Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Jo Swinson and Chuka Umunna

Thursday 24th October 2013 Commons Chamber

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

I thank my hon. Friend for that question. He rightly highlights the fact that there have been significant problems in the payday lending industry; thankfully, significant action is also being taken to match that. Twenty-five payday lenders have left the market since March as a result of strong action by the Office of Fair Trading, with the Competition Commission undertaking an investigation, and earlier this month the Financial Conduct Authority published a suite of new proposed rules, which will limit roll-overs, cap the number of times that a lender can use a continuous payment authority and introduce strict new rules on advertising to ensure that people do not get ripped off.

[Mr Chuka Umunna (Streatham) (Lab)]

The Secretary of State has said that growth must be better balanced and less reliant on rising house prices, but this week he has warned of dangerous and unsustainable house prices in London and extreme problems of affordability across the country on his Government’s watch. Does he therefore not agree that it would make sense to review how the second part of his Government’s Help to Buy scheme operates now, as opposed to in a year’s time, given the attendant risks posed to more balanced growth?

Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Bill

Debate between Jo Swinson and Chuka Umunna

Tuesday 16th April 2013 Commons Chamber

[Jo Swinson]

I understand what the right hon. Gentleman says; we may have to agree to disagree on this matter. He is absolutely right to highlight the fact that we are dealing with people’s homes, which is why this measure is so important. Incidentally, it is also something that his party did not see fit to introduce in 13 years in government. This Government are righting the situation by making amendments to ensure that there is a redress scheme. Indeed, when the Lords amendment we are discussing was introduced in the other place, that is the argument that was made and that is what was said was most important. I agree that a redress scheme is important to ensure that where there is a problem, tenants can have an avenue for redress.

Indeed, such a scheme has two functions, because it is not just about ensuring that when somebody has a problem, they can get redress. The very fact that agents have to sign up to redress schemes is in itself a driver of behaviour to ensure less wrongdoing in the first place. More widely, residential leasehold matters are being taken forward separately by the Department for Communities and Local Government in the round tables it is conducting. The noble Lady Baroness Gardner of Parkes raised that issue in the other place.

I hope I have been able to outline the Government’s position on the Lords amendments and provide some reassurance to Members of this House.

[Mr Chuka Umunna (Streatham) (Lab)]

It is good to see you back in your place, Madam Deputy Speaker.

Before I turn to the four issues covered by this group of amendments, it is worth revisiting the supposed purpose of the Bill. It is supposed to be an enterprise Bill that will generate growth. It was referred to as a Christmas tree of a Bill when it left us, but it has since become something of a forest.

Let me deal with each of the four issues in turn. The first is the Government’s move to repeal the general duty for the Equality and Human Rights Commission contained in section 3 of the Equality Act 2006. The Lords wished to reverse the Government’s move to repeal section 3 of the 2006 Act and we agree with them. The general duty sets out the mission and vision of the commission. It is worth repeating that duty, which is for the commission to encourage and support

“the development of a society in which…people’s ability to achieve their potential is not limited by prejudice or discrimination…there is respect for and protection of each individual’s human rights…there is respect for the dignity and worth of each individual…each individual has an equal opportunity to participate in society, and…there is mutual respect between groups based on understanding and valuing of diversity…equality and human rights.”

The Government wish to repeal all of that as part of their red tape challenge, on the basis that it is a

“vague, unnecessary and obsolete provision from the Equality Act 2006”,

as the Minister put it in her letter to me yesterday. I could not disagree with her more.

I made the point on Report that this is not red tape. Vision and mission are important. The reason that the Government have failed on all manner of fronts is that they lack vision and mission. As Baroness Campbell, who sponsored the amendment in the Lords, said, the duty imports the cultural and ethical principles of equality and human rights into the commission’s remit. It makes it clear that the commission is there not just to enforce rules but to change culture.

Personally, I believe that we as a country have made a great deal of progress in this regard since I grew up here and since members of my family arrived here from abroad. However, Baroness Campbell also said:

“We would not wish to risk slipping back to the time before the Stephen Lawrence inquiry, but if Section 3 goes and the equality duty is weakened or lost shortly after, I feel that is precisely where we will be heading.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 4 March 2013; Vol. 743, c. 1278.]

Indeed, Doreen Lawrence has resolutely opposed the removal of section 3. Baroness Campbell enjoyed overwhelming support from most of the others who spoke on this issue in the Lords, and numerous others outside Parliament have objected to the repeal, fearing that the changes will result in a much weaker body. Those who have objected include Justice, the Fawcett Society, Mind, the Refugee Council and the Equality Trust.

Having listened to the arguments on this matter in both Houses and outside Parliament, the commission itself has now said that unless the Government can provide additional robust reasons for removing the general duty—which they have not done—the case for removing the Lords amendments in the Commons will not have been made. The commission therefore continues to support the retention of the general duty and the maintenance of the position established by the Lords. I put it to the Minister that if the commission is content to support the retention of the duty—which is doing no harm; indeed, it is doing quite the opposite—why does she think that she knows better?

Let us not forget that the Government are not only seeking to water down the commission’s remit; they have also cut its budget by more than 60%. The cut was so great that the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights was moved to write to the Government in June and July last year to express concerns.

Blacklisting

Debate between Jo Swinson and Chuka Umunna

Wednesday 23rd January 2013 Commons Chamber

[Jo Swinson]

The hon. Gentleman makes a very good point. It is fair to say that Members have also expressed concern about the level of the fine, however, and it is right that the legislation now in place allows for a fine of up to £500,000. That is far more appropriate for such a serious offence.

I appreciate that there has been a generally good tone to the debate today, and that it has not been overly partisan, but it is simply factual to point out that if the 2003 regulations had been implemented in 2003, the victims uncovered by the investigation in 2009 could have received compensation of £5,000 or more each, and a fine of up to £500,000 could have been levied—£5,000 might not seem very much to a big construction company, but £500,000 certainly does.

It is also worth looking at the list of 3,213 people who the Information Commission uncovered were on the Consulting Association’s blacklist. One point that has not been made today—I want to put it clearly on the record because there are people who are interested in this issue and will be following proceedings—is that anyone concerned that they might have been on the blacklist can either go to the ICO’s website, at ico.gov.uk, or call the fast-track helpline on 0303 123 1113, to find out whether they were on it.

[Mr Umunna]

I have two points. First, this is not just an issue of data protection; it is an issue of human rights and employment law. Secondly, since we brought in the anti-blacklisting regulations a number of claimants have sought to bring claims but have been unable to do so successfully because they do not have employee-employer relationship. Will the Minister address my earlier point on the need to look at the law and how it applies to the self-employed, given the sheer scale of false self-employment in the construction industry?

[Jo Swinson]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention and will come to the points he raised. With regard to the people on the blacklist, 2,633 have got in touch with the ICO and 218 matches have been found so far. I hope that the publicity surrounding this debate will mean that the number will rise as more people get in touch and find out.

Concerns have been raised about how proactive the Information Commissioner has been. I think that it is fair to say that, of all the people who will be concerned about data protection when sending out sensitive personal details, the Information Commissioner is likely to be the most careful in doing so. Sending out letters willy-nilly when people might have moved and when using an old card file is not easy. However, I understand that positive and constructive work is going on with the unions, including GMB and others, to try to ensure that people can get some firm identification and that there is some proactive contact of the people on the list. That is important and I very much encourage it to continue, but I know that it is something that is already happening.

I was pleased to hear the contribution from the right hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Dame Tessa Jowell), particularly on the Olympics, which of course were such a source of national pride. She outlined the positive impact the construction projects have had, and indeed the excellent record on safety. She was absolutely right to highlight that it was totally and utterly morally wrong for the construction companies to think that it would be in any way acceptable to check whether employees were on a blacklist. Balfour Beatty has admitted that behaviour, which I think speaks for itself. It might not have been a crime at the time, but there is no moral justification for it whatever. It is absolutely aware that such behaviour is unacceptable and now illegal. The hon. Member for North East Derbyshire (Natascha Engel) eloquently set out why blacklisting is also counter-productive and dangerous, particularly with regard to health and safety issues, especially in the construction industry.

Time is short, so I will move on to the key issues about the evidence we need to look at. The Scottish Affairs Committee is taking evidence on that at the moment, and we will look carefully at the report it produces. Other elements have been mentioned, such as the Balfour Beatty and ODA issue, but the letters relate to pre-2009, so I do not think that they constitute evidence of current breaches of the blacklisting regulations. Indeed, the same is true for Crossrail, because the first contracts for tunnelling and stations were not let until December 2010. However, the hon. Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion) mentioned in an intervention that she might have anecdotal evidence of that, so I would encourage her to come forward with it.

I welcome the shadow Secretary of State’s earlier comment that he thinks that evidence will flow pretty quickly after this debate. I repeat that the Government are keen to see any evidence that comes forward and encourage any individuals who have evidence to bring it to us and to the ICO. I give a personal commitment that when the Select Committee reaches its conclusions I will give them my attention and ensure that any evidence that illegal blacklisting is continuing is properly investigated.

Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Bill

Debate between Jo Swinson and Chuka Umunna

Wednesday 17th October 2012 Commons Chamber

[Jo Swinson]

I do recognise that there is genuine concern, particularly in respect of the new fee regime. It is important that a remission regime is in place as well; it is important to point that out. However, the amendments would provide protection for people who are behaving in a vexatious and abusive manner. No matter which side of the dispute that occurs on, we should not be encouraging it. Where a claimant is behaving unreasonably—this is at the discretion of the tribunal—it would be inappropriate for employers to be prevented from seeking a costs order if the tribunal considers that the claimant’s behaviour justifies such an order.

[Mr Chuka Umunna (Streatham) (Lab)]

If the Minister accepts that there are serious concerns about the introduction of fees and its impact on access to justice, why does she not look at the case management powers in the interlocutory stage of case proceedings and perhaps expand deposit powers to act as a disincentive for vexatious claimants? That would not have an impact on access to justice as her Government’s proposals are having.

[Jo Swinson]

A range of measures in the Bill will help to improve access to justice. Of course, the most important thing is to make sure that fewer people end up going to employment tribunals in the first place. [Interruption.] I have just discussed the measures on early conciliation, which is a much better way of resolving disputes. We also have measures on rapid resolution, which I will come on to deal with and which have been discussed in Committee. Those are the ways of ensuring that people are able to get the best resolution to their disputes. Obviously there will still be a role for employment tribunals and there will be cases that, for whatever reason, cannot be managed through those other, better options for resolving them. In imposing a fee, there will still be access to justice through the remission regime for those who are otherwise unable to afford it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jo Swinson]

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I think it is fair of my hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon (Julian Smith) to point out that many business owners are genuinely concerned about how employment law currently works.

[Mr Umunna]

The Minister has indeed been incredibly generous about giving way. For the record, Mr Speaker, I think it is of assistance to have a range of experience in this House. We have lawyers and many business owners in the shadow BIS team and we speak with the benefit of professional experience.

Does the Minister not acknowledge that employers can have these conversations with employees, as long as they follow fair procedures? That is all we are asking for.

[Jo Swinson]

The procedures are far more likely to be used by large companies, and many business people, particularly those in small and medium-sized enterprises, fear to take them up. That was borne out by much of our consultation, both formal and informal. I do not know whether Opposition Members genuinely believe that there is no concern among business about tribunals and employment law—

[Mr Umunna]

indicated dissent.

[Jo Swinson]

Well, people watching this debate or reading it in Hansard will see that that concern among businesses exists and is not being taken seriously by the Opposition, but I shall be happy to be corrected.

[Mr Umunna]

The Minister knows full well that, for example, we welcomed the setting up of the Underhill review, because we acknowledge that there are issues, but it is really a question of degree. Of course we have to take into account the concerns of business, but our job as politicians is to take into account the concerns of society as a whole and to balance the different interests, and that is what she has got wrong.

[Jo Swinson]

I agree that the job of politicians is to balance those interests, but I disagree with the hon. Gentleman that we do not have the right balance. As hon. Members have pointed out, very different proposals emerged from some quarters, but the Government have said firmly that we will not go ahead with the no-fault dismissal plans that were put forward. That shows that we are taking a balanced approach.

Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Bill

Debate between Jo Swinson and Chuka Umunna

Tuesday 16th October 2012 Commons Chamber

[Jo Swinson]

It is certainly true that a wide range of views were put forward to the consultation. Among business groups, there was a very strong view that this costs a lot of money, and I will explain why. Based on the sample, the five to six hours spent on each form at a cost of £160 equates to a cost to employers of £1.4 million a year, and it could be considerably higher because many employers may use more expensive legal advice.

[Mr Chuka Umunna (Streatham) (Lab)]

If the Minister’s complaint is about the quantity of questions, then why not limit the number that can be asked? We are all limited in the number of questions that we can submit at the Table Office, so why not apply similar principles to this procedure?

[Jo Swinson]

I have already outlined various circumstances in which there is a range of questions with many sub-sections. We are saying that it is helpful for business and employees to discuss these issues and to be able to provide information. However, this provision is placing requirements and fears on businesses, and the disproportionate costs that they are facing in complying with it represents a total cost to business of nearly £1.5 million a year. That is a significant cost that we should not take lightly.

Individuals can seek information from an employer about an alleged breach of the 2010 Act without relying on this provision; they can request that information verbally or in writing. Of course, it is in businesses’ interests to respond to reasonable requests of this kind, because the courts would still be free to draw inferences from any employer or service provider’s refusal to answer questions or from answers that seem evasive.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jo Swinson]

The EHRC was not particularly efficient in some of the work that it was doing. For example, it cost its helpline far more to deal with cases relating to working rights than other Government and external providers. We are ensuring that the money is spent better. Opposition Members seem to forget that the financial situation left to this Government was an appalling mess. It does no good for equalities in this country not to have the effective use of public money. We should all want to see that. [Interruption.] I am answering the hon. Lady. We should all want to see the effective use of public money. It is wrong to suggest that there are no ways in which the EHRC could have been improved.

[Mr Umunna]

Have we said that?

[Jo Swinson]

We have heard from various Opposition Members that the EHRC was functioning fantastically.

There are many ways in which the EHRC could improve. We are making a variety of changes to it, but we remain committed to this organisation and to improving it. Just this morning, we had the pre-appointment scrutiny hearing for the new chair, Baroness Onora O’Neill, which is a positive step. I am optimistic about how the organisation will move forward and improve its governance, which is badly needed.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jo Swinson]

The hon. Gentleman does not need to worry about that because under existing duties in sections 8 and 9 of the 2006 Act, the EHRC still has all the requirements and focus it needs. In the consultation, a range of stakeholders spoke about the repeal of the good relations duty in section 10, and whether it was the Association of Chief Police Officers stating that a greater emphasis on its responsibilities in regulating the new public sector duty is broadly supported, or Stonewall saying that the need for the good relations function has not been sufficiently demonstrated, a wide range of stakeholders did not seem to think that there was a problem.

We are reducing the frequency with which the commission is required to publish a report on progress from every three years to every five years, and by allowing a longer time scale between reports, we believe the commission will be able to capture more meaningful change over time. We accept, however, that seismic societal changes or developments do not always happen conveniently every five years, and there is no reason why the commission cannot report more frequently if it wishes.

I know that many Opposition Members have concerns about the repeal of the good relations duty in section 10 of the 2006 Act, but we are clear that a separate mandate is not necessary. The commission’s most valuable work in this area—for example its inquiry into disability-related harassment—can be carried out under its core equality and human rights functions, which we are not amending. That view is supported by the evidence I have outlined that was provided to the Public Bill Committee by the EHRC’s general counsel and other stakeholders.

We are repealing the power associated with the good relations duty in section 19 of the 2006 Act because other organisations gather the information that that legislation permits the commission to monitor. For example, since 2011, police forces in England and Wales have been required to collect data on suspected hate crime relating to race, religion or belief, disability, sexual orientation and gender reassignment. The commission will retain the ability to review and use those data under its existing equality and human rights duties which—I repeat—we are not amending. In Scotland, where the EHRC’s human rights remit is limited, the Scottish Human Rights Commission will be able to use its powers accordingly.

On the power to make arrangements for the provision of conciliation in non-workplace discrimination disputes, as set out in section 27 of the 2006 Act, unfortunately the commission has consistently failed to deliver a well-targeted, cost-effective service. The free conciliation service funded until March 2012 by the EHRC offered poor value for taxpayers’ money. Average costs were more than £4,000 per case, compared with £600 to £850 when going through the Ministry of Justice website, “Find a civil mediation provider”.

A good and effective conciliation service should—of course—be available to those who need it, to help people resolve disputes without recourse to the courts. Good quality, accessible and effective mediation is readily available at reasonable cost throughout England, Wales and Scotland through the MOJ’s website that provides access to a full range of civil mediation council-accredited mediators at set fees, and in Scotland through the Scottish Mediation Network’s “find a mediator” website. For that reason, we are repealing the commission’s power to make provision for conciliation. The new Equality Advisory and Support Service, launched at the beginning of this month, will signpost individuals with discrimination disputes to those alternative, more cost-effective, mediation services. In evidence in Committee, the general counsel of the commission agreed that it is not

“particularly important for us to provide the service for conciliation.”––[Official Report, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Public Bill Committee, 19 June 2012; c. 79, Q175.]

Contrary to accusations from the Opposition, these legislative measures do not represent an attack on equalities or undermine the commission’s important role. On the contrary, we believe that they will help the commission to become more effective in delivering its core functions of promoting equality of opportunity and human rights, and creating a fair environment for jobs and growth. I am therefore unable to support amendment 56, and I commend the Government amendments to the House.

[Mr Umunna]

I will speak first to amendment 56, which is my name and those of my right hon. and hon. Friends. We propose to remove clause 52 in its entirety. I shall then speak to Government new clauses 12, 13 and 17 and related measures on third-party harassment, discrimination questionnaires and equal pay orders.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jo Swinson]

indicated dissent.

[Mr Umunna]

It is absolutely true. The Minister should check Hansard.

With this latest new clause, the Government are doing precisely what they said they would not, and we oppose it, as do more than 70% of those who responded to the Government’s consultation.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jo Swinson]

I take the hon. Gentleman’s point that there has not been a consensual debate today, although I do not think it would be accurate to say that there is a consensus on, for instance, the Government’s measures to tackle discrimination in the trans community or our proposals on equal marriage. I can say that as a constituency MP, and my mailbag, and no doubt those of others, would attest to it. The Government have a positive record, including on measures that the previous Government did not address.

On the reasons for new clause 12, the shadow Secretary of State gave a version of events that differed from mine in referring to the case in 1994. For the record, according to the GEO’s lawyers, the reasoning and rationale for bringing forward that provision is as I set out in my opening remarks. It is also worth pointing out that even though the 1994 case to which he referred happened before that provision was in place, those individuals rightly won their case. Ultimately, the important change is the change in definition, which took place as a result of the case, which I mentioned, in 2007.

[Mr Umunna]

The point is that after the 1994 case was won, the principal point of law that was the subject of the case was called into question several times and the law changed various times—I know that from my own practice—which is why we did what we did in the Equality Act 2010.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jo Swinson]

It is certainly the case that there is wide agreement that improved governance and management are necessary. Much of that has been happening, which is definitely to be welcomed. However, this comes back to whether we should have a legal duty—something that is tightly drawn and focused—or something that is more akin to a mission statement or vision statement. The purpose of a legal duty is about something being manageable and achievable, and although the duty that the shadow Secretary of State read out described what we would all want to achieve, it would be ambitious for a Government, with all the resources available to them, to say that they would achieve them, let alone for a solitary organisation to try to achieve such a wide range of ends, albeit good ones.

[Mr Umunna]

I am grateful to the Minister for giving way to me again. We are not the only ones who have raised concerns about what she is doing to the commission in this Bill; they include members of her party, as I have said. Councillor Lester Holloway, the head of the BAME Councillors Association, has said:

“A combination of biting budget cuts and the stripping away of many of its powers threatens to turn the commission into little more than a glorified equalities thinktank.”

The head of the Ethnic Minority Liberal Democrats has said:

“I have heard the argument that if it wasn’t for the Lib Dems the Conservatives might have abolished the EHRC altogether by now. However that argument is unlikely to cut much ice”—

--- Later in debate ---

[Jo Swinson]

I can say from the Dispatch Box that there is no such threat to close the organisation. The EHRC is an important part of our equalities infrastructure and the Government are committed to ensuring that it is maintained—

[Mr Umunna]

Will the Minister give way?

[Jo Swinson]

The shadow Secretary of State might wish to let me respond to the point raised by the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington; then I will see whether I have an opportunity to hear from him.

The hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington mentioned the percentage of cuts and bandied about a figure of 62%. It is important to bear in mind that removing functions such as the conciliation service, which are now being provided elsewhere, will clearly result in a reduction in the number of individuals required. That service is no longer being provided by the EHRC. When we take into account the functions that have been transferred, the cuts that the EHRC is dealing with are broadly in line with other public sector cuts. Yes, it would be lovely to be in a situation in which we did not have to make any cuts but, unfortunately, the nature of the economic circumstances that we were left with in 2010 means that that is not possible.

[Mr Umunna]

I think it is fair to say that we remain deeply concerned about this matter. Will the Minister give us a guarantee now that, for the remainder of this Parliament, there will be no move to make any further changes to the statutory remit or footing of the Equality and Human Rights Commission?

[Jo Swinson]

The shadow Secretary of State does not surprise me greatly when he says that he is not convinced by our arguments today. This was never going to be the most consensual of debates. He is now asking me to look into a crystal ball, but I am clearly not going to make any predictions for the future. I will, however, say that the EHRC is a vital body that is hugely important to our equalities protection. We are conducting a zero-based review to ensure that it can undertake its functions in a more focused way, and that is what we will continue to do.

The hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston mentioned the potential risk to the A-rated status of the EHRC as a human rights body. We are in discussions with the international co-ordinating committee on this, and we want to address any concerns that it might have. We are determined to ensure that we have an A-rated and highly respected human rights body. The hon. Lady also asked about the framework document and suggested that it could undermine the independence of the institution. In fact, it has been agreed on between the commission and the Government, and it sets out specifically that the commission must be

“free to exercise its statutory functions free from ministerial interference or undue influence.”