National Minimum Wage

Jo Swinson Excerpts

Thursday 22nd January 2015 Written Statements

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

Today I publish the response document to a public consultation on the draft consolidated national minimum wage (NMW) regulations.

The NMW regulations, which set out the detailed NMW rules, came into force on 1 April 1999 and have since been amended over twenty times. As a red tape challenge measure, the Government consolidated the regulations to make them easier to understand and their order more logical. As part of this process, they did not open policy decisions behind the detailed rules.

The majority of respondents to the consultation welcomed the consolidation of these regulations but expressed that even further clarity would be welcome. The Government will therefore review the guidance during 2015, including the provision of more practical examples.

The response to the consultation is available online at: http://www.parliament.uk/writtenstatements

[HCWS214]

Women and Equalities

Jo Swinson Excerpts

Wednesday 21st January 2015 Ministerial Corrections

[Mrs Sharon Hodgson (Washington and Sunderland West) (Lab)]

According to Stonewall’s latest figures, more than half of secondary school teachers fail to challenge homophobic bullying, while 17% feel they are inadequately trained to tackle such bullying. Therefore, does the Minister acknowledge that the Government’s failure to make sexual relationships education compulsory in the curriculum in mainstream teacher training has failed lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender young people, as teachers feel ill equipped to deal with homophobia in the classroom, or to advise children who approach them in confidence?

[Jo Swinson]

Sexual relationships education is compulsory, but the hon. Lady raises an important point about training, and about ensuring that teachers feel comfortable in discussing these issues and know the best way to do so. We recognise that more can be done; that is why we have announced the project to develop that evidence base, so that teachers can see what best practice is, and how they can develop the confidence to tackle these issues effectively in the classroom.

[Official Report, 15 January 2015, Vol. 590, c. 1006.]

Letter of correction from Jo Swinson:

An error has been identified in the response I gave to the hon. Member for Washington and Sunderland West (Mrs Hodgson) during Questions to the Minister for Women and Equalities.

The correct response should have been:

[Jo Swinson]

Sexual relationships education in maintained schools is compulsory, but the hon. Lady raises an important point about training, and about ensuring that teachers feel comfortable in discussing these issues and know the best way to do so. We recognise that more can be done; that is why we have announced the project to develop that evidence base, so that teachers can see what best practice is, and how they can develop the confidence to tackle these issues effectively in the classroom.

Millhouse Green Post Office

Jo Swinson Excerpts

Monday 19th January 2015 Commons Chamber

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

I congratulate the hon. Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Angela Smith) on securing this debate on the future of Millhouse Green post office and the proposals for the changes we are seeing within our post office network. The hon. Lady asked whether I am familiar with her constituency. It was certainly helpful to have the geography set out. I am not sure that I have an exact picture of the roads in my mind, but when I lived in east Yorkshire I greatly enjoyed walking in the Peak district, and I know some of the country roads between Sheffield and Manchester. I recall being most familiar with what was called “the snake pass”, which I think was a slightly different place. I can picture the beauty of the area about which the hon. Lady talks. She has set out her concerns clearly, and I hope to be able to provide her with some reassurance about continuity of service for her constituents who rely on the post office network.

Let me spend a short time setting out some of the changes we are making in the Post Office and indeed the reasons and the thinking behind what we are doing. We are investing nearly £2 billion in the post office network, particularly to modernise that network of at least 11,500 branches. That maintains a scenario whereby 99% of the UK population live within three miles of a post office outlet. We are incredibly committed to the post office network and we are looking even to see whether it can be expanded. In October 2014, for example, we saw a pilot of the Post Office’s home shopping returns service in approximately 150 new postal access points across the UK, which means that the network is growing for the first time in more than 50 years.

We all know how important post offices are to our constituencies. We need to ensure that they can be modernised and put on a sound, sustainable financial footing. Of course, post offices are changing. The way in which people interact with mail services poses challenges, but it also presents opportunities. The parcels business, for example, has expanded as a result of the increase in online shopping. It is vital for post offices to be transformed for the 21st century, which is the reason for our network transformation programme.

Since 2010 more than 4,650 sub-postmasters have signed contracts to modernise their branches, and more than 3,500 have reopened following Government investment. The demand is clear. The revamped branches are more welcoming and accessible, and they are also open for longer, which is important. Since 2010 there have been more than 100,000 additional opening hours per week, which is equivalent to more than 2,000 additional post offices offering traditional hours. That is particularly helpful. Moreover, the modernised branches consistently receive customer satisfaction ratings of more than 95%. I understand that three branches that have received Government investment have opened in the hon. Lady’s constituency. No doubt her constituents are benefiting from those—and, of course, sub-postmasters can also benefit.

Let me explain our programme of change. There is a “main” model, and there is a “local” model. The main model will often be stand-alone, while the local model will be attached to an existing retailer, which will commonly be a convenience store or newsagent, although about 100 branches will be attached to pubs. That arrangement will enable the cost base to be shared. The “fortress” position that exists in a traditional post office will no longer be necessary. There will be a post office point alongside a typical retail space, with the same member of staff providing both services, which will make things easier and will also help to create the longer opening hours.

We recognise that in many communities a post office is the “last shop in the village”, which cannot operate as a “main” or “local” model, and we accept that such branches should not be made to change. I think that the definitions and criteria may be causing difficulty. If there are no alternative retail outlets within half a mile of a post office, it will be possible to designate it as a community branch. The current status is not changing, but, as part of our transformation programme, each branch has been assessed according to such criteria. We have protected 3,400 “last shop in the village” branches by designating them community post offices. They will benefit from new investment in the same way as the “mains” and “locals”. We are providing a £20 million community branch fund, which will secure their future and enable them to invest in renovations.

We also recognise that if we are to put post offices on to a stronger financial footing, enabling a branch to operate as one of the new models such as a “main” or a “local”, either on the existing premises or in premises nearby, will benefit customers, communities and the taxpayer. We are trying to work closely with branches in communities where such an arrangement is possible in order to identify the best long-term future.

The position of Millhouse Green is obviously of great concern to the hon. Lady. The Post Office has been engaging with the sub-postmistress on the issue of network transformation since last September. I understand that she is keen to retire at some stage and wishes to sell the retail and post office business together, but does not wish to receive investment to convert to a local model. I also understand that she has applied to have the branch classified as a community branch, but that has been rejected because—as the hon. Lady explained—there is a suitable alternative retailer 130 metres from the branch.

Three solutions are being considered. The current process being followed is to sell the branch as a “post office local.” If successful, this will result in the sub-postmistress receiving the sale value of her business plus a payment from Post Office Ltd equal to the last 12 months of remuneration earned. The incoming operator would receive investment from POL to convert the branch.

[Angela Smith]

I have spoken to the sub-postmistress about selling the business, and I do know that she will look to retire very soon. The point is that there is very little interest. She has already looked at this and talked to a potential buyer. There is very little to no interest in buying the business, particularly if the core tier payment disappears. That is the key point in this debate. The core tier payment disappears on the basis that there is an alternative provider, but the key point again is that the alternative provider is not interested, and the risk is to the community, not particularly to the sub-postmistress in the long term, who will, of course, retire.

[Jo Swinson]

I recognise that point, and I want to reassure the hon. Lady about the potential scenario if that were to unfold, but my understanding is that at this point the Post Office, with the agreement of the sub-postmistress, is advertising the branch on its website as a commercial transfer opportunity, and that runs for three months. They are looking to find a buyer who would be able to operate it as a local post office. That advertisement runs until February, and it is important to follow that process and to try, on an official basis, to see if someone can be found to take it on, because if that is possible, that is the best potential outcome for the community and the sub-postmistress and the long-term future of the service.

The second option would be for the branch to convert to a “post office local”. If that were to happen, the sub-postmistress would receive financial support during that phase of transition, but I recognise she may not be keen to do that. Alternatively, the branch could move to the nearby retailer that has been mentioned, who would then host a local post office branch. In that scenario, the existing sub-postmistress would receive a leaver’s payment equal to 26 months remuneration and the new sub-postmaster would receive investment to set up their branch.

I recognise that some of these options might not be the sub-postmistress’s preferred course of action, but the Post Office is committed to working alongside her to ensure that service provision can be maintained.

One possible scenario is that the current search for a buyer is not successful. If so, the Post Office confirms it would review the situation and discuss what alternative options would be available. There is a commitment to continuing the service, of course, which could mean the sub-postmistress continuing on her current contract for at least a period of 12 months, when the situation could be reviewed again. The community would not then be left without a post office because there is that commitment to make sure there is continuity of service.

The business is currently being marketed for sale, so the Post Office has not approached other retail providers in the area or looked at alternative plans, as that would be inappropriate at this time. The Post Office would, of course, engage in that, however, if the sale route did not prove fruitful.

I reiterate that commitment, because although we want to get the Post Office on to a secure and sustainable footing, and therefore, where possible, not having the additional subsidy that we want to reserve for those branches with no other option and that therefore have to continue with the core tier payment, none the less we are determined to make sure communities retain their services. That is a clear commitment from the Post Office as part of the network transformation, which is in stark contrast with what happened under the last Government, when there were two closure programmes and 5,000 branches were lost as a result. We want to learn the lessons from those programmes and make sure community services are able to remain.

I know that Post Office Ltd has offered to meet the hon. Lady to discuss this issue further and I hope she will be happy to take up that offer, and in February we will be able to see what interest there has been in buying the post office. The Post Office will continue to work closely with the sub-postmistress and the hon. Lady to make sure that the future provision of post office services for the community in Millhouse Green is secure and sustainable for the long term.

Question put and agreed to.

Oral Answers to Questions

Jo Swinson Excerpts

Thursday 15th January 2015 Commons Chamber

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

Homophobic bullying is absolutely unacceptable and we are committed to eliminating it. That is why we have announced £2 million of grant funding to support schools to address the issue more effectively. That, of course, complements the £4 million that the Department for Education currently provides to charitable organisations to tackle all forms of bullying. Schools policy in Wales, including bullying, is a matter for the Welsh Government.

[Douglas Carswell]

Only yesterday, another concerned Clacton parent contacted me about bullying. Obviously, and quite rightly, academies are self-governing. Notwithstanding that, is there specific advice that the Minister might like to give to academies to try to address that problem?

[Jo Swinson]

There is plenty of guidance available, but the point of the work that we are funding is to help develop further the evidence base on the most appropriate and effective forms of intervention, which we will be able to share more widely with schools, so that they know how best to tackle such bullying. I welcome the hon. Gentleman’s commitment to these important issues; I only wish that the rest of his party’s members took the same approach.

[Mrs Sharon Hodgson (Washington and Sunderland West) (Lab)]

According to Stonewall’s latest figures, more than half of secondary school teachers fail to challenge homophobic bullying, while 17% feel they are inadequately trained to tackle such bullying. Therefore, does the Minister acknowledge that the Government’s failure to make sexual relationships education compulsory in the curriculum in mainstream teacher training has failed lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender young people, as teachers feel ill equipped to deal with homophobia in the classroom, or to advise children who approach them in confidence?

[Jo Swinson]

Sexual relationships education is compulsory, but the hon. Lady raises an important point about training, and about ensuring that teachers feel comfortable in discussing these issues and know the best way to do so. We recognise that more can be done; that is why we have announced the project to develop that evidence base, so that teachers can see what best practice is, and how they can develop the confidence to tackle these issues effectively in the classroom. [Official Report, 21 January 2015, Vol. 591, c. 2MC.]

[Nic Dakin (Scunthorpe) (Lab)]

5. What assessment she has made of the effect of the under-occupancy penalty on disabled people.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

7. What steps her Department is taking to reduce inequality arising from socio-economic background.

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

The Government are committed to improving social mobility. That is why we have extended free early education to disadvantaged two-year-olds, introduced a £2.5 billion a year investment in the pupil premium, delivered 2 million apprenticeship starts within this Parliament and have more than 180 major employers signed up to the social mobility business compact to inspire young people and improve access to employment opportunities.

[Kerry McCarthy]

Bristol’s fairness commission reported last year and described Bristol as a “tale of two cities,” with some areas facing “persistent deprivation.” When the Government entered power, they refused to implement clause 1 of the Equality Act 2010, the socio-economic duty, which would have placed a duty on all public bodies to have awareness of the effect of economic inequality on their policies. Will the Government reconsider that, because it is an issue that they have completely overlooked?

[Jo Swinson]

It is not the Government’s intention to do so at the moment, but of course local authorities have plenty of discretion, powers and tools to tackle these issues. The hon. Lady rightly highlights that there are important issues of deprivation within local authorities and it is vital that they are tackled.

[Pamela Nash (Airdrie and Shotts) (Lab)]

8. What estimate she has made of the number of women in low-paid work.

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

According to the annual survey of hours and earnings, 24.6% of women were paid below two thirds of the median wage in 2014. Although that is still too high, we are making progress as the percentage of women in low-paid work is falling compared with 2010, when the rate was 25.9%.

[Pamela Nash]

I thank the Minister for that answer, but she will know, as we do, that according to the House of Commons Library women have lost six times as much financially as men under the policies of this Government. Does she think that is fair and what is she going to do about it?

[Jo Swinson]

I would be very interested to see the report, which I understand has been requested by the Opposition and has not been forthcoming. We have cut income tax for people on low pay, many of whom are women, and in particular, the majority of the 3 million people who have been taken out of paying income tax at all are women. The Government take these issues seriously to ensure that women and indeed men are protected in these difficult economic times.

[Gloria De Piero (Ashfield) (Lab)]

I was reading about the case of a woman who is told by her boss each day whether or not she has work by a text with a picture of a happy face or a sad face. Should those practices be banned?

[Jo Swinson]

As employment relations Minister I certainly would not endorse that as good employment practice. There are clearly significant issues with zero-hours contracts and the Government recognise that, which is why we are legislating through the Small Business, Enterprise and Employment Bill to make exclusivity clauses illegal. It is also why we are taking further steps to work with industry sectors to produce guidance so that best practice is followed in using such contracts, which work for some people, as the surveys from the CIPD clearly show. We need to ensure that the contracts are used properly and I agree with the hon. Lady when she points out that there are examples of bad practice in that area.

Insolvency Proceedings

Jo Swinson Excerpts

Thursday 15th January 2015 Written Statements

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

In August 2014 I announced a call for evidence in order to review the way in which debt relief orders have performed since they were introduced in 2009, including looking at the eligibility limits for applying for a debt relief order. This call for evidence also asked for views on the creditor petition limit for bankruptcy, which was set at £750 in 1986. We asked whether this figure should be increased and, if so, to what level. We also undertook a survey of debtors who had applied for debt relief orders.

The responses to both the call for evidence and the survey of users showed that debt relief orders are thought to be working well and have provided an important additional route for debt relief for vulnerable people, with benefits for mental health and family relationships as well as allowing a fresh financial start.

Following the call for evidence, it was apparent that it was widely believed that some of the limits on debt relief orders needed to be increased. Bankruptcy is considerably more expensive than applying for a debt relief order and I was made aware that there may be people who are unable to apply for bankruptcy but have very low assets and income and creditors would therefore not be likely to receive any payment.

The Government have therefore decided to increase the debt relief order eligibility criteria, the maximum debt level increasing from £15,000 to £20,000 and asset limit from £300 to £1,000. This will allow more people to access debt relief. No change will be made to the maximum level of surplus income allowed.

With regards to the creditor petition limit for bankruptcy, there was also a strong body of views that this should be considerably increased. Bankruptcy is the strongest of insolvency tools and I believe that someone should only be put into bankruptcy by a creditor for a significant level of debt, especially taking into account that various other debt collection methods, such as county court judgements, are available. Having taken account of all the responses, the Government have decided that the creditor petition level should be raised from £750 to £5,000.

I am today laying statutory instruments to give effect to these changes from 1 October 2015.

We also received a number of helpful suggestions relating to the how the debt relief order process works. We will ensure that those at risk of violence are sufficiently protected when applying for a debt relief order. We will also undertake some monitoring to ensure consistency on process between competent authorities who assist debtors in their applications. We will provide more options of how payments can be made when applying for a debt relief order. We are also contributing to work to ensure common guidance across all financial organisations with regards to how surplus income is calculated for different debt relief purposes, ensuring fairness and transparency.

It is important to me to ensure that those who require debt relief have access to it, while taking account of creditors’ interests, and that creditors’ powers to collect debts are set appropriately. These policy changes will ensure that this is the case and this will continue to be monitored and a review will be carried out after two years of operation.

[HCWS189]

Corporate Transparency

Jo Swinson Excerpts

Thursday 15th January 2015 Written Statements

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

I have today published our current plans for the implementation of parts 7 (Companies: Transparency) and 8 (Company filing requirements) of the Small Business, Enterprise and Employment Bill.

These timings are obviously subject to the will of Parliament. However, we want to make sure those affected by reform have as much notice as possible. In summary, we intend to implement proposals in three main stages—two months after Royal Assent, October 2015 and April 2016. Companies will be required to keep a register of people with significant control from January 2016. They will need to file this information at Companies House from April 2016.

These are significant changes and we are thinking carefully about the secondary legislation, systems changes, guidance and communication requirements we will need to give effect to them.

In October 2014 I published a discussion paper on core elements of the PSC register policy, seeking views on the statutory and non-statutory guidance needed to support understanding of the new requirements; the way that a person’s control over a company is recorded on the PSC register; and the process by which people at serious risk of harm can apply to have their information protected from public disclosure on the PSC register.

The paper closed on 9 December and I am grateful to all those who responded. I look forward to continued dialogue and engagement as we develop the draft regulations.

The responses confirmed the need for clear guidance to support implementation of the PSC register. I therefore intend to create a working group with a broad membership, including business representative bodies and civil society groups, to oversee the development of the general guidance required by companies and others. I have asked Peter Swabey of the Institute of Chartered Secretaries and Administrators (ICSA) to chair this working group, given ICSA’s experience in developing company law guidance. I have today published the draft terms of reference for that group.

I also intend to ask a select group of experts, composed of company law specialists, to form an “expert working panel” to draft the statutory guidance required to set out what is meant by “significant influence or control” in the context of the PSC register.

On the question of recording control on the PSC register, there was strong support for further Government regulation. I intend to adopt a business-friendly approach, requiring people to state which one or more of the “specified conditions” for being a person with significant control they meet. This will ensure consistency in terms of the information on the register and provide clarity for companies and others.

The process by which individuals may apply to have their information suppressed from public disclosure in exceptional circumstances is a key factor of the secondary legislation implementing the PSC register. The discussion paper sought views on a number of elements of the regime and we received a wide range of views. We will continue to develop this complex and important area over the coming months.

I am minded to limit those able to apply for protection to individuals at serious risk of violence or intimidation as a result of a company’s activities. We are continuing to consider this point. However, we do not anticipate extending the regime to cover purely economic risks.

I agree with the majority of respondents who felt that applications should be able to be made by third parties on behalf of people with significant control—such as the person’s legal representative. We also agree there is merit in allowing people to apply in advance of becoming a PSC, so that they can ensure the protection will apply from day one.

[HCWS188]

Care Sector

Jo Swinson Excerpts

Tuesday 13th January 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, Mr Hollobone. I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Paul Burstow) on securing this debate and on his many years of intensive, dedicated work on these issues. Although I am the Minister responding to the debate, I do so with a degree of trepidation because there are probably few people who have a greater understanding or are able to speak with more eloquence about care and carers than him, particularly with his ministerial experience but also with his interest in the issue going back many years. Since leaving ministerial office, his interest has continued through his chairing of the commission on residential care—of course, the Demos report came out of that—and he continues to take up such issues at every opportunity. It is unsurprising that he will have a key role in speaking on care as the election approaches.

I am sure the care sector will be a key issue that is discussed in great detail during the election period because, as my right hon. Friend said, it has an impact on so many different parts of our lives. It is about quality of life for people as they age or, indeed, for people with disabilities who require care. It is also about the role of women in the workplace and how they can combine that role with their caring responsibilities. As he rightly pointed out, care is an issue for men, too, not only in terms of their own caring responsibilities—although the majority of caring responsibilities in our society still fall to women—but in terms of the economic and employment opportunities for men within these sectors.

In a short debate, it is difficult to do justice to every issue, but my right hon. Friend rightly recognises that this debate is part of an ongoing dialogue. He made the helpful point that this is not only a debate and dialogue to be had with the Department of Health. The Department for Business, Innovation and Skills also has a crucial involvement, as indeed do many other Departments, including the Department for Work and Pensions and the Government Equalities Office, which is the other Department for which I wear a hat. The Government Equalities Office is hugely interested in these issues, and it is already working with other Departments on some of the thorny problems about how we can help carers who are in employment to continue working, if that is what they wish to do—and, as he said, many do—alongside their caring responsibilities.

My right hon. Friend clearly set out the care sector’s significant contribution to the economy. The sector brings in billions of pounds to the UK and creates millions of jobs, with mix of private provision and public and voluntary sector jobs. Care will become more salient as our population continues to age. I am sure he agrees that it is a cause for celebration that people are living longer and that medical advances mean that we are able to cure more diseases and prolong life, but, of course, that creates significant challenges on how we can age well and how we can have quality and dignity throughout longer lives, which will often mean that people work longer, particularly given the economics. We must recognise the important role of older people in our economy. Ros Altmann, whom the Government appointed as the champion for older workers, is doing a sterling job, and she will produce a report in the not-too-distant future setting out how we can better value the role that older people play within the work force. It is quite right that that is happening.

My right hon. Friend discussed the sandwich generation, which is a particularly resonant issue. That group of people—mainly women, but not exclusively—are feeling pressure from both sides. They have responsibilities to children or even grandchildren; equally, they have caring responsibilities for elderly parents or other relatives. Although a huge amount of love and joy comes from caring responsibilities, at the same time, the pressure of fulfilling them often also creates a huge amount of stress. Often carers must battle with public services to get what they need to provide those individuals with quality of life, while trying to hold down a full-time job. The pressures certainly mount up; carers are some of the most pressured people in our society.

In those circumstances, it is perhaps not surprising to hear the statistic that my right hon. Friend quoted: one in six carers quit work to care full-time. That is a huge loss to the economy. Some of those people wish to do so, which is absolutely fine, but when people are forced to do so, we lose the contribution that they could be making. As my right hon. Friend rightly says, the businesses and organisations for which they work suddenly have a gap in experience, knowledge and skills, which they must try to fill. In many cases, it takes significant time before a new person can fulfil that role in the same way. There is an economic opportunity cost.

My right hon. Friend is right that many employers now recognise some of those risks. There are many enlightened employers out there; I engage across my employment relations role with companies that recognise that equality in terms of gender, race, religion and sexuality is an important business issue in recruiting and retaining the right talent. They recognise that a more agile work force can not only help the business to respond to emerging challenges but give individual employees much more flexibility. That attracts a wider pool, which includes people with caring responsibilities. Many of those companies—often, but not exclusively, larger companies—are starting to see the business risks and huge potential advantages of getting it right and putting in place policies that allow people’s working lives to fit in with their responsibilities outside work.

My right hon. Friend is also right that as the trend of decreasing unemployment continues—it is still too high, particularly for young people, but it is certainly moving in the right direction, and its rise in the past few years has been a great success story—it places more pressure on employers trying to find the right people and the right mix of skills within their organisation, making it even more important for them to be able to hold on to the talented people that they have.

The Government clearly have a role to play in that. As I said, we engage with employers to encourage best practice on a regular basis, but we have also made legislative change. For example, as my right hon. Friend will know, last June, the right to request flexible working was extended to all employees. That will be helpful in changing views on flexible working, which had been stigmatised in some corners as being only for a particular group of people and as creating unhelpful divisions within workplaces. Instead, it is becoming much more the norm: the modern way of doing business is that, where flexibility is possible, it will be accepted by default. Clearly, there will sometimes be business reasons why an employer cannot agree to a flexible working request, and that is built into the system. That kind of change can help drive the difference that we need.

My right hon. Friend discussed the quality of the caring work force, which is hugely important. As he said, it is about who the elderly person sees coming in to support them. He said that some people see up to 50 different care workers in a year. That is clearly not a situation that any of us would wish in our older years, and we should not encourage it. Staff turnover is hugely important, and a range of things can be done to help address it.

My right hon. Friend rightly mentioned the status of caring as a profession. Training and qualifications are one way to signpost that, which is why the Department of Health is supporting the social care sector through the social care work force programme, which focuses on improving quality, and introducing the care certificate in April this year for new health care assistants and social care support workers. Apprenticeships also have a role to play in ensuring that employers have proper standards and are training people appropriately.

My right hon. Friend mentioned the hugely relevant issue of the need for more men in the care sector. If there is a shortage of workers in a particular field, it makes sense to consider who is going into that line of work, in the exact same way that when considering the huge shortage of engineering skills that our country faces and how we can bridge that gap, we look at the fact that only 7% of engineers are women. Clearly, the biggest pool of people we are not currently tapping into is girls and young women, whom we must encourage to study science, technology, engineering and maths and to open their horizons, rather than being led by dated stereotypes about what girls can do.

Similarly, if we need to expand the number of care workers and there is a huge shortage of men in the care profession, the biggest pool available for expansion is boys and young men, and we need to get them to consider caring as a profession. Again, stereotyping is important, as are the messages we send children about the roles of men and women, and whether boys can be nurturing and caring and—yes, dare I say it?—play with dolls. We should see habits of care and nurture as being just as appropriate for boys and men as for girls and women. It is important, and it will help us plug the skills gap.

I want to address the national minimum wage, because it is hugely relevant to the care sector, perhaps unfortunately. In an ideal world, we would all want people to be paid significantly more than the national minimum wage, but the present economics of the sector mean that many care workers rely on the national minimum wage for wage protection. There have been a number of well-documented cases involving people not being paid what they are due, particularly in the care sector, which, as my right hon. Friend said, has traditionally been a low-wage sector.

The law is crystal clear. Care workers, like any other workers, are legally entitled to receive at least the national minimum wage. If they travel between care appointments, the time spent travelling is working time, so they must also be paid the national minimum wage then. If they must pay for their uniforms, any money deducted for that cannot count towards national minimum wage calculations; they must be paid the national minimum on top of that.

The law is absolutely clear. Many employers comply—that is fine, it is appropriate and it is what should happen—but some do not, and failure to pay is a serious issue. That is why there are tough consequences for employers who break the law. If anyone is concerned about whether they are being properly paid the national minimum wage, they should contact the pay and work rights helpline on 0800 917 2368. Every complaint will be investigated.

[Paul Burstow]

It is important that people know that number, but it is also important for third parties to be able to make referrals about abuses of national minimum wage rules, so that they can be investigated. Is that a change that could happen?

[Jo Swinson]

I do not think that there is anything preventing that from happening at the moment. Every complaint is investigated, and it is important to stress that all complaints are made in confidence. Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs will not just go and say, “Is Mr Joe Bloggs being paid appropriately?”; it will investigate the entire work force if necessary. Many of the care investigations that have taken place have found arrears for tens and, in some cases involving very large companies, for hundreds or thousands of workers. Those are obviously complex investigations.

Proactive investigations happen. There was a particular period of targeted enforcement in the care sector, from 2011 to 2013. We recognise that the issue is important and are returning to the care sector for proactive work. That process is now under way, so more will happen. Currently, 94 employers in the care sector are being investigated for national minimum wage issues, and when those investigations conclude, we will see whether they have broken the law. If so, there are tough penalties, including naming and shaming, and we have taken steps to increase the resources available to HMRC for that vital work.

Consumer Rights Bill (Carry-Over Extension)

Jo Swinson Excerpts

Monday 12th January 2015 Commons Chamber

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

I beg to move,

That the period on the expiry of which proceedings on the Consumer Rights Bill shall lapse in pursuance of paragraph (13) of Standing Order No. 80A shall be extended by 67 days until 30 March 2015.

We have this afternoon and early evening considered the amendments made to the Bill in the other place, and the result of our deliberations now needs to be considered there. We are mindful of the fact that the Bill was introduced in this House on 23 January 2014. As set out in Standing Order No. 80A, as a carry-over Bill, it will fall if it does not receive Royal Assent within 12 months of its First Reading, and that date is now approaching.

Given the strong support for the important measures contained in the Bill, it is only right for us to safeguard against this. The Bill is the biggest overhaul of consumer rights for a generation. It sets out a simple, modern framework of consumer rights that will promote growth through confident consumers driving innovation and more competitive markets. I therefore trust that hon. Members will support me by agreeing to the motion.

Consumer Rights Bill

Jo Swinson Excerpts

Monday 12th January 2015 Commons Chamber

It comes down to this: is the Minister on the side of organisations such as the England and Wales Cricket Board, UK Music and—dare I say—Mumford & Sons? Or is she on the side of Waldorf and Statler and the hon. Members for Shipley and for Bury North? I know which way my constituents would like the Minister to vote. I hope that others across the House who recognise that it is time to tackle the problem of ticket touting will vote with us.

[Jo Swinson]

I am delighted to speak on the Bill for the first time—a Bill whose development and gestation took far longer than my pregnancy. Although the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy) says that I missed many a treat, she does not know that I did watch Second Reading on BBC Parliament during my maternity leave, although I had to use the pause function occasionally. It seemed to have a fairly soporific effect on my son. Perhaps that is a tip for all new parents—the delights of BBC Parliament.

The debate often seems polarised, with on the one hand the advocacy of very prescriptive primary legislation to deal with the issues, and on the other, the speeches of my hon. Friends the Members for Shipley (Philip Davies) and for Bury North (Mr Nuttall), who argue that the free market is working perfectly and no intervention is required. I recognise that there are issues and difficulties. We have to find the best way forward to deal with those so that the interests of consumers are well looked after.

A careful balancing act is needed. We want to make sure that as many people as possible can access events, whatever their means. We want sports and entertainment in the UK to flourish. We have some of the best events and tournaments in the world, which bring in large numbers of international visitors and businesses. We also, of course, want to protect consumers and allow the ticket resale market to work as well as it can.

There has been an encouraging trend in recent years towards safer and more tailored online ticket marketplaces and away from the touts outside venues. These websites can offer much more consumer protection than was available before, often in excess of what the law requires. The sites have processes in place to try to prevent, discourage and punish fraud. Although no market is perfect, we know how much time, money and emotion fans invest in attending events, so we want fans, as consumers, to be able to operate safely in this market.

There are already protections in place for consumers. The consumer contracts regulations came into force just six months ago to ensure that consumers are fully informed before they buy from a trader. At the time, the Government announced guidance specifically on internet ticket sales to accompany those regulations, which build on existing law such as the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008, which protect consumers from being misled by practices such as claiming that a seat is on the front row when it patently is not.

The regulations complement the Fraud Act 2006 and the Computer Misuse Act 1998, which list a range of offences available to law enforcement to tackle the fraudulent sale of tickets and the criminal harvesting of tickets from online ticket sales. Botnets and hacking into sites have been mentioned, but these proposals would not only cover cases of hacking. Botnets could also be illegal if, for example, they were being used to gain unauthorised access to a website that clearly states that it deals with real individuals.

We are absolutely committed to ensuring that the law is properly enforced. We have a powerful economic crime command within the National Crime Agency to drive forward this work. We have invested about £86 million to build law enforcement capabilities to respond to cyber-crime, including online fraud. We have strengthened the reporting and intelligence arrangements for fraud. Action Fraud is now the single national reporting centre for fraud and financially motivated cyber-crime. Since 1 April last year, responsibility for Action Fraud rests with the City of London police, bringing it closer to the National Fraud Intelligence Bureau.

The City of London police are also working with the organisation behind the rugby world cup to exclude participants in the ticketing lottery who have links with previous reports of fraud. In October last year, the police reported that they had foiled “hundreds” of fraudulent attempts to gain tickets via the official ballot. The Competition and Markets Authority and trading standards bodies lead consumer law enforcement in this area. Through their hard work, trading standards officers have successfully enforced consumer law—for example, right here in Westminster in reducing the number of consumers being caught out by bogus theatre tickets.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff Central (Jenny Willott) and Baroness Neville-Rolfe have previously set out the Government’s position. We do not think that there are no problems in this market, but we have to find the best way to tackle them.

In that context, I will set out the difficulties involved in Lords amendment 12. Although it purports to add further transparency requirements to protect consumers, it could have the opposite effect. It would mean that all sellers, whether as a business or as one friend selling to another, would have to provide detailed information about themselves and the ticket they were selling, including the seat number and the booking reference number. That would enable the event organisers to cancel tickets put up for resale, as is intended by the amendment. That would mean that a fan with a spare ticket, perhaps because their friend is ill, could not resell it without risking having all their tickets cancelled. Someone who had bought a resold ticket could arrive at the venue only to be refused entry on that basis. That does not seem very fair or proportionate.

[Stella Creasy]

Will the Minister clarify two things? First, does she think that the amendment applies to individual-to-individual sales? It is actually aimed at the marketplace that secondary ticket sites create. Secondly, if she is worried about resales and tickets being cancelled, will she accept the amendment proposed by the all-party group, which would specifically deal with that to ensure that it does not happen?

[Jo Swinson]

I recognise the attempts made in that amendment, although they do not address all the difficulties that I have outlined. Many people who are unable to attend an event at short notice will find that they have another friend who is happy to go along to it with them, but others will not, so they will use online marketplaces, in which case these issues will apply.

One of the main difficulties with the Lords amendment is that it would require sellers to provide their name. That should raise concerns, because it would include private individuals who could be young people or vulnerable consumers. Perhaps a 14-year-old One Direction fan who is unable to attend the concert she has bought tickets for will want to resell them, and in doing so would have to provide her name online. This is a concern not about ticket sales but about things such as identity theft and the difficulties involved when private individuals have to place their names online. There were over 100,000 reports of ID fraud in 2013, and we do not want to support proposals that could—albeit inadvertently —push that number higher.

[Mr Redwood]

When I asked the hon. Member for Washington and Sunderland West (Mrs Hodgson) in what circumstances a ticket could be cancelled—a crucial point, because there might be legitimate circumstances but also circumstances where it would be unreasonable—I did not feel that I got a sensible answer. The Minister is right to be worried about that lack of precision.

[Jo Swinson]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for making that point.

[Mrs Hodgson]

This proposal is in no way about making 14-year-olds vulnerable online if they want to sell their ticket. On eBay, people who buy and sell have an identity: we know who we are buying from in the sense of whether they have sold one of something or 1,000 of something. All sorts of mechanisms could be in place to keep the person who is selling on the ticket safe. The Minister is wrong to suggest that this is about allowing event organisers to cancel tickets—that is not the intention at all. It is about transparency. Very few event organisers put “Not for resale” or “Non-transferable” on their tickets. The reason why some do is to try to protect the tickets, but they would not need to if we had this transparency.

[Jo Swinson]

I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention. I appreciate that her intention might not be to force people to use their names, but unfortunately that is what the Lords amendment says. Many organisations would wish to cancel tickets if they knew exactly which tickets were being resold, and that would not be in consumers’ interests.

The amendment could result in the cancelling of tickets and potential ID theft, which would have the common impact of incentivising the movement of sales to other, less secure websites, perhaps overseas, or to the street touts of whom people already have experience. Having more safety in online marketplaces that behave more responsibly has to be better than pushing things on to foreign, unregulated websites or insecure websites. We want to make sure that consumers are protected. The touts we see outside venues do not offer that protection—not even close to it.

[Nick Smith]

The Minister says that the amendment is too prescriptive. Does she not recognise that the internet spivs who use these botnets are rigging the market and putting up prices for consumers? What is she going to do about these internet spivs who are harvesting tickets against the interests of consumers?

[Jo Swinson]

I will come to enforcement, because I accept that there are issues that need to be looked at, but I want to complete my explanation of the difficulties with amendment 12.

There is a real risk that introducing these additional, more stringent information requirements would go beyond the provisions set out in the consumer rights directive, which EU law does not allow us to do. Compliance with EU law might be further harmed in relation to the technical standards and regulations directive. To comply with that directive, the amendment would have to be notified to the Commission at least three months before the Bill was due to finish its passage through Parliament, meaning that it remained in draft form during that standstill period. We have clearly run out of time for such steps to be taken now. The consequence, which I know the proposers of the amendment would not want, is that amendment 12 could end up being unenforceable if it were passed in its current form.

[Stella Creasy]

It is interesting that the Minister raises the EU directive, which talks about the importance of providing the characteristics of an item that is being sold. If the characteristics of a ticket are not to say where the event is, what time it is, and which seat it is, what does she think would be included under the directive?

[Jo Swinson]

Much of this information already has to be provided under the consumer contracts regulations, and that is absolutely fine. However, amendment 12 goes beyond that—for example, in requiring individuals to give their name. I do not think that people would wish to run the risk that it ended up being unenforceable, but unfortunately that is the legal situation.

The amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Washington and Sunderland West (Mrs Hodgson) talks about stating the face value on the ticket. I understand what she is getting at, but this is not a particularly helpful concept to use in legislation because the face value is not clearly defined. A ticket does not necessarily have just one value—there may be delivery and administration charges, and the seller might not know which of those needed to be included in the face value. If the fan selling the ticket got that wrong, the ticket could end up being cancelled without their knowledge. The value stated on the ticket might not be what the fan paid because of the fan club or early-purchase discounts that have been discussed. People would not want consumers to lose money when they cannot attend an event, and the face value would not always cover what the consumer had actually paid.

There is a more substantive issue of principle. Is it right for Government to tell consumers that they cannot sell items that they have bought second-hand at above the price that they paid for them? If I buy a book for £4.99 and then a very popular film is made of it and a friend offers me £10 for the book, why should the Government get involved and say that it cannot be sold on?

Perhaps unintentionally, the amendment suggests that it is acceptable for an event organiser to cancel tickets that have been sold for above face value. Many hon. Members have addressed the issue of terms and conditions, and some have said that organisations should be able to cancel such tickets, but that would not necessarily always be a fair term. Under the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999, it would be up to a court to decide on a case-by-case basis, but it may not always be a fair term.

There are problems in the market—as is the case in any market—which is why we have listened and are taking action. We agree on many of the issues relating to consumer information, including consumers not knowing where to go to get redress when they have a problem with a resold ticket. Consumers sometimes raise concerns with event organisers when they should approach the online marketplace where they bought the tickets. Of course, that can be inconvenient and frustrating for both the organiser and the fans.

There is also a problem with bulk selling and the people who have been referred to as bedroom touts. Like the organisers, I am not comfortable that there are people who buy tickets as if they were real fans, but with the sole intention of reselling for a profit. I am, therefore, pleased to announce various actions that we have taken. We have been working closely with the secondary ticket marketplaces and continue to have constructive discussions with them and the event organisers.

The online ticket marketplaces have made a range of commitments, as outlined in the letters that have been placed in the Library of the House and are available from the Vote Office in the Lobby. They have committed to providing further information and transparency, to make sure that consumers have appropriate information. The commitment covers much of the information that Lords amendment 12 would require, but it will not breach EU rules, result in unintended consequences for privacy and fraud, or give event organisers the opportunity to cancel tickets put up for resale.

Secondly, the marketplaces have confirmed their commitment to consumer protection. When consumers have a problem with a ticket they have bought on an online marketplace, they should have access to redress. The marketplaces have set out the guarantees they provide to users and how they work to protect consumers. Thirdly, the marketplaces have committed to ensuring that consumers know where to go to get redress by providing the information prominently on their websites. Alongside those common commitments, they have committed to a range of different improvements specific to their individual sites. They are all welcome commitments.

In addition to the action taken by industry at a practical level, we want to ensure that the Government address the issues with an evidence-based approach. The Department for Culture, Media and Sport has today launched an independent review of the effectiveness of the current law—and, indeed, what can be done to improve it. The review will survey enforcement of the current consumer law as it applies to online marketplaces as facilitators of transactions in tickets, and it will assess the challenges of enforcement of that law. We invite the review to suggest how that enforcement could be improved. That will include looking at how to tackle bulk selling, which has been raised by many Members today, and how to effectively enforce the law against traders impersonating consumers in order to evade consumer law.

I have written to trading standards to gather evidence on what more can be done to enforce consumer law as it applies to buyers and sellers of tickets. That will complement the DCMS review. To respond to the hon. Member for Eltham (Clive Efford), I have not yet received a response from trading standards, but I will, of course, keep the House informed.

Given the ongoing commitments to tackle the genuine issues, I urge the House to reject Lords amendment 12 and the amendment to it, and to welcome the package of measures that I have announced.

[Mrs Hodgson]

We have had a wide-ranging debate. If we were to apply the law of averages to the question of which side of the argument the coin would fall, I think it would fall on the side of the Opposition and the hon. Member for Hove (Mike Weatherley) who tabled amendment (a). The debate has been strongly in favour of transparency, apart from the contributions of two hon. Gentleman in the back row—the hon. Members for Shipley (Philip Davies) and for Bury North (Mr Nuttall) —who have been the only Members to put up any argument against that, albeit unconvincingly.

I have listened to what the Minister has had to say and I have seen the lobbying from the four secondary marketing companies. They have obviously spent a fortune on lobbying and I am sad to say that I heard a lot of their arguments in the Minister’s speech. From their point of view, all the money they have spent on lobbying has worked, but the House is not convinced.

There is demonstrable market failure. When the House, the Select Committee and the then Minister looked at the issue 10 years ago, they said we would need to see such failure before requiring legislation. We have now demonstrated that that market failure exists. I know that the Minister has written, very late in the day, to trading standards. I wrote to trading standards years ago and the response I received was that there was no evidence. Transparency would provide the evidence of what is happening.

The four letters from the secondary marketing companies say, at long last, that they will abide by the regulations that the Minister’s colleague, the right hon. Member for Cardiff Central (Jenny Willott), announced last year, but they have already had more than six months to abide by those regulations. I wrote to them to point out that the regulations are now on the statute book, but they have carried on regardless. I have no faith that they will do anything different. That is why we need to legislate. There is cross-party support for that and I hope that Members on both sides of the House will support us in the Lobby. I know that when the Bill goes back to the House of Lords our proposal will have cross-party support, ably led by Lord Moynihan, Lord Clement-Jones and Baroness Grey-Thompson, as well as our own Lord Stevenson. I will push the amendment to the vote.

Question put.

--- Later in debate ---

Contracts covered by this Chapter

[Jo Swinson]

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

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Dawn Primarolo)]

With this we may take Lords amendments 2 to 11 and 13 to 78.

[Jo Swinson]

I am delighted that we are bringing the Bill back to the House in such good shape. There was a good debate in the other place and a number of amendments build on and improve the Bill. We listened to concerns in both Houses about consumers being out of pocket if they have to pay to return rejected goods, and as a result we agree that it is sensible to make it clear in the Bill that the trader bears responsibility for the reasonable costs of returning goods that have been rejected by the consumer. That provides clarity and sets a sensible balance between the parties, without causing significant burden to business.

The Bill has always contained a provision that if a consumer exercises the final right to reject, the trader may reduce the refund to take account of the use that the consumer has had of the goods, unless the goods are rejected in the first six months, in which case the general rule is that no deduction may be applied. That is intended to balance the interests of consumers and traders, and for that reason the Bill provides a limited exception to the general six-month rule. However, we understand the concern that that exception could be interpreted too broadly, and in response we have narrowed the exception to address specifically the impact on the motor industry.

The particular nature of motor vehicles may affect the balance between traders’ and consumers’ interests because cars are high-cost items that lose value quickly. They are also complex, so it is more likely that a car will develop two faults in the first six months than, for example, a piece of furniture. The option to make a deduction for use in the first six months is therefore particularly significant for traders in motor vehicles.

The amendments include a power to increase the scope of the exception if appropriate in future. We think that is important, as it is not possible to predict the goods and technologies that may develop. We are conscious of the need to reflect the dynamic nature of digital content. Many forms of digital content are not static products and change over time with updates to software and apps. The Bill provides that the digital content must meet the quality rights—satisfactory quality, being fit for a particular purpose and as described—following an update. We listened to concerns raised in the other place that as originally drafted the requirement could prevent traders from improving digital content or offering flexible products. That outcome would not be good for consumers, so we have clarified that the requirement does not prevent traders from adding new features or enhancing existing features, as long as the original description is still met.

We have amended the provision on digital content that causes damage to a consumer’s device or other digital content. That will allow traders to exclude or restrict their liability under the Bill for damage to the consumer’s device or other digital content, to the extent that it would be fair under the unfair terms provisions in part 2 of the Bill. That provision will apply even to free digital content, specifically when it causes damage and the consumer can show that the trader failed to use reasonable care and skill to prevent the damage occurring. We have clarified the maximum fining penalty that the regulator of premium rate services can impose on non-compliant and rogue operators, and we are making clear that where appropriate and proportionate, the regulator can impose the maximum fine for each contravention of the code. That maximum is £250,000, so in the event of a company making two serious contraventions of the code, the regulator could impose a fine of up to £500,000 if that was considered appropriate and proportionate.

We are determined to tackle the minority of rogue letting agents who offer poor service, and in Committee we added provisions to ensure transparency of letting agent fees, to give consumers the information they want while supporting good letting agents. It is important that that requirement comes into effect as soon as possible to ensure that tenants have certainty over the payments that they make, and for that reason we are putting the enforcement details in the Bill. We are also applying the duty on letting agents to publicise fees in Wales as well as England. That was requested by the Welsh Government and has the added advantage of minimising any cross-border enforcement problems.

Existing legislation requires landlords and letting agents acting on their behalf to protect the tenant’s security deposit. That is the most significant money likely to be held by an agent, but they might hold other money on their client’s behalf, which is why the Government already encourage agents to join client money protection schemes. Public awareness of that is not as high as we would like, so we are also requiring agents to state whether they are a member of a client money protection scheme.

From 1 October last year all letting agents and property managers must belong to one of our three approved redress schemes that provide tenants with an effective way to address complaints. We will now require letting agents to publicise which redress scheme they have joined. Those changes will level the playing field for agents by raising awareness of what best practice looks like, put downward pressure on fees, and provide consumers with the information they need without introducing significant new costs to the sector.

As set out in our 2011 White Paper on higher education, we are providing all higher education students who receive public support with access to external dispute resolution. That reflects the fact that increasingly, new and different providers are offering higher education, not just the traditional university sector, yet only a handful of alternative providers—seven in total—have so far voluntarily joined the Office of the Independent Adjudicator’s complaints handling scheme. We are making it mandatory for alternative providers whose courses are designated for student support to join.

I convey my grateful thanks to the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee. It published the outcome of its scrutiny on 11 July 2014, and I was delighted to accept its recommendations that the exercise of certain powers in the Bill be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure, as reflected in the amendments. We also addressed concerns that current provisions for the appointment of the Competition Appeal Tribunal—or CAT—effectively exclude judges from the Scottish Court of Session or the Northern Ireland High Court. We have now ensured that Lord Chief Justices of England, Wales and Northern Ireland, and the Lord President of the Court of Session, may nominate any suitably qualified individual who is already a judge sitting in a relevant court to be deployed as a CAT chair.

We have improved provision for private actions in competition law. First, we are allowing the Competition and Markets Authority—the CMA—to approve an outline of a voluntary redress scheme, and for the business to create a full scheme afterwards. That is part of a wider Government initiative to promote alternative dispute resolution, and it allows responsible businesses who wish to make redress to those they have wronged an avenue to do so. The amendment allows the CMA to impose conditions necessary to set up a full scheme. If those conditions are not complied with when the full scheme is set up, the CMA can withdraw approval or consider a revised scheme.

We are enabling provision to be made for claimants to incur costs if they apply to have the representative to the action removed but lose the application. That is in line with the wider “loser pays” principle that exists in domestic law, and should deter vexatious applications. The Government recognise that during collective proceedings, not all damages are claimed. Therefore the Bill makes provision that the CAT may award unclaimed damages from opt-out collective action proceedings to a prescribed charity—currently the Access to Justice Foundation. Although the body to receive unclaimed damages may be changed, we are ensuring that it must always be a charity.

The Bill consolidates and simplifies important provisions on investigatory powers of consumer law enforcers, and the Government greatly value the vital work that enforcers such as trading standards do in protecting consumers and legitimate businesses. We now require enforcers to give two days’ written notice for routine inspections, and we have set out clear exemptions to that. We are firmly underlining that provision by putting it beyond doubt that notice need be given only for routine inspections, which is when there is no reason to doubt that the business in question is operating properly without any significant breaches of legislation. We have committed to review the practical effect of the notice requirement within two years of the commencement of the Bill. As a result, we are confident that the powers and safeguards strike the right balance between protecting civil liberties, reducing business burdens, and ensuring effective enforcement, and I invite the House to agree with the amendments.

[Stella Creasy]

In the short time available let me say that I think we are looking at a form of alternative dispute resolution this evening, so let me first flag up the positive in terms of the customer service feedback we would like to give to the Government on these Lords amendments: we will be supporting all the Lords amendments. In particular, there are three that are worthy of consideration, following the rule about the six in 10 Britons who believe that politicians should do more in the coming years to help them stay out of financial difficulty.

--- Later in debate ---

The Minister may laugh, but what if this happens with personal care budgets? Some vulnerable people may be able to complain, but others will not. There is a risk that, in introducing the Bill without looking at how we ensure that everybody and not just those with sharp elbows can use this legislation, we will increase inequality. The Opposition are keen to see consumer rights extended, but we do not want to do so at the risk of creating some who are more able than others to access their rights. We are therefore not looking for a repeat performance. We believe that when the public adjudicate—they are the ombudsmen after all—they will decide that the failure to act on these very real issues and the opportunities missed mean that the Bill is a faulty product and that nothing less than a complete replacement in May 2015 will do.

[Jo Swinson]

I thank the hon. Lady for her comments. She had some well-crafted lines and I disagree with her final remarks, but she raises an important point about information for consumers whether in the public or private sector. My view is clear: passing the Bill to enshrine those rights is not in itself sufficient. It is vital that people know how to use these rights in a practical way. That is why the Department has been working with consumer information bodies such as Citizens Advice and Which?, and retailers and other groups, to try to ensure that there will be sound, straightforward and easy to understand information that will be readily available to consumers, whether at the point of sale or where they have a problem, through a variety of different methods, and whether online or through more traditional means. Consumer confidence, which will underline the improvements in the economy, is crucial and will ensure that this landmark legislation, which the hon. Lady rightly highlights as a once-in-a-generation opportunity, will truly deliver much more confident consumers who are able to enforce their rights. That will help to ensure that the economy benefits and is much stronger.

Low Pay Commission Report (National Minimum Wage)

Jo Swinson Excerpts

Friday 9th January 2015 Written Statements

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

I am pleased to announce that I have published the final evidence that the Government have provided to the Low Pay Commission on the national minimum wage.

This report updates the evidence that the Government provided in October 2014. The report reflects the latest information on earnings, the labour market and economic forecasts.

A copy of the final evidence will be placed in the Libraries of the House and will be available at: www.gov.uk.

It is also available online at: http://www.parliament.uk/writtenstatements.

[HCWS179]