Oral Answers to Questions

Jo Swinson Excerpts

Monday 11th March 2019 Commons Chamber

[Anne Milton]

My hon. Friend believes that it is a growing trend; I do not know that it is a trend. I think we all agree that it is good when young people are passionate about the issues that they care about. I do not believe that anybody should go on strike as such, but I am sure that those students made up their studies in their own time and at weekends.

[Jo Swinson (East Dunbartonshire) (LD)]

The 15,000 young people who protested about climate change last month in the Youth Strike 4 Climate were passionate and committed. Instead of condemning them or branding their actions as truancy, as some would do, would it not be better for the Government to review the curriculum to ensure that greater importance is attached to the urgency of attending to the ecological crisis that we face?

[Anne Milton]

We would like to see those young people who have an interest in climate change becoming the engineers and scientists of the future, particularly the young women among them. It is important that people who care passionately about these subjects should use that passion to take up careers that will make a real difference to our climate.

Allergy Awareness in Schools

Jo Swinson Excerpts

Wednesday 14th March 2018 Westminster Hall

[Jo Swinson (East Dunbartonshire) (LD)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered allergy awareness in schools.

It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Christopher, as we discuss the issue of allergy awareness. It is a serious issue, and I look forward to discussing it and hearing from the Minister later on. I will talk about the serious and growing problem of allergies and the challenges faced by those who have them, the portrayal of allergies in the media and how that shapes our attitudes, the horrendous incidents of allergy bullying in schools and the potential for fatalities, and what we can do to raise awareness in schools and beyond.

First, I feel I should declare an interest; I had my first allergic reaction when I was four years old. I walked to the shop with my grandmother, where we bought a bar of chocolate—a Marathon, which shows my age—and by the time we had walked back up to the end of the street I had vomited up the Marathon. When I was a small child, happily, that was as far as the allergy went. It was not life-threatening; it was certainly an inconvenience and something to be avoided, but it was not as serious as it later became.

When I reached my teenage years, the reactions became more serious and began to include swelling in my mouth and throat. That was when I was prescribed an EpiPen injector, which I carry, regularly updated, in my handbag to this day and take with me wherever I go. That is an important thing for anyone who has been prescribed an adrenaline injector to do.

The experience of going through an anaphylactic reaction is terrifying. It involves a whole-body physiological reaction. I start to get a tingle in my mouth if I have eaten something that has nuts in it. I feel almost a rasping at the back of my throat. That, for me, is the tell-tale sign, at which point I try to take action. I sometimes try to make myself sick, to expel whatever it is I have eaten, although I know that can sometimes be problematic. I never really know how serious the reaction will be; sometimes it is mild and can be treated with antihistamine, and sometimes it develops into full-blown anaphylaxis. It is difficult for me as an individual to know which it will be.

When it does become anaphylaxis, that is when the heart starts beating. I find it is quite similar to having an asthma attack, where breathing becomes incredibly difficult. My face swells up and changes colour to become a sort of red-purple, I have palpitations, and it is not a pleasant sensation. Ultimately I need the adrenalin injector and treatment in hospital; I thank the NHS and indeed the health services in countries around the world where I have experienced this, as I literally owe my life to them.

I know what it is like to experience it as a sufferer myself, but I also want to describe how one mother talked about having her toddler try a walnut sauce for the first time. She said:

“His mouth started to bubble and mini-hives appeared. I could see the hives getting bigger and spreading all over his cheeks, his ears, up the back of his neck and starting to go down his chest. On the car on the way to hospital, he started to cough and vomit everywhere in the backseat. My greatest fear started to kick in when the choking, vomiting and crying turned to utter silence. He had gone limp. I was saying ‘C’mon buddy. Wake up’”.

She says:

“‘This is it,’ I thought. ‘I’ve killed my boy’.”

That little boy received hospital treatment and lived, but I ask hon. Members to put themselves in that parent’s shoes—particularly for that first reaction, when they do not know what is happening, the anaphylaxis is so terrifying and the child is of an age where they cannot even tell them what their symptoms are and what they are experiencing.

At this point, I pay tribute to Nicky Forrest, a mum in my constituency who, in addition to all sorts of work on the parent council of a local school, runs a local support group for allergy sufferers and their parents so they can share their experiences, advise one another and campaign.

[Kirstene Hair (Angus) (Con)]

The hon. Lady is making a powerful case. Does she agree that schools need to educate children and parents further, so that children who have allergies can socialise like any other child?

[Jo Swinson]

Absolutely. As I can attest, having an allergy is a condition that can be managed and need not prevent someone from having a full life and taking part in school and all the educational opportunities, but that relies on a wider awareness of allergy. Indeed, living with allergy as an adult is the same.

That is why awareness and education are so important—even more so because the prevalence of allergies in our society is growing. It is now estimated that about 2% of children have a nut allergy; of course there are many other allergens as well, so if we include other foods the percentage is higher. Last year in England there were more than 1,900 food-related hospital admissions for anaphylaxis. The anaphylaxis hospital admission rate increased sevenfold between 1992 and 2012. The UK is not alone in that, as there are other countries where the prevalence of allergies is growing, but we need to recognise it as a serious health issue. Indeed, it can be fatal. Data over the same period from 1992 to 2012 showed 124 fatalities were likely to be due to food-based anaphylaxis, 48 of which were school-aged children. For one in six of those school-aged children who died, the reactions occurred in school or another educational environment. The role of schools in this is crucial.

[Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

The hon. Lady is making an excellent speech. Since the Human Medicines (Amendment) Regulations 2017, adrenalin auto-injectors can be held by schools, but it is crucial that the education goes to teaching staff, who are reluctant to use them as well. Will she comment on that?

[Jo Swinson]

I certainly will. I praise the change to the regulations, which is a positive thing. It would be great if schools had some help with the cost of the injectors, because they go out of date; they typically last from a year to 18 months before they have to be replaced, and they can cost from £30 to £100 each, but the change is very helpful.

The hon. Lady is right about the training element. I was scared about using my own EpiPen. I carried it for years before I used it, and I used to go to hospital if something happened because I was petrified about what would happen if I used it. The first time I used it, I was on a parliamentary trip looking at human rights issues in Chechnya, and it was not safe to go to hospital because we had to go everywhere under armed guard. I was in a situation where I had to use the EpiPen, and I was really scared. Nicole, a wonderful woman from the human rights group who was with me, held my hand. We read the instructions and we did it together.

It started to work really quickly, and the relief and the experience of doing it have made me say to other people with EpiPens, “If you’re experiencing your reaction, use it. Then go to hospital, absolutely, but use that EpiPen, because it starts to work right away and delay can be fatal.” I know the experience I had is probably shared by others, but it is not the best medical advice. The more we can train and encourage people that it is a positive thing to do and will bring relief to someone who is having that kind of reaction is important.

[Jo Platt (Leigh) (Lab/Co-op)]

I thank the hon. Lady for introducing today’s debate. I too declare an interest, because my 15-year-old son has a severe peanut allergy. We have gone through life having to manage it since he was seven. I have only praise for my son’s primary school, which managed the medications and the out-of-date medications when the date was coming up. My worry and concern, not just for my son but for others in the same position, is secondary school, because things completely change. There are 1,000-plus pupils in the school, including teenagers who are difficult to manage and seem to think, “It’s okay, we can manage this.” My son’s reaction is so severe that if somebody else in the room has a bag of peanuts he reacts and needs his medication. I will get to the point: we need to inform other pupils and teachers of the seriousness of this.

[Jo Swinson]

I absolutely concur. That is why this wider awareness is important. Of course individuals need to have the information to manage their own condition, but particularly in those teenage years it can be more difficult for people. They feel a bit more awkward when they are eating out, because they might be perceived to be making a fuss. It is not making a fuss, but that is how it can feel in a group negotiating all sorts of adolescent relationships. For others to understand the seriousness of this is incredibly important.

There is not always a blanket ban on allergens. Schools make their own decisions. Some schools in East Dunbartonshire have become a nut-free zone, but that does not have to be the approach that is always taken—it depends on the specific risk being managed. However, reporting in the media is an important part of how we look at allergies, and food allergy and food intolerance are often conflated. Food intolerance, in particular, can get a pretty bad press.

We know that it is an issue at the school gates and on play dates, where parents of children with allergies can be viewed as neurotic or over-protective. Eating out can be a minefield. Improvements have been made in food labelling over the years, thanks largely to the European Union, which has driven that. Now the key allergens are listed in bold on the back of packets—they are very clearly marked. Indeed, since the 2014 regulations came in, we have the right to that information when eating out, about what food ingredients are going into what we are about to eat.

Restaurants, however, can easily become complacent. We had a prosecution, thankfully, which showed at least that the criminal justice system would take this seriously. An Indian restaurant owner, who had a cavalier attitude to safety, was jailed for manslaughter after a customer died from a nut allergy, because the restaurant had taken the liberty of swapping almond powder for a cheaper one containing peanuts and had not included that information on the menu.

Just a few months ago, top chef Raymond Blanc was at the BBC Good Food Show. He said:

“We are a kitchen not a hospital. Of course, now, if you don’t have an allergy, you’re nobody… It’s a very great fashion to have a food intolerance.”

I really think we do not need comments like that. They rather undermine his other claims to take diners with allergies seriously.

That attitude is really familiar to people with allergies. There is either the excessive response: “Well, you’ve got an allergy. We cannot possibly serve you, because we can’t guarantee anything, so, frankly, just go away and never eat out.” Or there is the response, equivalent to that eye-roll, which assumes that someone is making a fuss about nothing, and then people do not check the ingredients properly and that is when fatalities can happen. Many hon. Members will be aware of the case of Amy May Shead who, in 2014, was left with permanent brain damage when she suffered anaphylactic shock and cardiac arrest after consuming a dish that contained nuts in a restaurant when she was on holiday.

I have also raised the issue of parents of children with allergies being afraid when flying abroad, because they are worried about an allergic reaction happening in the air. I raised that at Transport questions and recently met campaigners and the Minister for aviation to discuss how to take that forward. Part of this is about the airlines getting their act together, but it is also about the air hostesses and air hosts on the plane having a wider understanding of allergies, so that they do not have the kind of really insensitive reactions that were reported by some parents. In one case, somebody made requests for an announcement to be made and had been deemed to be an over-protective parent. When the child and his mum got off the flight, the air host said, “See, we didn’t kill you, did we?” When we hear stories like that, we realise how far we have to go in raising awareness. This is quite a difficult issue to categorise. There are issues around health, education, transport and media, so it requires cross-governmental working.

[Jon Cruddas (Dagenham and Rainham) (Lab)]

Is it not the case that it is impossible to separate the question of allergies in schools from wider paediatric allergy support in the communities? The postcode lotteries are creating problems with access to suitable specialist support, as well as blood tests and so on. The work of the Department for Education and of the Department of Health and Social Care needs to go hand in hand.

[Jo Swinson]

I absolutely concur with the hon. Gentleman. I would argue that this is a public health issue that needs to involve all Government Departments. I thank him for the important work he does with the all-party parliamentary group on allergy. Perhaps I will spy in the Chamber a few hon. Members whom we might approach to become members of that group.

Some schools take the action of banning nuts on the premises following a risk assessment. When that happened in Exeter a few months ago, we were greeted by this headline on the Mail Online:

“‘The only nut ban should be the head’: Parents blast primary headteacher’s ‘ridiculous’ proposal to completely bar nuts from school grounds”.

That focuses on the anger and outrage of parents, rather than the potential threat to the lives of children in the school. These articles are often written in a way that encourages outrage on the part of readers, as if children with allergies are somehow an inconvenience to everybody else.

[Gillian Keegan (Chichester) (Con)]

I thank the hon. Lady for informing us on this subject. I do not have a nut allergy, nor do I know anyone with a nut allergy, but I have met people who are concerned not just about allergies in school, but about other medical conditions such as diabetes. They are concerned about the ability of staff to be available to help if a child gets into difficulties at school. The issue is not only training for schools, but monitoring and enforcement, perhaps by Ofsted, to ensure that those training plans are in place and that kids can have access to everything, including sports and all the other things that they would like to do in school.

[Jo Swinson]

I quite agree with the hon. Lady. Indeed, my sister has had type 1 diabetes from a very young age. The ability of schools to incorporate children with a range of conditions and ensure there is wider awareness, so that those children can play a full part in the life of the school, is really important.

On Friday, Sony’s new film “Peter Rabbit” will be released in the UK. The villain of the piece, Tom McGregor, is allergic to blackberries. One scene in the movie shows the rabbits—our beloved Peter Rabbit—deliberately pelting a blackberry into Tom’s mouth with a slingshot. Tom goes into anaphylactic shock, before stabbing himself with an EpiPen and then collapsing.

What do we make of that? I suppose we could argue that it shows that allergies can be dangerous, but I would take the view that for a popular children’s character to be light-heartedly encouraging behaviour that threatens the life of someone else, who is at risk of anaphylaxis, is unacceptable. Imagine that there was a scenario in which Peter Rabbit decided to start throwing knives at someone. We would not think that was acceptable viewing for young children in the cinema. What message does this send to children about how we treat people who have allergies and anaphylaxis? What message is going to be taken by the children who go to see that film and who have an allergy?

Apparently, Sony recognises that food allergies are a serious issue and that its film

“should not have made light”

of Peter Rabbit’s arch-nemesis being allergic to blackberries,

“even in a cartoonish…way.”

However, it is that cartoonish, slapstick portrayal that is the problem—it trivialises allergies in that way. I have written to Sony to request that in addition to that apology, that scene should be cut from the film when it is released. I think it has done that in one country. I hope that the Minister will add his voice to that request, because the truth is that children suffering from allergies experience that kind of onslaught in school.

Allergy bullying is a real problem. According to a recent study, more than one third of children and teens with food allergies have been bullied specifically because of their food allergies, usually by classmates. Sometimes that includes physical threats with foods. The consequences can be fatal. Last year, Karan Cheema, a 13-year old boy, died from a severe allergic reaction to cheese. Reports say that he was being bullied and that classmates might have flicked cheese at him or rubbed cheese on his neck. That sort of allergy bullying happens all the time. Only this weekend I saw a tweet from another worried parent whose son, aged nine, was confronted by an 11-year old threatening to throw a Snickers bar in his mouth. Two years previously, the same boy had threatened to throw peanuts at that little boy during a football session. We see more stories of allergy bullying in schools. It is far too much of a problem, and it needs to be addressed.

Schools have an important role to play in raising awareness. The spare EpiPens in schools project is positive, but more needs to be done through first aid training, health and safety training and raising awareness in schools of food allergy, and, indeed, other allergies. I hope that the Minister can give us more details about how his Department can help schools to get this right, so that children who have allergies and their classmates, are well-equipped to deal with these issues, and so that children do not feel ostracised or are bullied because they have this particular health condition.

Excellent work has been done by organisations such as Allergy UK and the Anaphylaxis Campaign, to look at how schools can improve the work that they do. Allergy UK has produced the school allergy action group toolkit, to help with awareness policies. Those efforts are to be commended. I hope that the Minister agrees with that.

In conclusion, changing people’s attitudes is never easy. It requires persistence and an holistic approach across Government. We face considerable challenges in altering perceptions of allergy in the media, in the school playground, in restaurants and right across society. Incorporating allergy and anaphylaxis awareness into first aid training as part of a new-look personal, social and health and economic education would be an excellent start. Training on these issues within teacher training would also be helpful. I hope that the Minister will enlighten us further on what he and his colleagues in other Departments can do to improve this issue.

Presidents Club Charity Dinner

Jo Swinson Excerpts

Wednesday 24th January 2018 Commons Chamber

[Anne Milton]

“Cross-party” is absolutely the phrase to use, and perhaps that work will start from today.

[Jo Swinson (East Dunbartonshire) (LD)]

The outstanding journalism of Madison Marriage at the Financial Times shines a spotlight on a real problem in our society. Some men, especially the rich and powerful, feel entitled to women, view their bodies as playthings and think that the lecherous pawing and groping of women is acceptable behaviour. That a charity is prepared to facilitate that behaviour as long as wealthy men are opening their chequebooks beggars belief. I am glad that David Meller has stepped down from the board of the Department for Education—perhaps he was encouraged to do so—but does the Minister agree that the Charity Commission urgently needs to investigate the failure of the trustees of this charity to discharge their duties to protect health and safety and the reputation of the charity?

[Anne Milton]

The hon. Lady mentions rich entitled men, but I will also mention powerful entitled men because this is not just about the rich. I gather that Great Ormond Street Hospital is not going to take the money that was raised by the event, which is a start, and I also gather that the hon. Lady has raised her point with the Charity Commission.

International Men’s Day

Jo Swinson Excerpts

Tuesday 14th November 2017 Westminster Hall

[Jo Swinson (East Dunbartonshire) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship for this important debate, Mr Austin. I congratulate the hon. Member for Stafford (Jeremy Lefroy) on introducing it and all Members who supported the subject being heard. It is the first time during which I have been an MP that we have had a debate on International Men’s Day. I was not in Parliament for the previous two occasions, so I am delighted to be able to take part. I hope this debate will become a firm annual fixture in the Commons, perhaps even taking place in the main Chamber in future years. These issues are important and deserve to be properly explored.

Gender inequality is endemic right across society. The stereotypes, assumptions and rigid constraints on behaviour affect both men and women, girls and boys, but our focus is often on how women and girls lose out from gender inequality. It is right that we explore those issues, but as we have already heard and will explore in the debate, it is absolutely the case that men and boys are also negatively affected by gender inequality. That is why gender equality is good for everyone. Sometimes in the media these issues are portrayed as men pitted against women, as if there is some battle of the sexes going on. In fact a world that is more gender equal would be good for everyone, and it is one that we should be able to join forces to create.

Healthcare, particularly mental health for men and boys, is a huge issue. Such problems can start very early on. In the opening speech, we heard statistics about how men are more likely to commit suicide, and indeed that is the biggest cause of death for men under the age of 45. That prompts us as a society to take a step back and consider what services we provide for men who find themselves in trouble. There is also an element of stigma, which we are starting to break down. In recent years there has been a welcome move towards talking more openly about mental health, and I know that hon. Members from across the House have spoken movingly in the Chamber about their own battles with mental health problems. That is to be welcomed, but no one would suggest that we are there yet when it comes to breaking down that stigma.

Importantly, we must also ensure that the services are there. For too long, mental health has been the Cinderella of the health service. It should be given parity with physical health problems, but mental health provision for individuals who need that support does not yet exist in our communities. Given that it is more difficult for men to seek help in the first place, if those support services are not there when they do, that is a double whammy.

In my constituency I am aware of an interesting project that has been set up specifically to help men with mental health difficulties. It is called Brothers in Arms, and when I spoke to its founders I was interested to hear their concern that not enough specialist services cater specifically for men and recognise some of the difficulties that men might have in coming forward. Such organisations—I know there are many others, particularly south of the border—and many strong campaigners and advocates are raising these issues and putting them on the agenda, but we must ensure that that is supported and progress accelerated.

[Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)]

The hon. Lady raises a good point about men’s mental health projects. Does she agree that that disparity is even greater for men in ethnic minority communities? Does she welcome projects such as the Reach project in my constituency, which tries to address those issues with the ethnic minority population?

[Jo Swinson]

Absolutely. The hon. Lady makes a good point, and we must ensure that we reach out to groups who are less likely to come forward. It is important that services recognise all the different reasons why that might be and the intersectionality of the different challenges that people face. I am sure that we all have stories from our own constituencies of services that are run by excellent individuals, some of whom might be paid, but many of whom volunteer. That is to be supported, but resource is also vital.

When considering why it is difficult for men to come forward, we need to start early and consider the stereotypes that are placed on boys from the earliest months and years of their lives. We say things like, “Boys will be boys,” or “Boys don’t cry,” and people get told to “man up”, as if showing emotion is a sign of weakness. The hon. Member for Stafford spoke about a masculine gold standard and the pressure to be the breadwinner. Obviously, anybody who loses their job will be thinking from a practical perspective about how they will pay the bills, but if layered on top of that is the view that because of their gender it is specifically their job to get the money to pay those bills, that adds a layer of additional pressure. It is 2017 and we should be able to share that responsibility. Different couples will have different ways of working out who might work, or whether both will be working, but we are not in the 1950s and we do not need to cling to the old stereotypes that state that it is always the job of the man in a heterosexual couple to go out and be the breadwinner. Such stereotypes lead to far too many men suffering in silence and are really damaging for boys and young men.

Over the summer there was a fascinating television programme on the BBC that some hon. Members might have seen. It was called, “No More Boys and Girls”, and it went into a school and spoke to seven-year-olds. It explored gender issues and how, even at that early age, they were already being embedded. In addition to the stuff about girls lacking confidence and underestimating their abilities, one thing that struck me was a test to understand where boys and girls stood on different issues. They asked them how many words they could use to describe different emotions, and the boys had far fewer words than the girls—there was a really marked difference between the boys and girls—with one exception: the boys had plenty of words to describe the emotion of anger. Consider what that says about seven-year-olds. It shows how such differences are starting early.

We must put in place mental health services, but we must also consider how we are parenting and the messages that young children receive which, I would argue, are even more gendered now than they were when I was growing up in the 1980s. Today it is much more segmented: pink for the girls and dark sludge colours for the boys. As the mother of a young boy, I go to buy clothes and toys, and it is clear what is supposed to be for girls and what is for boys. It is as if liking rainbows and butterflies excludes liking buses and dinosaurs. My nieces love dinosaurs, and my little boy loves butterflies. Why should we say to children, “This is only for one gender or another”? It starts with that stuff, which some people say does not matter, but it means that girls and boys are told what their role is very early on. When they read books they see that more of the characters who go to work and have a job are boys and men, and that is one reason why boys and young men grow up thinking that it is their job to be the breadwinner, and the pressure is piled on.

We should be as worried about the gender gap in education, in schools, as we are about it in the workplace. They are different gender gaps. In education, we should be just as worried about the fact that boys are reading less than girls—not only fewer books, but reading less thoroughly—as we should be about the fact that girls tend to drop out of science or physical education in their teenage years.

The flipside of having roles such as breadwinner and so on is how we value men’s role as fathers in our society, because that incredibly important role has often been dismissed and undermined. Look at some of the stereotypes in popular culture, such as the Homer Simpson stereotype of dads being a bit hapless and not up to the job. Men are just as capable as women at being parents. There is a myth that somehow women are naturally better at parenting but—breastfeeding aside—there is nothing that women do as parents that men cannot do. It is not about women being naturally better at it; it is who spends more time doing it. Practice makes—well, perhaps not quite perfect as I do not think perfect parenting exists, but it is about experimenting, practice and learning, and we should recognise the role that men play.

Why is it so important that men are involved as fathers? We know that it is good for children because they do better with social and language skills, and their mental health is better if their fathers are actively involved. Amazingly, the intensive involvement of a father is a better predictor of whether a child will have high academic achievement than their income—it is that important to a child’s development. It is also good for men, who are happier, healthier, more productive at work and live longer if they are involved fathers and close to their children.

Finally, we must break down the cultural barriers. When I was a Minister I was delighted to introduce shared parental leave—that is my proudest achievement from my time in government, as it helps parents to choose how to spend time looking after their children. That was a great first step, but it needs to be built on. A review is due next year, and we must consider how shared parental leave can be extended to all parents, such as the self-employed, and at how we can have more dedicated time for fathers. We must also look again at pay, to make it easier for dads to take up that leave. I have been delighted to contribute to this debate, and I am interested to hear what other Members have to say.

--- Later in debate ---

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Austin. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Jeremy Lefroy) on securing the debate, and other hon. Members on participating in it. Like the hon. Member for East Dunbartonshire (Jo Swinson), I too hope that next year we will see the debate restored to its rightful place in the main Chamber, where there is more time to cover some of these important issues.

It is fair to say that I am often pilloried for arguing that men and women should be treated equally. I do not see that there is anything particularly controversial in that, but it never ceases to amaze me how often I am accused of being a misogynist, sexist, or some other term of abuse, merely for saying that men and women should be treated equally before the law. That is a principle I was brought up with as a child and maintain today. What seems to have happened is that in many cases, militant feminists have tried to close down any talk about men and women being treated equally. To try to close down the debate, they hurl abuse at the people who raise these issues, in the hope that people will not listen any more to what they say, that they will stop saying those things and that other people will be deterred from standing up and saying those things.

The people who do that to me clearly to not know me, because I am certainly not going to be bullied or intimidated in that way. I am delighted that other people are finding the courage to raise issues that affect men too. I do not think that anything I have ever said should be seen as controversial in a normal world, but somehow saying that men and women should be treated equally seems to be controversial.

We have had some successes. A few years ago, I said that men were being treated more harshly in the criminal justice system than women were. It is worth reiterating that at the time, the exact opposite was being said in this Chamber. In a Westminster Hall debate that I held once, it was asserted that it was the other way round, and even Ministers claimed that. I am delighted to say that that is one battle that has been won, and now people accept that men are treated more harshly in the criminal justice system than women. Even the research carried out in the course of the Lammy review concluded:

“Males were independently associated with approximately 83% higher odds of being sentenced to imprisonment, compared to females.”

We can have victories for common sense; we just need some more. Men are increasingly getting a bad press, and it needs to be challenged. It seems bizarre to me that those who apparently fight discrimination, injustices and stereotypes are often quite happy to perpetuate all those things against men.

In thinking about International Men’s Day, let us remind ourselves that there are men who are victims of unequal pay, discrimination and harassment. We would not think so when we see all the headlines about equal pay gaps, which only mention women. They do not mention male part-time workers who are paid less than their female counterparts. For various reasons, in my view, the overall pay gap is not a result of widespread discrimination, but if they say it is, surely they should be equally outraged about the pay gap in part-time pay, where men are the losers. Surely the logic is that those men must be the victims of discrimination too, although that is unlikely to happen, because it seems that in the eyes of some people only men can be sexist.

There are also certainly men who are victims of domestic violence. Men are far more likely to be victims of violence generally. Men are victims of sexual assaults and rapes. Men are victims of stalking and controlling behaviour. Men are victims of so-called honour-based violence too; yet we would not necessarily think it if we were to pick up a paper, see the news, or hear about strategies for only tackling violence against women and girls. Every single victim of a crime is important, and preventing those crimes against anyone, male or female, should be a priority. The focus solely on women and girls is serious. To give one example of how dangerous it can be, a serious case review led to Bradford Council and the police apologising for letting down a 14-year-old boy who was groomed by dozens of men. Phil Mitchell of the BLAST Project in Bradford said:

“I think the fact he was a boy was an issue. If the police had got a call that a girl was planning to sleep with an older man then I think officers would have responded with more urgency.”

People, not least the leader of the Women’s Equality party, have said that I am a proponent of the idea that we achieve equality by treating everyone the same. If that is supposed to be a criticism, I am stumped, and I will certainly plead guilty to it.

[Jo Swinson]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Philip Davies]

I will not, because other people want to speak and I know that time is at a premium. I am coming to a close.

Why should male and female murderers not be treated the same? What possible justification could there be for treating them differently just because of their sex? Those who think the sexes should be treated differently in the eyes of the law are the ones who are truly sexist. They are the ones with the problem. Men and women are different, but that is perfectly compatible with their rightly being treated the same in the eyes of the law. Some people have said that every day is men’s day, but if anyone looks at the facts, that is certainly not the case. I would rather, as I have said before, that there was no need for an International Women’s Day or an International Men’s Day, and that men and women happily co-existed without tension or people stirring up issues with their own agendas. I hope that this year International Men’s Day provides an opportunity to focus on the negative stereotypical portrayal of men and the unjustifiable attacks on those who do not support the politically correct, militant feminist approach to things. I hope men and women can agree that that is not right, and join forces to ensure that the minority trying to do such damage do not succeed.

Oral Answers to Questions

Jo Swinson Excerpts

Thursday 26th March 2015 Commons Chamber

[Joan Walley (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Lab)]

9. If he will make it his policy to promote origin marking on ceramic products.

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

We have no plans to introduce a requirement for origin marking for ceramic products. However, ceramics companies continue to be free to use origin marking on a voluntary basis. Industry sectors with well-deserved reputations for design and quality, such as the UK ceramics industry, may find this a helpful promotional tool.

[Joan Walley]

The Government’s failure to endorse mandatory origin marking and promote product safety is a matter of unfinished business for me, but there is still time for them to change their position. Will the Minister give assurances that when her officials meet manufacturers from Stoke-on-Trent, including Steelite International, in April, the Government will take as much account of what they and people such as Steven Moore from “Antiques Roadshow” have to say as they do of retailers and importers? I know I should not do this, Mr Speaker, but I have a mug here with me. When you turn it over and find that it says “Staffordshire, England”, you should have confidence that it comes from Staffordshire and not from China.

[Jo Swinson]

First, I pay tribute to the hon. Lady and the efforts she has made on this and many other issues; she has been a stalwart campaigner on this issue, standing up for the ceramics industry. I will happily give her the assurance that when officials meet representatives of the industry, they will be listening very carefully to what they say. We have commissioned a study on this recently, and of course we will welcome the outcome of the European Commission study.

[Miss Anne McIntosh (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)]

I share the Minister’s preference that this should be done on a voluntary basis, but does she not agree that in industries such as ceramics and bricks China enjoys unfair competition over companies such as York Handmade Brick Company, given the cheaper energy China produces?

[Jo Swinson]

As in many areas, we are competing in a global marketplace and that can be challenging, given the different circumstances in different countries. Of course that is why many of the measures we have set out in the Budget and elsewhere try to support companies in this country, particularly those with high energy usage. We will continue to do that because it is important for building the stronger economy we all want to see.

[Jeremy Lefroy (Stafford) (Con)]

I agree entirely with the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Joan Walley) and praise her championing of the ceramics industry over so many years. Does the Minister agree that this issue is incredibly important because the ceramics industry is a considerable net exporter and therefore helps our balance of payments?

[Jo Swinson]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right to highlight the success of this industry, and I mentioned in my earlier answer the quality of the products produced; this is a good success story for the export industry, which is why it is important that the ceramics industry continues to get support and we promote the quality of the products around the world.

[Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)]

10. If he will ensure that employees working on zero-hours contracts who are in practice working regular hours over an extended period have the right to a fixed-term contract.

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

All employees on a zero-hours contract can already, after 26 weeks, request a move to a fixed-hours contract. That flexible working legislation measure was implemented on 30 June 2014. In the Small Business, Employment and Enterprise Bill, we will ban the unfair use of exclusivity clauses in zero-hours contracts, and the employment status review is looking further at the employment rights that zero-hours workers have.

[Paul Flynn]

May I take the Minister forward to the morning of 8 May, when she will be in her kitchen having a moment of kitchen candour over her muesli, liberated from control by the thought police of the Tory nomenklatura, and she will be making a judgment on her Department’s legacy on the question of the most vulnerable of workers, those on low pay and on zero-hours contracts? Would that verdict not be, “Nothing achieved, much lost”?

[Jo Swinson]

I wholeheartedly disagree with the hon. Gentleman. I am proud that we are taking forward measures in that Bill to protect workers on zero-hours contracts. I am very proud of the work we have done to enforce the national minimum wage, which of course is one of the key protections for workers on low pay. Of course we always need to keep employment law under review, and the employment status review I mentioned is a really useful piece of work that will make sure that the next Parliament can consider these issues further. In terms of modernising workplaces, shared parental leave, flexible working, and increasing the national minimum wage and enforcing it better, we have a very strong record to be proud of.

[Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con)]

I, too, am pleased that this Government have been proactive in investigating, consulting and taking bold action to prevent the abuse of zero-hours contracts. Does the Minister agree that that is in contrast with the zero efforts on this subject of the previous Labour Government?

[Jo Swinson]

My hon. Friend rightly points out that it this Government who have taken action on this issue. It is right that as the employment market changes—there will, rightly, always be evolution and flexibility in the UK labour market—we need to make sure we keep the legislation and that framework under review. The work that has been done on the employment status review will play a really important role in forming that discussion in the next Parliament.

[Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)]

17. The Conservative party’s parroting of the slogan, “long-term economic plan” rings very hollowly —[Interruption.] Will Members listen to the views of the constituents of Newcastle? It rings very hollowly in Newcastle where many of my constituents cannot even plan for the next week, because they do not know how many hours they will be working. The exploitative use of zero-hours contracts has rocketed under this Government. Why will the Minister not sign up to Labour’s plans to end it?

[Jo Swinson]

As I have said, we have taken action on zero-hours contracts, and the next Parliament will have to consider whether anything further needs to be done on that issue. We must keep the matter under review. This Government have been absolutely determined to build a stronger economy and a fairer society, and I wholeheartedly agree with that.

[John Cryer (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab)]

Zero-hours shifts are often cancelled at 20 or 30 minutes’ notice. Does the Minister think that that is fair? If she thinks it is unfair, what would she do about it?

[Jo Swinson]

There are issues around such contracts that employers should address. We are working with different sectors in industry to encourage them to bring forward guidance on the responsible use of zero-hours contracts. Many people who are on zero-hours contracts are perfectly happy with them. The problem is not with the contracts themselves but with the behaviour of some employers.

[Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con)]

11. What steps he is taking to promote regional growth.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)]

T9. Newcastle United football club and City Link share an owner, and the fans of the one and the workers of the other have suffered as a result. Indeed, the Scottish Affairs Committee recently berated him for his attitude to this House. Following the publication of its report, will the Secretary of State follow the example of my hon. Friend the shadow Secretary of State and call for steps to tackle false self-employment, which damages workers and leaves them without proper protection and support?

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

The hon. Lady raises very important issues. We are already looking at the issue of self-employment. Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs is doing so from a tax perspective, and we are also doing so in the employment status review because it is important that people have the protections they need as employees and that unscrupulous employers do not try to evade their employment responsibilities.

May I say thank you to colleagues on both sides of the House for their engagement in the debate on my portfolio issues in the past two and a half years? I never expected to become a Minister when I was elected in 2005. I have enjoyed it immensely and I hope I have made a difference in protecting consumers, improving corporate responsibility and modernising workplaces.

[Duncan Hames (Chippenham) (LD)]

rose—

Small Business, Enterprise and Employment Bill

Jo Swinson Excerpts

Tuesday 24th March 2015 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 34.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

With this it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments 35 to 62, 86, 132 and 136 to 141.

[Jo Swinson]

Part 4 of the Bill will introduce a statutory code and an independent adjudicator to regulate the relationship between large pub companies and their tied tenants. It will address problems about which many hon. Members and the Select Committee on Business, Innovation and Skills have been concerned for a number of years.

The House will remember that, on Report in this House in November, a market rent only option for tied pub tenants was added by way of a vote. In the other place, my noble Friend Baroness Neville-Rolfe confirmed the Government’s acceptance of the will of this House, so we have before us a Bill that honours that commitment and remains true to the spirit and intention of the amendment introduced by this House on Report. For example, MRO must be provided for by the code, it must set out reasonable time scales for the process, and it must include certain MRO triggers. Government amendments 39, 40 and 41 amend the original clause 42, which was introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds North West (Greg Mulholland). I take this opportunity to pay tribute to his dedication to this cause, his relentless campaigning for the rights of tied tenants, and his willingness to move forward. The way he has worked and championed the measure with MPs from both sides of the House, with the all-party group and with campaigners up and down the country is a real testament to what can be achieved by someone with vision and determination.

The amendments ensure that MRO is workable within the approach taken in part 4, is legally robust, and avoids unintended consequences. They are split into three clauses for clarity, one setting out a clear framework for the MRO option, one making provision for the procedures needed to deliver it, and one providing for the adjudicator to resolve disputes.

Amendment 39 provides tied tenants with the right to a market rent only agreement at a number of trigger points: at a rent review, at lease renewal, when there is a significant and unexpected price increase, or if an event occurs that is outside the tenant’s control and has a significant impact on the tenant’s trade. Although prospective tenants will not have the right to the market rent only option, they will have the protection of the parallel rent assessment, so that they can judge if the tied deal they are being offered is fair. PRA will also be available to existing tenants and, through secondary legislation, will be streamlined with the MRO process.

Amendment 40 sets out the procedure for the market rent only option and provides that the pubs code must specify a reasonable period for the two stages of the process. The first stage is where a tenant and their pub company try to agree a rent, and the second involves the determination of a market rent by an independent assessor. Amendment 41 provides the powers to enable the adjudicator to resolve disputes over matters such as the proposed MRO agreement, the independent assessor’s determination of the market rent, and whether the MRO procedures have been followed.

The original MRO clause included triggers for MRO upon the sale of a pub or the administration of a pub-owning company. In discussions with stakeholders, it became clear that it was not the fact of sale or administration itself that was a concern; rather, it was the potential for a pub sale, whether as part of an administration or in the normal course of business, to result in adverse consequences for the tenant. After extensive consultation and discussion with stakeholders and debate in the other place, amendment 47 extends the protections of the code—apart from the market rent only option—to tenants whose pub is sold by a code company to a company outside the statutory code.

To deter avoidance and ensure fairness we are also continuing code protections—excluding the market rent only option—until the next rent review for the tied tenants of pubs owned by a code company which, by selling a number of their other pubs, falls below the threshold of 500 tied pubs. Those tenants too would have continuing rights and expectations regarding their existing lease and the protections they should have under the statutory code, and they should not lose their protections because of events beyond their control.

We believe that this is a proportionate and targeted protection. It will last until the next rent assessment or the end of the tenancy, whichever comes first. MRO will not be extended, and nor will the investigation powers of the adjudicator. Investigation powers are not continued because they are designed to uncover systemic breaches of the code. It would not be right to include in that power companies that are obliged to follow the code only because some of the pubs they own used to belong to a code company, and that are covered by the code only in respect of those pubs. However, the arbitration powers of the adjudicator do remain, so those tenants will be able to refer any allegations of a code breach during the extension period to the adjudicator.

[Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)]

What would the penalty be for any breaches?

[Jo Swinson]

The adjudicator will be able to make recommendations so that problems can be put right, and ultimately it will have the power to levy fines. The specific details will be set out in secondary legislation, but we have a model in the Groceries Code Adjudicator. That adjudicator is already working, and we are learning from it how such a system can work smoothly in terms of staffing, for example.

Amendments 43, 44, 45, 55, 132 and 139 are consequential technical amendments to the MRO amendments. They relate to the enforcement of the code, the adjudicator’s annual report, the list of defined terms in clause 69 and to commencement.

The original market rent only clause allowed brewers that own tied pubs to require their MRO tenants to continue to sell the brewery’s products, as long as the tenant may buy them from any source. Amendment 46 implements that intention by amending clause 65 so that such a stocking requirement in a tenancy agreement would not of itself make the pub a tied pub. In stakeholder discussions, brewers requested greater clarity on what they were permitted to do under a stocking requirement; others were concerned that the stocking requirement might lead to undue restrictions on tenants who have chosen MRO.

Amendment 46 clarifies that brewers may also protect their route to market by allowing some restrictions on the sales of competitors’ products in their MRO pubs. However they will not be able to require that these pubs sell only their products and they will need to satisfy themselves that the requirements they are imposing are compliant with competition law. The restrictions may be placed only on beer and cider products and, crucially, tenants must be able to buy the brewer’s products from any source.

[Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)]

In the event of marketing arrangements which meant that the only place that beers could be purchased was direct from the brewer, do the provisions take account of the fact that the tenant’s right to do so might be difficult to put into practice?

[Jo Swinson]

The adjudicator could look into whether practices were all fair and whether the code had been properly complied with. Depending on the circumstances, competition law may also be relevant. The companies would have to assure themselves that any restrictions that they were placing were compliant with competition law. Through the new code and the adjudicator we will make sure that there is somebody who can look into the circumstances and arbitrate on whether what is being offered is fair and compliant with the statutory code.

For completeness, I shall touch on three other important areas of debate both here and in the other place where the Government have made important commitments to use existing powers in the Bill. On Report in this House, I committed to consider calls to exempt genuinely short-term agreements from the pubs code. My noble Friend Baroness Neville-Rolfe confirmed that the Government would use the power in clause 68 to exclude from the code tied pubs that are operated on short-term tenancy at will and temporary agreements that do not extend beyond a certain limited period. We intend to consult on the length of the period for exemption.

Hon. Members will remember that pub franchise agreements are in scope of our measures. They are, after all, tied pub agreements and share many of the characteristics of traditional tied pubs. Nevertheless, consistent calls have been made in both Houses to exempt certain franchise agreements from the code, or at least from MRO, if they do not charge rent and the price of products does not affect the tenant’s share of income. After much consideration, my noble Friend the Minister announced in the other place that the Government will use the power in clause 68 to exempt genuine franchises from the MRO provisions. The remaining code protections—for example, in respect of transparency—will still apply.

Given the differences between traditional tied pubs and genuine franchise agreements, we consider this a reasonable exemption. We will consult on the precise definition of “genuine franchise”, but we expect it to include criteria such as where a turnover fee rather than a rent is paid by the tenant and the share of the profit is unaffected by the price paid for tied products. This is important as these criteria can mean that the tenant’s interests are arguably more aligned with those of the pub company because both rely on a fixed proportion of turnover. The tenant in such circumstances does not face the combination of the wet and dry rent, as tenants do in traditional agreements.

There are other agreements in the industry which may be marketed as a pub franchise that display elements common to franchises in other sectors, such as common branding. But if they charge tenants a tied rent in the traditional way, they are not inherently fairer than a tied pub agreement. The consultation will allow us to set out the criteria for a genuine franchise.

In addition, I should clarify that where a franchise pub falls within the definition of a tied pub in clause 65, it will count towards the number of tied pubs that a company owns for the purposes of the 500 tied pub threshold. This will ensure that we do not create a loophole in the legislation. Furthermore, the Government would be able to amend the regulations should there be attempts to use this exemption as a means of avoiding the legislation.

Next, I come to the matter of investment. Hon. Members will recall that Government committed to avoiding unintended consequences in introducing this legislation. In the other place, and in discussions with stakeholders, concerns were raised as to whether investment in tied pubs could be discouraged because of uncertainty as to whether a tied tenant might trigger MRO. Views vary as to the extent of this risk to investment, but the Government consider that we should act to minimise any risk. We want to ensure that investment in pubs can take place and that pubs thrive. I am sure that sentiment is shared across the House.

The Bill as drafted does not prevent pub companies from issuing a tenant with a new lease alongside an offer of investment, and no amendment to the Bill is necessary to enable companies to do so. This would, in effect, provide a waiver from the rent review and renewal MRO triggers for five years. However, the Government recognise that significant investments may warrant a longer period of return on investment. My noble Friend the Minister therefore announced in the other place that the Government will use existing powers in clause 41 to set out in the code different rent assessment periods for different amounts of substantial capital investment offered. This will have the effect of deferring the rent assessment trigger for MRO for a longer period. It is important to note, though, that the other MRO triggers—that of a significant price increase and an economic event that impacts on a tenant’s trade—will remain throughout the deferral period.

Alongside setting out the deferral periods for different levels of investment, the secondary legislation will set out important safeguards for tenants—for example, to ensure that they accept an investment offer only after taking proper advice and that they cannot be pressurised. This is an area where both sides of the debate recognise that the need to enable investment and the need to protect tenants must go hand in hand. It is important that we can consult fully on the details so that we get it right.

These commitments regarding exemptions for certain tenancy at will, temporary and franchise agreements, and for a deferral of MRO in return for substantial investment, are not on the face of the Bill. They will be set out in secondary legislation after full public consultation.

I shall touch briefly on a number of technical amendments in this group before turning to the second issue in the group. Amendments 34 to 37 are technical clarifications to the “no worse off” and “fair and lawful dealing” principles. The key change is to make it clear that tied pub tenants should not be worse off than they would be if they were not subject to any product or service tie. Amendments 35, 36, 38, 42 and 48 to 54 are consequential on the changes made to clause 66 in this House to exclude family brewers from the provisions. This change means the legislation will apply only to a pub-owning business with 500 or more tied pubs. There are further minor technical amendments, on which I refer honourable Members to the explanatory notes for a fuller explanation.

Finally, amendments 136, 137, 138, 140 and 141 relate to adjudicator staffing and the point that I made earlier in response to the hon. Gentleman. They amend schedule 1 to enable the adjudicator to second staff from any source, in addition to the existing power in the Bill for the adjudicator to second from the public sector. The aim is to provide the necessary flexibility for the adjudicator to find suitable staff from a wider pool.

I am sure the House will agree that throughout our debates in both Houses all the pubs measures have been thoroughly scrutinised. Incorporating the market rent only option into the Bill in the limited time available to us and ensuring that it will work in practice has not been easy, but I believe that we have produced legislation that promises to be effective as well as targeted and proportionate. Crucially, these measures mark an historic moment for tied tenants of pub-owning companies. They will have the protections of a statutory code with a powerful and independent adjudicator to enforce that code. That the measures have the support of my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds North West, CAMRA, Fair Pint and others is testament to that, so I hope the House will agree to the amendments.

[Sir Greg Knight (East Yorkshire) (Con)]

I understand that the provisions on staff secondment require the Secretary of State’s approval. Can my hon. Friend give the House an example of the circumstances in which a Secretary of State might refuse such approval?

[Jo Swinson]

Clearly, the intention is to make sure that the adjudicator is able to recruit staff with the requisite expertise and experience, not only from the public sector pool. That is an important change and we have learned from the legislation that we have in place for the Groceries Code Adjudicator. Understandable concerns were raised in Committee about whether staff would come with vested interests. It is important that protections are in place to ensure that everybody can have confidence in the staff who are seconded, and to ensure that up-to-date experience of industry does not entail a conflict of interest.

On amendment 86 and the important matter of pay transparency, I am delighted to reiterate the Government’s support for this amendment to the employment part of the Bill that was introduced in the other place. We have already legislated in this Parliament to ensure that companies which directly discriminate against women in pay matters can be required by a tribunal to complete a gender pay audit, as well as to pay compensation. The new provision requires the next Government to make regulations under section 78 of the Equality Act 2010 within 12 months of the Bill receiving Royal Assent. Section 78 requires mandatory reporting of gender pay information by larger companies.

It is 45 years since the Equal Pay Act, and although the gender pay gap is at its lowest ever level and has been virtually eliminated for full-time workers under the age of 40, it is simply not acceptable that in 2015 we still have a gender pay gap at all. We are determined to eliminate it entirely.

[Toby Perkins]

I endorse what the Minister says about the need to deal with this matter urgently. Given that urgency, will she explain why the provision she is now bringing forward under the Equality Act 2010 has been sitting on the statute book for five years? Why is it that only at the fag end of this Parliament are we seeing some action, which the Opposition have been calling for throughout those years?

[Jo Swinson]

The hon. Gentleman says that the Opposition have been calling for this throughout this Parliament, but unfortunately that was not the case when they were in government. I refer him to the Hansard report of proceedings on the Equality Bill on 24 June 2009, when the then Labour Minister said that

“having mandatory arrangements in force by 2011 would run the risk of riding roughshod over the legitimate voice of both sides of the business community. Progress can better be made by bringing employers with us—by including, encouraging and cajoling, rather than compelling.”

My right hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Lynne Featherstone) responded:

“We cannot wait another four years…It is clear that we must take action now”.––[Official Report, Equality Bill Public Bill Committee, 23 June 2009; c. 410-432.]

We have got agreement in the Government to take that forward, but I have to say that the context of the commitments made from this Dispatch Box by the previous Labour Government during the passage of the Equality Act—they committed to a voluntary approach before implementing the legislation—certainly did not make that easier. None the less, I am delighted that we are now where we are.

--- Later in debate ---

[Neil Carmichael (Stroud) (Con)]

I shall not linger long on this matter, although it has been very complicated and at times the debate has been robust. This is a victory for Parliament. The Bill has been properly contested and thoroughly debated, and the outcome is impressive. I want to signal my support for the amendments today and for the overall direction of the debate.

During the passage of the Bill there were times when we disagreed, but those disagreements were based on a deep belief that we had to get it right. Overall, that is what has happened. I take on board the points relating to the code and to delegated legislation. It is absolutely right that more thinking will need to be done. Fundamentally, however, the direction of travel is now correct. Some of my concerns have been responded to properly by the House of Lords, which is absolutely fabulous. I think that anyone watching this debate will have been impressed by the way in which the two Houses have worked together to deal with this complicated Bill. They have produced an outcome that is good for the pub industry, good for the brewing industry and good for our communities and our pubs.

Ultimately, we want successful pubs and successful breweries. I want pubs in my constituency to continue to thrive and for brewers to feel confident about opportunities in the marketplace in the years ahead. Small brewers need to be supported and promoted. The changes made to the Bill in the past few months will do exactly that. I therefore have great pleasure in signalling my support for the Bill today.

[Jo Swinson]

With the leave of the House, I wish to respond briefly to the debate and thank hon. Members for their contributions. The hon. Member for Chesterfield (Toby Perkins) was kind. As others have said, this is an example of where the Government have listened, Parliament has spoken and we have worked genuinely with stakeholders and people from all parties to come to the right outcome.

Some outstanding concerns have been raised. The hon. Gentleman asked whether the investment waiver would end up being too broad for too little investment, and obviously it is important that we consult to get those details right. He also sought clarity as to whether the principles laid out would be upheld. The Minister for Business and Enterprise made the Conservative position clear in an intervention, and I am happy to confirm that the Liberal Democrats stand behind these principles. I hope that the consensus across the three main parties on those principles will give the industry and tenants some welcome confidence, certainty and reassurance.

My hon. Friend the Member for Burton (Andrew Griffiths) was concerned about potential unintended consequences, and my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds North West (Greg Mulholland) about some of the issues still to be discussed when we come to the secondary legislation. It is right that these matters be discussed properly during the secondary legislation phase and that we get them right. The long string of amendments to which my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds North West referred is testimony to the challenge of the detail we had to go into to get the issues right, and in that connection I would like to put on record my thanks to the officials who have worked tirelessly on this—not one of the more straightforward policy areas in the Department—over the last few months. I owe them a great deal of thanks for the wonderful job they have done.

There are issues still to be wrangled over come the secondary legislation stage, but I do not know whether I will be the Minister or if somebody else will have the great joy of steering that through the House. These are debates for another day. Today we should just be pleased with the proposed primary legislation before us.

Lords amendment 34 agreed to.

Lords amendments 35 to 62, 86, 132 and 136 to 141 agreed to.

Clause 3

Companies: duty to publish report on payment practices

[Matthew Hancock]

I beg to move, That this House agrees with Lords amendment 1.

Equality and Human Rights Commission

Jo Swinson Excerpts

Monday 23rd March 2015 Written Statements

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

I am today laying before Parliament a copy of the Strategic Plan Revision for 2015/16 which has been prepared by the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC), as required by Section 4 of the Equality Act 2006. The Commission will next revise the Strategic Plan by March 2016.1 am also today placing in the Libraries of both Houses copies of a revised framework document agreed between the Government Equalities Office and the EHRC.

[HCWS446]

Pay and Work Rights (ACAS Helplines)

Jo Swinson Excerpts

Friday 20th March 2015 Written Statements

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

Advice and guidance services currently provided by the Pay and Work Rights Helpline will transfer to Acas from 1 April. The Acas Helpline will, in addition to their usual services, answer queries on:

The National Minimum Wage

Working for an employment agency

Working hours, rest breaks and holidays

Agricultural workers’ rights

Working for a gangmaster.

The new arrangement will allow for a “one-stop shop” service for employers and employees who will be able to contact Acas for free and confidential advice on all employment rights and workplace issues.

Acas advice can be accessed either online: www.acas.org.uk/helplineonline or by phone on 0300 123 1100 between 8 am to 8 pm Mondays to Fridays and 9 am to 1 pm on Saturdays. This number costs the same to call as geographic 01/02 numbers, even from a mobile phone. It is included in callers’ free minutes on their landline and mobile tariffs. The current Pay and Work Rights Helpline is a 0800 number, which costs between 7p and 40p per minute for callers from a mobile phone. As the majority of calls to the Pay and Work Rights Helpline are from mobiles, the new arrangement is likely to be cheaper overall for users.

Having spoken to an Acas adviser, if an individual or third party wishes to make a complaint, Acas will transfer their call to the relevant Government enforcement body. Individuals and third parties will continue to be able to complain directly online to the relevant Government enforcement body as follows:

HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC)—about the National Minimum Wage

Employment Agency Standards inspectorate—about employment agency legislation (except Agency Worker Regulations)

Gangmasters Licensing Authority (GLA)—about agency workers in agriculture, horticulture, shellfish gathering or associated processing and packaging

Health and Safety Executive (HSE)—about working time issues, including maximum weekly working hours

DEFRA—about agricultural wages

Customers who ring the current Pay and Work Rights Helpline number from 1 April will receive an automated message advising them to ring the Acas Helpline. This automated message will be in place for at least the next 12 months.

More information on the above can also be found on www.gov.uk.

[HCWS433]

Equal Pay

Jo Swinson Excerpts

Wednesday 18th March 2015 Westminster Hall

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Emily Thornberry]

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

[Jo Swinson]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Emily Thornberry]

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

[Jo Swinson]

I certainly hope that that will be the case.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Dr Whiteford]

Of course, the Scottish Government have not over-promised more than we can deliver. That is why we have set those targets. Other parts of the UK have set very ambitious targets but have not been able to meet them. Surely, however, the bigger ambition is to get all children under the age of five into as much child care as their parents need to be able to do a job and fulfil their economic aspirations as well as their child care responsibilities.

[Jo Swinson]

There are two reasons why early-years education is important. One of them is that, regardless of whether parents are working, once children are over the age of two, and certainly once they are over the age of three, there are real developmental advantages to them having some quality early-years education. The second is related to the point that the hon. Lady raises about the child care element; child care can make the difference to whether it works economically for a family for the parents to be in work, and it is important to provide that choice. One of the big issues is the gap that exists at the moment, because if someone has to wait until their child is two before it makes economic sense to go back to work, and if they are going to have more than one child, that situation can suddenly lead to there being four, five, six years out of the labour market, which can have a really negative impact on someone’s career. If someone had wanted to go back to work, perhaps in between having their children, it is a shame if they are not being enabled to do so. That is another issue that the future Government should look at.

The hon. Member for Bolton South East (Yasmin Qureshi) raised a particular issue about employment tribunal fees, and other Members raised it, too. We are absolutely aware of the drop in equal pay claims. In my role as both a Minister at the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, and the Minister for Women and Equalities, I absolutely understand the concerns that have been expressed. The Government are committed to a review, including on the equality impacts of this policy of having fees and the level of those fees, and on the impact that those factors have on access to justice.

As Members will know, that policy sits with the Ministry of Justice, which has full access to all the data. I am looking forward to that review. From a BIS perspective, we are very keen to be helpful and BIS officials are already looking at the evidence that is available, which has been published by a range of bodies; those officials are analysing the data they can analyse. Of course, when the MOJ launches its review, at least some of the necessary analysis and work will already have been done. As I say, I understand the concerns that have been raised about this issue.

In conclusion, we have had a positive debate this afternoon. Equal pay is an important issue for us to make progress on, and to continue to make progress on. There is a whole lot of food for thought, in terms of how the shape of equal pay law might be fit for the next 45 years.

Premier Motor Auctions

Jo Swinson Excerpts

Tuesday 17th March 2015 Westminster Hall

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

It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Dorries. I congratulate the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Austin Mitchell) on securing the debate. I recall, as he mentioned, that we debated this subject in November 2013. The fact that he has returned to it for discussion today is testament to his tenacity and willingness to pursue the matter raised by his constituent, Mr Elliott, who he feels passionately has suffered a real injustice.

In our discussion almost 18 months ago, I set out that I shared and had some sympathy with many of the concerns raised. A wide range of people have expressed concerns about some aspects of insolvency regulation, which is why we have taken steps to make changes. I set out, which remains the case today, that I did not have powers to intervene in this case. Of course, the changes we are making will not be retrospective, but I hope to be able to set out the package of reforms that we have been able and continue to bring forward to strengthen the insolvency regime, which together are a bold step forward. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be reassured by that.

I appreciate that that does not help in this specific case, which is covered by the systems that applied at the time. I know that the conflict of interest issues have been considered by the court, who dismissed that application. The ICAEW reviewed the complaint and concluded that there were no such issues. The Insolvency Service then considered the ICAEW’s handling of the complaint and did not find fault, so in terms of the different routes available in this specific circumstance, it was hard to see how the redress the hon. Gentleman ultimately seeks would be possible. However, in terms of the wider regime going forward, we are determined to improve the situation for companies that might find themselves in similar situations.

I appreciate that that will be frustrating, not least for the hon. Gentleman’s constituent, but he has been able to set out his concerns about the case and the behaviour of the different organisations involved in handling it powerfully. If I may give my view, which is perhaps different from that given by those organisations, I think it is absolutely the place of parliamentarians to represent their constituents’ views, raise issues of concern and put those firmly on the record in Parliament when they believe that an injustice has been done. I do not think it is for other organisations, frankly, to tell MPs whether this is an issue that they should or should not pursue on their constituents’ behalf.

On that note, although we are from different parties, I would like to recognise that the hon. Gentleman has a reputation for being a great defender of his constituents, with ever-forthright comments about whatever issue of the day he is concerned about. Although this may not be his last contribution in this House—I hope it is not—it may well be one of the last, and Parliament will certainly be losing a character when he steps down from his constituency in a short while.

I will turn to what we are specifically doing to strengthen insolvency regulation shortly, but first, let me say that we have an open mind on whether to take further steps. The ethics code requires administrators to satisfy themselves that the board is happy with the appointment and to consider any threats to their independence. We are reviewing that in conjunction with the regulators and seeing whether it is sufficiently robust, so that is one area in which there could be further movement, depending on the outcome.

[Austin Mitchell]

Will the Minister tell us what is happening about the Tomlinson report, which is a review of a series of very similar cases to this one, but concerning RBS? That demands action, too.

[Jo Swinson]

Great minds think alike, because that was going to be my very next point. In 2014, the Financial Conduct Authority announced that it had appointed firms to conduct an independent skilled persons report to examine RBS’s treatment of business customers in financial difficulty and consider the allegations that were set out in the report by Lawrence Tomlinson, which were about poor practice that he had evidence of. Once the FCA skilled persons report has been published, which we expect to happen this summer, we will carefully consider whether any issues need to be taken into account in terms of insolvency legislation—including the regulation of insolvency practitioners—that have not been addressed by the reforms in progress. It may be that those issues are already addressed by our package of reforms, but if further issues are raised, we will keep an open mind about taking further steps.

I turn to measures that we are already taking on strengthening insolvency practitioner regulation. The Small Business, Enterprise and Employment Bill, which is currently before the House, contains measures to strengthen the regulatory regime for insolvency practitioners. The introduction of regulatory objectives will make sure that insolvency regulators have a framework within which to carry out their activities. That is intended to make sure that a consistent approach is applied and to give a reference point for discussions between regulators, insolvency practitioners and the Insolvency Service. The objectives set out in the Bill will ensure that the regulators have a system of regulating insolvency practitioners that gives fair treatment and consistent outcomes for people affected by their acts or omissions.

Regulators will have to encourage an independent and competitive insolvency profession, whose members deliver high-quality services at a fair and reasonable cost, with transparency and integrity. They must seek to maximise returns to creditors and be prompt in making those returns, and the public interest must be protected and promoted during the insolvency process.

Another measure could have been relevant in this case, had the provisions been in place at the time; I am referring to the power to allow the Secretary of State to apply to the court for a direct sanctions order against an insolvency practitioner, when that is in the public interest. The sanctions could be a range of measures, including revoking authorisation and a financial contribution to creditors. I said when we previously discussed this issue that there was literally no power for Ministers to intervene, but the new regulation addresses that. We anticipate that, because this is a strong power, it would be used sparingly. It would need to be used when there was clear public interest and evidence of serious breaches of law or standards by insolvency practitioners, and when swift action was necessary. None the less, that gap, where previously there was no power, is being filled and there will be a power. Combined with other measures in the Bill, that should hopefully address the perception that the current disciplinary procedures for insolvency practitioners are not always effective in delivering fair and prompt outcomes for those affected.

The sanction powers and the regulatory objectives will hopefully make sure that we have a clear, transparent system that can hold people who do not deliver to account. Those changes, along with work that the Insolvency Service is doing with both the profession and the regulators to enhance the regime, should improve trust and confidence without the need for further intervention. However, if that set of measures is not sufficient and there is still a lack of trust and confidence in the system, we have the back-stop power in the Bill to establish a single insolvency regulator. That is if we do not see the anticipated improvement and confidence in the regime.

Many people express surprise that there are eight different regulators that authorise insolvency practitioners. I confess that before becoming the Minister responsible for insolvency, I was not aware of that. I had heard of some of the bodies, but was not fully aware of the degree of complexity. I well understand the view that that diversity does not necessarily help matters. I can see the potential benefits, including choice, but that fragmented regulatory landscape can lead to problems of inconsistency and complexity.

We were working, even before introducing the powers in the Bill, to deliver more consistency. A common sanctions framework has been agreed and a single gateway for complaints set up. That should ensure that, whichever body regulates a particular practitioner, the complaints process and the outcomes will be consistent across the profession.

I will turn briefly to the improvements made in relation to pre-packs, which have been a concern of many hon. Members. The Government commissioned Teresa Graham to conduct an independent review in 2013, and her recommendations were published in June 2014. The report concluded that pre-packs were an important and valuable part of the insolvency landscape— indeed, I think it was intended and hoped that a pre-pack would be the solution in this case, even though there was not a successful outcome—but that there was a lack of transparency and confidence, particularly where a sale was to a connected party.

The review recommended a voluntary package of reforms, which my officials have been working with stakeholders to implement. The reforms include setting up a pool of experienced business people to scrutinise a planned pre-pack sale to a connected party and a strengthened professional standard for pre-packs, which will require more information on the valuation and marketing of businesses to be provided to creditors. We are working to put that in place. The review also recommended that we should take a back-stop power for use if the voluntary reforms were not successful, and we have done that in the Bill. Those reforms are in place, and we hope that they will be successful, but if not, we have additional powers in the Bill. Sometimes additional powers can also act as an incentive for all those involved to ensure that the voluntary regime delivers the outcomes needed.

There has been significant concern about the fees that insolvency practitioners charge. Earlier this month, I announced new legislation affecting how IPs charge fees. In the future, they will be required to give clear information on their fees and expenses before asking creditors to approve them. Where fees are based on time costs, creditors will need to agree an estimate of the likely fees. If the insolvency practitioner’s fee then exceeds the approved limit, they will need to seek further approval before being able to draw any additional amounts. Basically, the estimate acts as a cap on fees. Those measures deal with the concerns that many creditors had about a blank cheque in effect being written for the administrators, and have been welcomed by the profession and creditor bodies.

I have mentioned some of the other things that are already being taken forward, such as the review of the ethics code and the new complaints gateway, which will bring some consistency to the issue. People are becoming more aware of the complaints gateway. Last year, nearly 1,000 complaints were dealt with via that single complaints gateway. That is a sign that there is a degree of success from the changes that we are making.

I hope that the hon. Member for Great Grimsby will recognise that the Government have listened and continue to listen to the comments that he and others make about the problems in parts of the insolvency regime, which generally is very highly regarded. We need to remember that we have one of the best regimes in the world. Our insolvency profession is highly skilled and undertakes difficult work in challenging circumstances, saving many businesses and thousands of jobs each year. However, we must always strive to improve it. That is why we are undertaking these reforms. They will mean that in the coming months we will have an improved insolvency regime, including a better regulatory regime that will inspire greater confidence that insolvency practitioners and their regulators are working in a way that strikes the right balance between parties affected by insolvency. I hope that cases such as the one—

[Nadine Dorries (in the Chair)]

Order.