trained staff in our post offices.

If post office services are merely being administered from the front counter of a newsagent or shop, can we guarantee that the servers will be fully trained to ensure that the issues with the Horizon system do not arise in the future? The Minister did not address that question in her statement, and the National Federation of SubPostmasters has raised this issue time and again. It responded today by welcoming the Post Office statement, but also said

“We are encouraged to see that Post Office Ltd (POL) concedes that there is scope for improvement in its training and support programmes—issues which the NFSP has raised repeatedly with POL.”

This is all at a time when Crown Post Office staff are in industrial action, the transformation programme is struggling to be delivered, sub-postmasters’ incomes are dropping, there is a dispute with Royal Mail on the segregation of mail payments, the future of the inter- business agreement is unclear due to Royal Mail privatisation, and Post Office senior management have awarded themselves bonuses of more than £15 million.

What processes will be put in place to compensate sub-postmasters and former sub-postmasters who have been disadvantaged, fined, lost their businesses, homes or even jailed, as a result of the problems with the Horizon system? The Minister said that the interim report makes no comment about any convictions, criminal or otherwise, but will those serious issues be dealt with? When did the Government know about this investigation and the problems with Horizon? How will she ensure that all staff are adequately trained in the transfer to a Locals model? Can she confirm or deny recent reports that there are ongoing talks to change the voluntary Locals network model to a compulsory model, due to the slow take-up of the transformation?

[Jo Swinson]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his wide-ranging remarks and questions. He is right to say that it is important for people to have confidence in the post office network. In terms of tone, I understand that the remit of Opposition is to ask questions and to be challenging, but it is important that we do not talk the Post Office down. Members on both sides of the House recognise the vital role that post offices play in our communities, that they are doing an excellent job and that there can be a bright future for the Post Office. This Government have stopped the decline in the numbers in the post office network under the previous Government. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the Post Office has won 10 out of 10 Government contracts recently. We want more income for Post Office Ltd to come through Government services. It has a good record of winning contracts.

The hon. Gentleman mentioned the bugs in the system that have been reported in the media. It is important for the House to have clarity on this, because there are two separate issues. The Post Office itself identified issues on two occasions: through a routine systems check and as a result of a query from a sub-postmaster. That led to a small number of transactions being queried across 76 branches. Post Office was proactive in identifying and rectifying those problems so that no sub-postmaster was out of pocket. That is a separate matter from the issues considered in the report, and which were raised by the JFSA and Second Sight. No system-wide software issues were found. There were issues relating to the interface for dealing with multiple computer systems. The training on offer, and the helpline that sub-postmasters can call if they have a problem, were identified as areas for improvement.

The hon. Gentleman asked specific questions on compensation. There is no new evidence of further problems. Where the Post Office has identified defects, sub-postmasters have already received compensation to right underpayment. On convictions, it is up to individuals to go through the usual judicial processes if they are concerned about the safety of a conviction, and that can be done through the Court of Appeal. Clearly, if any evidence were to come to light that had an impact on the safety of convictions—I stress that that has not happened as a result of this interim report—Post Office Ltd would have a duty to look further at those issues as a prosecuting authority to ensure that convictions remain safe.

The report was commissioned by Post Office Ltd, but the Government were aware of it and there have been meetings with MPs in the House at various points in the past couple of years. On the transfer to the Locals model, I confirm that proper training will be in place. Customer satisfaction in the branches that have already gone through network transformation is significantly higher, and the experience that customers have is important. We are looking to ensure that network transformation continues and is successful, but any discussion on its future will be done in conjunction with the National Federation of SubPostmasters to ensure that we move ahead with a plan in which everybody has confidence.

Groceries Code Adjudicator Bill [Lords]

Debate between Ian Murray and Jo Swinson

Tuesday 16th April 2013 Commons Chamber

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

I beg to move, That this House agrees with Lords amendment 14A.

Hon. Members may be surprised to see the return of a Bill to which we bade such a fond farewell not very long ago. It returns to the House for two reasons. First, we had such an enjoyable time during its passage through the Commons that we could not resist one further go. The second and by far the most important reason we tabled this amendment in the other place was a recommendation from the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee in its sixteenth report of the Session.

As hon. Members will recall from our discussions, the adjudicator must consult on her guidance. This will allow her to make a recommendation to the Secretary of State about the maximum level of the fine or the basis for determining that amount. The Secretary of State will then need to lay an order before Parliament setting this maximum level or the method for determining it. The Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee has recommended that such an order be subject to an affirmative resolution rather than the negative procedure provided for in the Bill when it left the Commons.

There are already safeguards around the use of the power. It can be exercised only after a recommendation from the independent adjudicator, based on her consultation, and the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee recognised that this would usefully serve to inform the exercise of the power by the Secretary of State. However, the Committee advised that as the upper limit of the penalty is not on the face of the Bill, the power to fix those limits should be subject to a significant level of parliamentary scrutiny. This is in line with its recommendations in other cases in which the maximum penalty is not stated on the face of the Bill.

We think that the Committee’s comments are reasonable and we are happy to heed the voice of Parliament on this issue. Our amendment provides only that the order will be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure, ensuring that Parliament will be able to scrutinise and positively approve the order. I trust that this increased level of scrutiny will be to the satisfaction of hon. Members, and I urge them to support this minor amendment to what I think we all agree is an excellent Bill.

[Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab)]

It is strange that an hour has been allocated for this debate when it is obvious that it will take only a few moments. Given that the Agricultural Wages Board has been abolished by the unelected House of Lords and this House was not able to have a debate on that, the timetable today is a bit disappointing.

For my sins, I have often said in Delegated Legislation Committees in the past few weeks that I agree with the Minister, and this is another demonstration of the fact that when the Government do the right thing, we will agree with them. In this case, the Minister is certainly doing the right thing.

It is worth returning to the introduction of this Bill. It was a fairly ordinary Bill to start with, but it was strengthened substantially in the other place with the addition that trade associations and third parties could seek redress from the adjudicator. Importantly, on Second Reading in this House, we had a robust debate on whether fines should be included in the Bill. We disagreed on that point, and the Minister vehemently and robustly defended their omission. We are delighted that provisions on fines were added in Committee, which made the Bill all the better.

The amendment we are considering is significant because it shows the power of this House. The Select Committee has had a pre-appointment hearing for the adjudicator, and we congratulate her on her appointment. She will be a very good adjudicator and we look forward to her getting stuck into some of the important work that has to be done on this issue. We have also had a lot of cross-party consensus on the Bill on the Floor of the House and in Committee. It is a testament to the power of the Select Committees and the Committee system—not to mention the other place—that we started with a fairly weak Bill, but it will leave this House today much stronger.

Many people deserve credit for that improvement. As well as the Minister, they include the hon. Member for St Ives (Andrew George) who is in his place, my hon. Friend the Member for Ynys Môn (Albert Owen) who I do not see in his place, and my hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore (Huw Irranca-Davies), who was my wing person in Committee.

We do not disagree with the Lords and will be agreeing with the Minister in this particular case, but I will just make this point. We had arguments in Committee about ensuring that the Select Committee on Business, Innovation and Skills and the Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs in particular had time to look at these issues, and the Minister defended robustly the other Committees of this House. Now that provisions on fines are in the Bill, and the Secretary of State will be putting forward an order to determine their amount, it is right that that statutory instrument should be before the House for affirmative resolution. We can then debate it to ensure that it is in the interests not just of the suppliers covered by the groceries code adjudicator, but businesses and supermarkets too.

Groceries Code Adjudicator Bill [Lords]

Debate between Ian Murray and Jo Swinson

Tuesday 26th February 2013 Commons Chamber

[Jo Swinson]

I do not believe that is the case. The adjudicator will obviously be able to make their own assessments. The industry is confident that there will be very few complaints, and I wholeheartedly hope that will be the case, but if we find that there are many breaches of the code, and if the evidence comes from a variety of sources, the adjudicator will need to look at that and be empowered to make recommendations and requests, and they will need to be properly and adequately resourced in order to do so. Therefore, an arbitrary restriction on who can complain would actually make the adjudicator’s life harder and, indeed, could increase the risk of judicial review, so we will reject the new clause and encourage hon. Members to oppose it if it is pressed to a Division.

The hon. Member for Shipley seemed to suggest that the provision would cost consumers more money, but all the supermarkets that gave evidence on the matter said, when asked, that complying with the code had not caused them to raise prices, so his concerns are misplaced. This will not cost consumers. Indeed, surveys have shown that 84% of consumers support the adjudicator, and I am sure that hon. Members will be well aware from their mail bags that there is a great deal of public support for the adjudicator.

[Ian Murray]

The Minister is making a compelling case for the Bill, which we all support. I wonder whether she will reflect on the fact that some of the evidence we received in Committee and before showed that the groceries code and a well-functioning adjudicator will help innovation in the supply chain sector and therefore has the opportunity to lower prices for the consumer.

[Jo Swinson]

The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. The Competition Commission was very clear that innovation could be stifled by the potential anti-competitive practices in the sector, so it absolutely follows that encouraging innovation by ensuring that no anti-competitive practices are going on will allow consumers ultimately to get a better deal, and that is in their interests.

A few red herrings were put forward on the question of whether Esso and tobacco companies would be protected in some way by this. I refer hon. Members, as the right hon. Member for South East Cambridgeshire (Sir James Paice) did, to the Groceries (Supply Chain Practices) Market Investigation Order 2009, which is very clear. It states, on page 3:

“Groceries means food (other than that sold for consumption in the store), pet food, drinks (alcoholic and non-alcoholic, other than that sold for consumption in the store), cleaning products, toiletries and household goods, but excludes petrol, clothing, DIY products, financial services, pharmaceuticals, newspapers, magazines, greetings cards, CDs, DVDs, videos and audio tapes, toys, plants, flowers, perfumes, cosmetics, electrical appliances, kitchen hardware, gardening equipment, books, tobacco and tobacco products”.

That is what was found to be relevant through the Competition Commission’s investigation. I think that it is important to note for the record that some of those earlier red herrings were just that.

The hon. Member for Ogmore said that the adjudicator’s office would not involve huge costs. It is estimated that the costs of running it, including all running costs and staff salaries, will be £800,000 a year. As for how much of that is for the adjudicator themselves, they are currently acting as adjudicator-designate for one day a week on £23,000 a year, going up to three days a week on the same rate once we have Royal Assent and commencement, as we very much hope we will.

On new clauses 4 and 5, it is fundamentally right that large supermarkets should treat their suppliers fairly wherever those suppliers are located. The Competition Commission’s finding of decreased innovation and investment in the supply chain is likely to result from unfair treatment of suppliers and to cause detriment to consumers, regardless of whether those suppliers are outside the EU or the UK. Excluding overseas suppliers would therefore not be helpful to the fundamental purpose of the provision and would, indeed, undermine it. The code and the adjudicator complement each other and so they need to have the same scope. I resisted in Committee amendments that would have expanded the adjudicator’s role beyond merely enforcing the code, but I must now also resist amendments that would limit the adjudicator’s scope to being narrower than the code. I hope that my hon. Friends will withdraw their amendments, but if they choose not to do so I will advise colleagues to vote against them.

Payroll Companies

Debate between Ian Murray and Jo Swinson

Wednesday 16th January 2013 Westminster Hall

[Jo Swinson]

I do not have the estimate of the number of people who are falsely registered, but the Government’s estimate of the cost of false self-employment in this area is £350 million. I will certainly see whether HMRC has additional estimates of the number of people who are falsely registered. I would be surprised if it were as high as 380,000, given HMRC’s estimate of the cost. I will endeavour to find out and to write to the hon. Member for Leyton and Wanstead.

The construction industry scheme was mentioned, and it has an important role to play in tackling tax evasion. We do not want to fall into the trap of thinking that many people are trying not to pay tax. Most people pay what is due and pay it on time, and that is as true in the construction sector as anywhere else. We are aware, however, that because of the flexible contracts in construction, where itinerant labour is often used, there can be challenges. That is why the construction industry scheme was set up, so that a deduction or withholding payment of 20% can be made from the payments to a subcontractor if their track record indicates that that is necessary. The scheme secures £3.2 billion a year that might otherwise be at risk. In cases of genuine self-employment, at the end of the year appropriate reports and returns are sent in and a refund is paid.

[Ian Murray]

Does the Minister not realise that the reason why the Government have to deal with this problem is that workers in the construction industry are, given the state of the industry, simply glad to be in a job, so they will not raise concerns themselves? It is important that the Government take hold of the issues and deal with them on behalf of the workers. Workers fear for their jobs at the moment, which is why they are not bringing forward concerns themselves.

[Jo Swinson]

I recognise that at a time when unemployment is certainly higher than we would like—thank goodness, it is starting to come down, but we all want it to be much lower—that has a knock-on effect on the confidence of people in the labour market to challenge behaviour. That is why the Government, and, I would argue, hon. Members, have an important role to play in ensuring that people have information about their rights. Helplines offer free and confidential advice. Employers’ responsibilities are often highlighted, and public pressure can be applied, particularly to large household name companies, to ensure that good practice is followed.

Groceries Code Adjudicator Bill [Lords]

Debate between Ian Murray and Jo Swinson

Monday 19th November 2012 Commons Chamber

[Jo Swinson]

I hope that the hon. Lady will understand that I am not going to give an exhaustive list. If the groceries code adjudicator felt that the remedies were not sufficient and were not being adhered to and if there were repeated breaches or if the recommendations made by the adjudicator were not being followed up on, those things would weigh heavily in the balance.

There has been a lot of lobbying on this issue, not least from hon. Members. As I am discovering, ministerial life brings with it a variety of interesting experiences, one of which happened last month, when I accepted a petition from a giant dog.

[Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab)]

Was it an actual dog?

[Jo Swinson]

It was a man in a dog suit, rather than an actual dog. The event was organised by Traidcraft, ActionAid and War on Want to highlight their message that they want the groceries code adjudicator to be a watchdog with teeth. To further press the point, they left me with my own watchdog, which has brightened up by ministerial office. I assure the House that I have declared the gift appropriately. I appreciate that the decision not to have immediate fines will be disappointing to some supplier and campaign groups, but the dog remains on my office shelf as a reminder that, should we find that stronger sanctions are needed, the Secretary of State will be able to bring in fines quickly. I assure the House that we will have no hesitation in doing so if they are needed.

Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Bill

Debate between Ian Murray and Jo Swinson

Wednesday 17th October 2012 Commons Chamber

[Jo Swinson]

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. He rightly says that we want that process to be a success, and enabling the technology of the telephone to be used in it is a helpful, albeit minor, amendment.

Opposition Members have tabled a number of amendments on the early conciliation process. Amendment 80 seeks to require the Secretary of State to consult on, and undertake an assessment of, the impact of the introduction of fee charging in employment tribunals on the effectiveness of early conciliation before commencing these provisions. Hon. Members will know that the power to charge fees in tribunals is one that already existed; we announced our intention to introduce fees in employment tribunals in January 2011, and subsequently consulted on the appropriate charging points and fee levels in December 2011.

We recognise that the introduction of fees to bring an employment tribunal claim may affect the behaviours of both claimants and respondents, and that there may therefore be an impact on how parties elect to engage with early conciliation. We considered the possible impact as part of the assessment that accompanied the announcement in November 2011 of our intention to introduce early conciliation—copies are in the Library of the House. As part of the implementation planning, we will publish further impact assessments. The proposed amendment would simply require us to replicate work that we have already done and will continue to do, so I am unable to support it. The amendment is unnecessary, but I can give the assurance that we are, of course, continuing to take into account the impact that our approach will have.

[Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab)]

I wonder how the Minister would deal with an issue that has been raised by the chair of ACAS, Ed Sweeney. He said that the introduction of the fee structure could have an impact on the effectiveness of conciliation at ACAS.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jo Swinson]

I will give way shortly.

We believe our approach to settlement agreements is a more effective way of dealing with workplace problems, as it offers a positive outcome for all parties. Settlement agreements are by definition voluntary and consensual. Individuals will still need to get independent legal advice before signing an agreement and can decline it if they want to do so. That approach has the benefit that an agreed settlement gives an employer surety that they will not face a tribunal case on any grounds covered by the settlement agreement, which a no-fault dismissal regime would not provide. Employees are at liberty to reject an offer when it is not right for them and our approach does not remove an employer’s obligations not to discriminate or prevent an individual from bringing other evidence to support a case of unfair dismissal.

[Ian Murray]

rose—

[Jo Swinson]

I shall give way first to the hon. Member for Leyton and Wanstead (John Cryer).

--- Later in debate ---

[Ian Murray]

The Minister is being incredibly generous in taking our interventions. Does she not accept that settlement agreements, while they can be used where there is no dispute, are likely to create dispute?

[Jo Swinson]

I do not think so. Clearly it is important that the conversation is conducted in a mature and respectful way, and the guidance, on which we are consulting and which will include things such as guideline letters and templates, is expressly designed to make that easier for employers. The problem the hon. Gentleman raises is precisely the opposite of what the proposals will address, because now, where protected conversations can happen if there is a dispute, that creates a perverse incentive to employers to try to manufacture a dispute. Hopefully, the proposed measures will make it much easier for people to have that conversation without having to pretend that there is a dispute where none exists.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jo Swinson]

I think I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. The fact that there is criticism from both sides shows that a balanced approach is being taken. I shall make progress as I know that other Members want to speak.

[Ian Murray]

I am grateful to the Minister for allowing me to intervene. Let us nail once and for all the myth about employment tribunal claims. The Government used this as the supposed evidence for changing a range of workers’ rights. The massive increase in employment tribunal claims arises from multiple claims, which have risen substantially, but the individual number of multiple claims has stayed exactly the same for the past three or four years. Indeed, employment tribunal claims are dropping.

[Jo Swinson]

The fact remains that there is a massive backlog of employment tribunal claims, there are massive problems with the way the system is working, and there is significant concern in the business community, which has been expressed in the House and in Committee. I shall move on to the other amendments before allowing other Members to have their say.

Government amendments 11 to 15 to clause 13 will ensure that the power in the Bill to amend the unfair dismissal cap cannot be used to introduce a cap based on an individual’s pay without there also being a specified upper limit. My hon. Friend the Member for North West Leicestershire (Andrew Bridgen) raised a concern in Committee that, as it stands, the power in clause 13 could be used to introduce a pay-based cap with no upper limit. Clearly, such a step would increase potential compensation for the very highly paid and could thereby increase risks and uncertainty for employers. As my hon. Friend the Member for North Norfolk who is now the Minister of State, Department of Health, made clear at the time, this is not the Government’s intention. On the contrary, we are seeking to give employers greater confidence in dealing with disputes and to ensure greater realism about the level of awards in order to encourage settlement.

We launched a consultation on proposals to change the cap on compensation for unfair dismissal on 14 September, alongside our consultation on settlement agreements. The consultation includes looking at the overall level of the cap and also the option of introducing a pay-based cap alongside a specified upper limit. We therefore seek to make these amendments to ensure that the power in clause 13 reflects the Government’s policy intentions.

Opposition Members have proposed three amendments to this clause, the first of which, amendment 82, would delete the clause in its entirety. It has been a matter of common agreement for many years that the compensatory award should be subject to an upper limit. What that limit should be is the issue in question. This clause recognises the agreement that exists about the need for an upper limit, but provides a power for the Secretary of State to vary that limit subject to specific considerations. As I have said, we are consulting on what the appropriate limit should be. I am therefore unable to accept the amendment.

Amendment 70, tabled by the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell), seeks to remove the upper limit of three times median salary. The effect of this would be to allow the cap to be set at any amount. This would clearly run counter to the objectives that I set out a moment ago of greater confidence for business and greater realism for claimants. The hon. Gentleman tabled a further amendment to the clause, amendment 71, which would require the Secretary of State to consult the TUC and the CBI before deciding on a figure for median annual earnings where the figure published by the Statistics Board is more than two years old. I cannot envisage a situation in which such information would not be produced by the ONS in any two-year period but, should such an eventuality ever arise, the Secretary of State will be under a duty to act reasonably and rely upon relevant information. The Secretary of State and other Ministers meet the TUC and CBI regularly to discuss a range of matters, so there is little to be gained from placing a requirement to consult the TUC and the CBI on the face of the Bill. I am therefore unable to support either of the hon. Gentleman’s amendments.

I turn now to the amendments to clause 14 tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Bedford (Richard Fuller). Amendment 58 would delete clause 14 in its entirety. Amendment 59 seeks to restrict the imposition of a financial penalty to those businesses employing more than 10 people—that is, to exempt micro-businesses. I want to make it clear, as did my predecessor in Committee, that the introduction of this discretionary power for tribunals is not intended to penalise employers indiscriminately. It will be used only when an employer has breached an individual’s employment rights, and when that breach has been accompanied by aggravating features—for example, where there has been a deliberate decision to act in a way that breaches the employee’s rights, or where the same employer repeatedly acts in an unlawful manner.

When we first proposed the introduction of financial penalties, we had thought to make the imposition of the penalty automatic when there was a finding in favour of the claimant, but we listened to the concerns expressed by business during the resolving workplace disputes consultation last year and revised our proposals to give the tribunal discretion to decide when a penalty was appropriate. Good employers—those who try to do right by their employees—have nothing to fear, regardless of their size. A genuine mistake will not be grounds for the imposition of a penalty. However, those businesses which the tribunal considers have acted deliberately or maliciously will rightly, I believe, face the prospect of a financial penalty. They will no longer be able to gain a competitive advantage over businesses that abide by their obligations.

I cannot stand here and defend bad employers. I recognise the good work that my hon. Friend the Member for Bedford has done to support the interests of small businesses, and I am sure he does not want to defend bad employers either. I hope he will not press his amendments, as the Government are unable to support them.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jo Swinson]

As I have said, this is a new measure and these are the figures we have put in place. I do not know what figures the hon. Lady thinks should be set. It is important that there is some certainty for businesses and so, after progressing with this measure and putting it in place, we can then review it and see how it works. By ensuring that the specific amount is not set in primary legislation, we will have the ability to amend it through secondary legislation, which will give the required flexibility. Amendments 72 and 83 would undermine the objectives of the financial penalty regime and so I am unable to accept them.

The final amendment to clause 14, amendment 73, tabled by the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington, seeks to specify the purpose for which any moneys accruing to the Exchequer from the imposition of financial penalties should be used. Hon. Members will know that the Government already fund the activities to which the amendment refers through ACAS, with an annual grant in aid allocation of about £45 million a year. As my predecessor made clear in Committee, the purpose of the financial penalty is not to raise revenue for the Exchequer. It would not be appropriate to expect ACAS to function with some element of its annual funding being dependent on what is ultimately a discretionary decision by a tribunal. The existing mechanism for funding ACAS is the right one, so I am unable to accept the amendment.

Amendment 94 seeks to address a point we covered in Committee. I understand that its aim is to prevent a disclosure relating to a breach of a private contract from being a qualifying disclosure for the purposes of a whistleblowing claim, unless it is clearly in the public interest. My predecessor, my hon. Friend the Member for North Norfolk, explained in Committee our reasons for not wanting to take that route. We believe that such an approach would have the potential for unintended consequences and would not in itself address the concerns raised by the Parkins v. Sodexho decision. For example, the issue in that case could have been reframed as a health and safety issue, with similar issues then arising in relation to the disclosures of minor breaches of health and safety legislation, which are of no interest to the wider public. Not only are we closing the loophole identified in the Parkins v. Sodexho case, but by introducing the public interest test we are removing the potential for the opportunistic use of the protection. That will prevent any cases similar to the Parkins v. Sodexho case in the areas that would otherwise be uncovered by the amendment.

[Ian Murray]

I am grateful to the Minister, who is being incredibly generous in giving way. What would she say to the Law Society, which says that the clause will not do what the Government intend it to do?

[Jo Swinson]

I think that it will do what the Government intend it to do—basically what it says on the tin. It is about making sure that the public interest disclosure regime has to have a public interest test. That is what was meant when the legislation was initially framed and formed. The case law that has come up since then has showed that there was a loophole, and I think, to be fair, that the Opposition have accepted that it needs to be closed.

Following my discussions with the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran, the House may wish to be aware of the steps that the Government are taking in the NHS to encourage whistleblowers. As I said during the recent debate on the issue, the Government fully support the rights of NHS staff to raise concerns in the public interest. That right has been enshrined in the NHS constitution and further strengthened through changes made to the constitution and the handbook in March this year. The Department of Health is continuing to build on the rights set out in the Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998 further to highlight the statutory protections available for those who raise concerns. I want to stress that the Government fully support genuine whistleblowers and want to encourage individuals to bring issues to light, but we need to ensure that the balance of protection for employers and individuals is correct. We believe that the current clause achieves this, and I am therefore unable to support the hon. Lady’s amendment. However, I welcome the constructive work that she, among others, has been doing on the issue.

The hon. Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams) asked about the level of £5,000 and penalties. The provision is intended to mirror the national minimum wage compliance regime, so there is method behind it, but it will be possible to amend it if necessary.

I turn now to our amendments 16, 17 and 31 to clause 17. Members who followed the progress of the Bill through Committee will recall that the original clause, then clause 16, was accepted into the Bill without debate. The purpose of the clause then, as now, was to amend specified primary legislation to replace all references to “compromise agreements”, “compromise contracts” and “compromises”, where they occur in an employment context, with the terms “settlement agreement” or “settlement”. By renaming compromise agreements, we are addressing any conscious or sub-conscious reluctance by a party to use these agreements arising from the perception that they are conceding or “giving in” on some or all of their arguments. The original drafting of the clause—with the agreement of the Under-Secretary of State for Skills, the hon. Member for West Suffolk (Matthew Hancock)—extended the change of name to Northern Ireland in so far as it related to the National Minimum Wage Act 1998. Having since considered matters further, my Northern Ireland colleagues have concluded that such a change should not be made in isolation and should form part of the wider review of employment law that they have recently launched. As a consequence, it is necessary make minor amendments to restrict the effect of the name change to England, Scotland and Wales in only that Act.

I commend the Government amendments to the House and hope that I have fully explained why we are unable to support the other amendments in the group.

Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Bill

Debate between Ian Murray and Jo Swinson

Tuesday 16th October 2012 Commons Chamber

[Jo Swinson]

As well as moving the new clause, I shall speak to new schedules 2 and 3, along with Government amendments 37, 41 and 44, the latter of which are consequential amendments on territorial extent and commencement.

These amendments will reform the process by which an individual may apply for his or her own bankruptcy. They will remove the existing requirement for the indebted individual to present a bankruptcy petition to court and replace it with a new administrative process. Currently, a person with unmanageable levels of debt who wishes to make him or herself bankrupt must petition the court—the local court—for a bankruptcy order. There is no dispute that requires a court to make a judgment on competing interests in these scenarios. The vast majority of such applications—last year there were more than 30,000—are accepted by the courts with very little scrutiny.

The amending provisions mean that instead of petitioning the court, applicants would submit their bankruptcy application to a new adjudicator. This proposal was consulted on by the previous Administration and was broadly supported by interested parties. I should say that the Government consulted on removing the court from a wider range of cases, but as significant concerns were raised, this amendment concerns only debtors’ own petitions.

The adjudicator will hold a new statutory office, which we intend to be located in the Insolvency Service. The adjudicator will consider each application, and will decide on an objective basis whether the criteria for the making of a bankruptcy order have been met. If they have been met, the adjudicator will make the order. The administrative process is similar to the way in which individuals enter bankruptcy in Scotland, and in some other jurisdictions throughout the globe.

Applicants for bankruptcy will no longer need to attend court. Applications will be electronic, which will deliver significant savings, and applicants will be able to pay the fees in instalments. Bankruptcy will none the less remain a serious step. It may be the right solution for some debtors, as it allows debts to be written off and a fresh start to be made; but, quite rightly, those advantages are tempered by the serious implications of a bankruptcy order. Bankrupts are subject to restrictions, their assets can be sold for the benefit of creditors, and a portion of their incomes can be used to help repay their debts. For many, other debt remedies will continue to be more appropriate. We will therefore encourage debtors to take independent debt advice before making their bankruptcy applications. We will work with the Money Advice Service and providers in the debt advice sector to ensure that all debtors have the information that they need in order to make an informed decision.

There will be no change in the process that takes place after the making of a bankruptcy order. When an order is made by an adjudicator, the present post-bankruptcy order procedures will continue to operate, and the serious consequences that apply to an individual who is made bankrupt will remain.

[Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab)]

It is good to reach the Bill’s report stage following a mammoth session in Committee before the summer recess, and it is interesting to note that the Opposition made such a strong and determined case in Committee that no Ministers from the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills are left on the Front Bench.

The new clause amends the Insolvency Act 1986 and introduces an administrative procedure for debtor petition bankruptcies. It is extremely worrying that the number of people who find themselves caught in a spiral of debt is increasing, and that many are forced to declare themselves bankrupt as a result. The figures are stark. Citizens Advice has dealt with more than 2.2 million problems involving debt, and has received 131,000 inquiries about bankruptcy and 142,000 about debt relief orders. The issue is not just about financing and debt; it is about relationships and, in some cases, lives. Bankruptcy is all too often a stigmatising experience, and evidence shows that that applies particularly to men.

Although the number of people declaring themselves bankrupt has fallen, the number of those becoming insolvent has risen sharply, according to official Government figures. As the Minister said, there were more than 30,000 personal insolvencies in just one quarter this year. That is a staggering figure, which shows how many households need help with debt problems. Insolvency is a very difficult condition to have to face, and it usually comes at the end of a long struggle to deal with debt and other money problems. The leading debt charity Clarifi, formerly known as the Consumer Credit Counselling Service, has said that it expects the number of personal insolvencies to increase over the next year, and has warned that more than 6 million households are still living on the edge. It is therefore vital for those who are struggling to pay their debts, or even just worried about their debts, to seek free advice and support. Opposition Members believe that it is hugely important for the process of insolvency to be as swift as possible, and we welcome the initiatives that will speed up that process.

As the Minister will know, key stakeholders have broadly welcomed the proposals, but they have raised several issues that I hope the Minister will deal with. First, there is the issue of the establishment of the location and how the new administrative process will deal with bankruptcy tourism. Secondly, there is the issue of the qualifications of adjudicators, which has prompted concerns similar to those relating to the Government’s proposals in respect of the role of legal officers in the employment tribunal system, and has been raised on a number of occasions. It is important for adjudicators to be in a position to make crucial judgments not just about bankruptcies, but about referrals to court. They need both knowledge of insolvency law and experience of the court system. Given that the Secretary of State has the power to appoint adjudicators, may I ask what experience-related criteria they will have to meet?

Thirdly, there is the issue of fees. People who are struggling with debt often cannot afford the £700 that it costs to go bankrupt, even when bankruptcy would otherwise be the best way out of their problems. That leaves them in a financial black hole. The number of people using debt relief orders, one of the cheaper remedies, has risen sharply again. It seems slightly perverse that someone who is struggling with debts should have to find more money in order to petition for bankruptcy.

The Bill empowers the Lord Chancellor to be flexible in fixing fees. Given that the new streamlined system has the potential to be electronic, and to be simpler and cheaper, I wonder whether the Government will consider some remedies for the problem of fees, such as allowing people who are seeking bankruptcy to pay in instalments.

The Minister mentioned advice for debtors. There is a view that taking the bankruptcy system out of the formal courts process and making it more administrative will reduce the gravity of the situation in which people find themselves. It is important for bankruptcy to be seen as a last resort, but all possible advice and guidance should be given to those who seek to go down that route.

Finally, may I press the Minister on one of her great loves, the Post Office? It has been said that the new administrative task of filling out the bankruptcy forms in the prescribed manner could be performed through the Post Office by means of a passport-style “check and send” arrangement. That would also allow the Post Office to divert people to other forms of debt advice, including free advice.

We support the change to a more administrative bankruptcy system because it is one of the critical remedies for debt, but we should be grateful if the Minister could provide some comfort on the issues that have been raised.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Ian Murray and Jo Swinson

Thursday 6th September 2012 Commons Chamber

[Jo Swinson]

My hon. Friend makes her point very forcefully. I am very enthusiastic about the coalition agreement proposals for flexible working and shared parental leave and I very much look forward to taking them on.

[Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab)]

I, too, add my congratulations to the hon. Lady. As I did with her predecessor, I wish her just a smidgen of success. Given the number of Scots who have already spoken, we should all know that “smidgen” is a Scottish term for “a very little”. In the past two and a half years, Ministers have dithered on creating opportunities to get people back to work and have presided over a package of measures that make it easier to fire rather than hire employees. Given that the hon. Lady has backed her Secretary of State in saying that the watering down of employee rights, especially for low-paid female workers, is the wrong approach, will she now change course and put in place a proper strategy for growth, or will her new right-wing ministerial colleagues pressure her to follow the same failed approach?

[Jo Swinson]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his congratulations in person, having received them on Twitter yesterday. The Government are announcing a range of different measures today that will support the economy and improve competitiveness. They are on the right track and I am very committed to ensuring that we make them a success.