National Minimum Wage

Debate between Jo Swinson and John McDonnell

Tuesday 16th December 2014 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, Sir Alan. I congratulate the hon. Member for Barnsley Central (Dan Jarvis) on securing the debate, particularly after his less happy experience on Friday 28 November. I appreciate his frustration about Fridays. I have a vivid memory, from fairly early in my time as an MP, of spending an annoying Friday supporting a Bill promoted by the hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith (Mark Lazarowicz) on climate change and having the same experience of a couple of Members talking it out. The hon. Member for Barnsley Central mentioned the excellent Bill promoted by my hon. Friend the Member for Brent Central (Sarah Teather), which would have helped very vulnerable people, and I still hope that we will be able to find a way to take action on those issues. Of course, the opportunity to debate the Bill promoted by the hon. Gentleman was also a casualty of that experience. The procedure for dealing with private Members’ Bills on Fridays is something that I would be keen to see changed.

The hon. Gentleman started by talking about his constituent, Catherine. That is absolutely appropriate, because in discussions about the minimum wage it is easy to get caught up in the numbers of pounds and pence per hour. That is, of course, important, but it is also vital that we remember the individuals at the end of each payslip, who are working on a low wage that represents a minimum or floor.

The hon. Gentleman was right to set out the history of the minimum wage. He highlighted the difficulties that existed before 1997, and the fact that some factory workers earned £1.22 an hour. In 1996, I was 16, and in my first job in McDonald’s, I was paid £2.70 an hour. One of my good friends from school worked in a greengrocer on Saturdays, and she earned £1.90 an hour for lugging around sacks of potatoes.

The introduction of the national minimum wage was absolutely necessary, and the hon. Gentleman is right that it is an historic achievement that should be celebrated. Neither of us was in the House at the time, but my Liberal Democrat colleagues supported the national minimum wage. There perhaps was not agreement from everyone in the House, but the positive thing is that times have moved on and there is now wide acceptance of the national minimum wage’s importance. The Government are strong in our belief and commitment that the national minimum wage is a vital part of the employment protections and basic minimum standards in the labour market. Many business organisations are also strong supporters of the national minimum wage. Recent reports by organisations such as the CBI talk about the importance of supporting household budgets from a wider economic perspective.

The minimum wage level is always likely to be the subject of much discussion and interest, and we clearly need to find the right rate that helps as many low-paid workers as possible, but we must ensure that we do not damage employment prospects by setting the level too high. This year the Government accepted an above-inflation rise in the national minimum wage. In October, workers saw the biggest cash increase in their pay packets since 2008, which helps more than 1 million workers on the national minimum wage and means that anyone working full time on the national minimum wage gets an extra £355 a year in their pay packet. Of course, those workers are also helped by the increase in the tax threshold, which has taken more than 3 million low-paid individuals out of paying income tax and helped ensure that people’s money goes further because they keep more of what they earn.

[John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)]

I apologise to my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley Central (Dan Jarvis) for being late. I was in the main Chamber. We seem to miss out young people in these debates. I am not sure whether he referred to the figures: for an 18 to 20-year-old the national minimum wage is £5.31; for a 16 to 17-year-old it is £3.79; and for apprentices it is £2.73. That must be a disgrace.

Small Business, Enterprise and Employment Bill

Debate between Jo Swinson and John McDonnell

Wednesday 19th November 2014 Commons Chamber

[John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)]

I apologise for arriving halfway through the Front-Bench spokesman’s introduction and for having to leave soon to chair another meeting.

If the Government cannot support the amendments, perhaps they could consider the spirit in which they have been tabled. I refer in particular to amendment 8 and the annual report into the effectiveness of enforcement. I have raised this issue in the House before, and while the Minister was on maternity leave I met the Minister who stood in for her to discuss the failure to pay the minimum wage in the shipping industry, particularly on ferries to the Channel Islands. Condor Ferries is still paying £2.65 an hour. Its ships sail around the Channel Islands, so they are close to, and come to, our shores, but we still cannot get around the current legislation to ensure enforcement. An annual report could give us shared knowledge of where the minimum wage is not being paid and how we can work together to overcome the difficulties. Problems continue, and even if the amendment cannot be accepted, at least the Government could provide us with a regular report into the enforcement challenges.

On amendment 9, in January I helped to launch the fast food campaign, with the Bakers, Food and Allied Workers Union, to lift living standards, pay and the quality of employment within the fast food sector. It covers all fast food joints operating in this country, such as McDonald’s, KFC and Costa, most of which pay the minimum wage and virtually all of which operate zero-hours contracts. I have not met a fast food worker yet who has voluntarily moved to a zero-hours contract. The right hon. Member for East Yorkshire (Sir Greg Knight), who is not in his place, mentioned end-of-the-pier shows, but the entertainment sector uses fixed-term contracts, rather than just zero-hours contracts, because the latter are so capable of exploitation, victimisation and bullying, as we have found in the fast food sector in particular.

We have stood outside McDonald’s and we have tried to meet the management of McDonald’s, Costa and others to arrange discussions between the trade union, which is recruiting members in that sector, and management, but they have refused to meet and get involved in those negotiations. Recruitment has gone on and there has been some direct action. The fast food campaign will be demonstrating outside this place on Friday lunchtime to expose what is happening in the sector.

I welcome the exclusivity clauses in the Bill—they are really helpful—but even with their introduction, as amendment 9 points out, without the capability to enforce them, they will be almost meaningless. At the moment, the cost and other restrictions over who is entitled to go to an employment tribunal mean that many fast food workers and others on zero-hours contracts will never get their day in court. The amendment is not particularly challenging; it would simply require regulations making it open and transparent how people can enforce their rights. At the moment, it is almost inexplicable to people how they can be enforced.

I think that amendment 10(c), which refers to

“imposing an obligation on an employer to offer a fixed hours contract when a worker has worked regular hours for a continuous period”,

would be welcomed within the sector. Over the past year, I have been working on the fast food sector and have found people being employed on the most exploitative zero-hours contracts. We heard examples of individuals being phoned up and told to race to work to get the hours. My dad was a Liverpool docker in the 1930s. We are going back to the days when the ganger could select individual workers for the day. It means that although some will be selected, others will not, perhaps because of their trade union involvement.

One Costa worker who turned up at a public meeting I arranged had been told that he could not have hours the following week because he had not smiled enough that week. We raised that with Costa, but it was denied; the worker and his colleagues confirmed that it was true. That is the sort of exploitation that goes on. Unless we can get to a situation where we can be completely confident that a person has entered into a zero-hours contract completely voluntarily, people will be open to exploitation.

There is a sliding scale of what people want. Most people want permanent employment; others want to plan their lives over a limited period of time and would want some fixed-contract employment; and others—I think it will be a tiny minority, and not on the present scale—will want zero-hours contracts. The proposed new subsection (1A)(c) in amendment 10 therefore refers to regular employment for a continuous period. The proposed regulations could define that period of time; we could debate the practicality of that. The person should then have the opportunity of having a proper contract rather than a zero-hours contract.

I believe that the amendments are acceptable and advise everyone to vote for them, but even if they are not acceptable to the Minister, the Government need to take it into account the spirit of them. We should first ensure that we are open and transparent about the effect of the enforcement and share the problems of enforcement, so we know what the future agenda will be. Secondly, we must be completely clear that there are practical rights of enforcement. At the moment, I cannot explain to people how under the legislation as drafted we will be able to enforce their exclusivity. Thirdly, there is the issue of continuous employment, which I think needs to be tackled.

Again, all that is being suggested is that regulations should be brought forward to deal with these issues. If the Government are unwilling to accept the amendments, they could at least accept that there is an issue and that draft regulations could be brought forward, enabling the possibility of working on a cross-party basis to make some practical arrangements to protect workers from such forms of exploitation. Let me say finally that I would welcome people to join us on the fast-food demonstration at 12 o’clock on Friday.

[Jo Swinson]

I shall focus most of my remarks on the debate about the national minimum wage and zero-hours contracts, but I would like briefly to set out the effects of Government amendments 61 to 64, relating to the public sector exit payment measures. The measures are designed to enable the proportionate recovery of exit payments when a high-earning individual returns to the same part of the public sector shortly after their exit. The amendments are technical in nature and simply seek to clarify that the obligations can be placed on individuals who received exit payments when it is likely that they will swiftly return to the same part of the public sector.

Blacklisting

Debate between Jo Swinson and John McDonnell

Wednesday 16th October 2013 Westminster Hall

[Jo Swinson]

I have outlined the investigations that are ongoing. We do need something to go on: there is much speculation about and many suggestions of blacklisting taking place, but the relevant authorities need somewhere to start to look for it. That is why in the debates earlier this year and today I have reiterated that if anyone has information, concerns or suspicions—they do not need to have firm evidence, because it is a challenge to produce bona fide evidence when, by definition, the activity is clandestine—we will of course happily look at such evidence, as the Select Committee has done.

[John McDonnell]

To make it clear to the ICO, will the Minister state that she expects it to contact everybody on the list?

[Jo Swinson]

I absolutely expect the ICO to contact everyone on that list, where that is possible, practical and feasible, but I also recognise that the information is incomplete in some cases, and that its attempts to do so may not therefore be successful. I hope that the House recognises those basic practicalities.

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

Debate between Jo Swinson and John McDonnell

Wednesday 11th September 2013 Commons Chamber

[Jo Swinson]

I hope that I can give the hon. Gentleman some reassurance. It is not a question of every single membership entry having to be audited; it is about the process the union has in place for doing so. The certificate needs to be provided to give assurance on that. He also said—a few Members mentioned this—that the proposed powers somehow exist already, but they are actually very narrowly drawn. The certification officer’s power to investigate a complaint by an individual member applies only to that individual’s membership record; it does not extend to other members in the organisation. Indeed, it does not give those who might not be a member of a trade union the ability to complain. Of course, a member might not know that there is a problem with their records. Indeed, if they are not receiving information from the union, they might not know when there is a ballot for a committee, for example.

I will turn now to the specific amendments and respond to some of the points that have been raised. Amendment 103 would remove the annual duty to provide a membership audit certificate. Instead, the certificate would need to be submitted only if a complaint were received by the certification officer and he thought that it was necessary. Amendment 121 would go along with amendment 103 by removing the duty to appoint an assurer. I do not think that the amendments are useful, because they stop the key policy objective. I agree that there is clearly a difference of opinion between both sides of the Committee on the reasonableness of the measure, but that is why the Government do not support the amendments. The current arrangements just do not give that assurance, because they rely on members proactively checking the register. Even if they do check the register, they cannot see all of it and they do not know whether other names and addresses are up to date; neither do they know who should and should not be on the register.

Various Members have mentioned the difficulties of tracking membership. Indeed, the Engineering Employers Federation has commented that trade unions

“do not have a unified way of tracking membership and it remains difficult for them to do so”.

The Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development said that

“Unions have stated difficulties at times maintaining the addresses of members”.

Amendment 104 would allow for delaying the submission of a membership audit certificate if the union were appealing. I absolutely understand that unions do not want an assurer to send mistakenly or maliciously a qualified certificate to the certification officer without their knowing about it, but I believe that the amendment is unnecessary and hope to give some reassurance on why. The current drafting states that the assurer will send the copy of the membership audit certificate to the certification officer only after it is provided to the union, which means that the union will already have seen the certificate and had that opportunity to talk with the assurer. Of course, it is worth noting that it is the union that will appoint the assurer, and it has every ability within the agreement it makes in appointing an assurer to say that it would like the opportunity to see the certificate and comment before it is sent off.

[John McDonnell]

I think that most of us are still mystified about the objectives of the clause, so I will put one scenario to the Minister to test its purpose. The clause will enable someone who is not a trade union member—a member of the Conservative party, for example—to contest the membership list. This is about communications between the union and its members, so if the union in the run up to the next general election, say, sends out a letter to its members urging them to vote for the Labour party, the Conservative party member, who is not a member of a trade union, could contest the accuracy of the membership list and, in that way, undermine the trade union’s ability to communicate with its members. That is possible under this legislation, and it betrays its purpose.

[Jo Swinson]

The certificate that will have been issued, and which will be available for any member of the public to look at, will show that the union has a proper process in place for maintaining its membership list. That will give that assurance to anybody who looks at it. It of course will not give the details of the names and addresses of the union members, as some Members seem to have suggested; it will simply give that assurance.

--- Later in debate ---

[John McDonnell]

I have no idea what that means. It has such a range of interpretation that it gives the assurer the ability to provide information to virtually anyone for any purpose. It will undermine the confidence of workers who have experienced blacklisting or victimisation and workers who are currently at risk if the Bill is passed in this form.

One of the reasons why there may be a disclosure of information is

“where it is required for the purposes of the investigation of crime or criminal proceedings.”

In the real world of industrial relations, many Opposition Members have seen a crime being alleged because of the process of picketing. Because the list includes the investigation of an alleged crime, the certification officer will be able to hand over the names and addresses of pickets who are accused of action that could be construed to be illegal. That will undermine people’s ability to exercise their democratic rights as trade unionists by undertaking picketing or other forms of industrial action.

I am anxious about the whole clause. It flies in the face of the assurances that have been given in the House that blacklisting and victimisation will be addressed. People have been blacklisted or victimised simply because they are trade unionists or health and safety representatives. On the blacklist that we discovered, names had been misinterpreted and the wrong people had been identified. Some people had been blacklisted simply because they had undertaken political activities unrelated to trade union activities.

The Opposition amendments simply try to gain the assurance that a duty of confidentiality will be placed on the officers who will implement the new regime. I do not find that to be excessive. It will not introduce burdens on trade unions, the certification officer or the assurer. It will simply clarify their legal duties. One of their legal duties must be to protect the information that they are inspecting or, to use the new verb, “assuring” as a result of this legislation.

I urge the Government to accept the amendments. I hope they do, but even if they cannot, they can at least take the spirit of what Opposition Members have said and return with their own amendments to ensure that there is a duty of confidentiality on the officers concerned; that the qualifications can be properly examined when the assurer is appointed; that assurers can be dismissed if there is a breakdown of confidentiality; and that there is absolute security for the information the assurer guards and controls on behalf of the trade union.

[Jo Swinson]

I welcome the debate on clause 37 and the amendments and I shall respond to some of the remarks hon. Members have made. Clause 37 gives credibility to the maintenance of trade union membership registers to members, employers and the wider public.

As hon. Members know, unions are already required to report on their financial affairs. They need to appoint an auditor, which gives the accounts authority. When a large union submits its membership on its certificate, the Bill provides the same kind of independent assurance that is provided in financial affairs. For the larger unions, that assurance needs to be independent if it is to be credible, which is why trade unions of more than 10,000 members must appoint a qualified independent person to provide the membership audit certificate, which will state whether, in the assurer’s opinion, the union’s systems are satisfactory in relation to compliance with the duties to maintain an accurate register—[Interruption.] If the hon. Member for Sheffield (Angela Smith) wants to intervene, I am happy for her to do so—[Interruption.] I apologise if I did not get the hon. Lady’s exact constituency name quite right. I should have referred to her as the Member for Barnsley and Penistone or whatever. She had a slightly different constituency in the previous Parliament.

The clause provides an order-making power for the Secretary of State to define who may act as an assurer. Somebody cannot act as an assurer if the union has grounds to believe they would not act competently, or that their independence might be called into question. For example, union officers or employers may not act as an assurer. In practice, the assurer will need to be somebody who can understand how records are stored, collected and updated, so that they can provide the audit certificate. They might want to know how the union collects new member data and how members are reminded to keep their details up to date—the hon. Member for Sunderland Central (Julie Elliott) described how a union with which she had been involved did that regularly. The assurer might also want to know how unions update the register once changes are notified.

Unions will need to set out in their rules the process for appointing and removing an assurer. We have provided flexibility for the union, but certain provisions will apply regardless. An assurer may be removed by resolution, or be automatically re-appointed unless one of various specified conditions are met. However, it will always be up to the union to have the final say—it can appoint or remove an assurer by resolution.

Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Bill

Debate between Jo Swinson and John McDonnell

Tuesday 23rd April 2013 Commons Chamber

[Jo Swinson]

I am happy to make that clear for the House, and I wanted to respond to the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green) on a similar point. The amendment changes the word “may” to “must” in the Equality Act 2010. At the moment, it states that the Secretary of State “may” make caste discrimination illegal, and that will be changed to say that they “must” lay regulations to make an order. That will require secondary legislation, which gives us time to consult and get that right. When the secondary legislation is passed, the measure will be on the statute book.

[John McDonnell]

Let me try this phrase: if we enact this legislation, the Government must outlaw caste discrimination in due course.

[Jo Swinson]

indicated assent.

[John McDonnell]

That is point 1—stay with me on this. Point 2: in developing the detail of the legislation, we will ensure that we consult the wide range of communities that have an interest in this matter, and seek to mobilise them in eliminating caste discrimination—agreed?

[Jo Swinson]

indicated assent.

[John McDonnell]

Thirdly, I would be grateful for the Minister’s views on the limited period of time in which that will be done. I have heard about months and also a full year—whatever view is realistic. I think it would be possible in a year not only to deliver clear definitions and guidance on implementation, but to mobilise the whole community around this issue and to convince people about the need for this provision.

Finally, this amendment contains a review period so that if we reach nirvana and the elimination of caste discrimination in this country, we can return to the issue and remove the measure from the legislation.

If all those statements are accurate and agreed across the House, I now understand the point we are at, so perhaps others will as well. I think it has been a significant victory for democratic debate in this Chamber and the wider community. Lots of organisations have been involved in this discussion. Not everybody is happy, but we have reached an understanding that there is a problem to be addressed. No matter how small people think it may be, this issue is significant for many of us and it is being addressed appropriately with some subtlety and understanding of people’s views, so that those are taken into account. I welcome the overall approach that has been agreed.

Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Bill

Debate between Jo Swinson and John McDonnell

Tuesday 16th April 2013 Commons Chamber

[Jo Swinson]

My right hon. Friend makes an important point about organisations that represent different parts of the Hindu and Sikh communities, and that is why it is important to point out that they do not only represent high castes: some of them represent low castes as well, and there is concern across the spectrum. It is a serious issue that requires serious consideration, and the Government are not ruling out legislation. We have the power to legislate under secondary legislation: what I am saying is that we are not convinced today that that is necessary.

[John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)]

I moved the compromise amendment that was accepted by the whole House. It provided that the Government would legislate if they could identify incidents of caste discrimination. The report identifies such incidents. It was not a matter of the form of legislation: it was a commitment to legislate. The Government are taking an extreme step backwards from what was agreed by the whole House in 2010, when it was opposed by those same organisations that the Minister has listed today. Traditional Hindus opposed Mahatma Ghandi’s attempt to outlaw caste discrimination in 1933.

[Jo Swinson]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention and the work he has done on this issue over many years. I reiterate some of the concerns that we have heard from those groups. For example, GAKM UK, an organisation that represents a community officially recognised as low caste in India, fears that by enacting this provision, Parliament could undo all the work done by communities over the past 20 years to try to remove the differentiation by caste in all aspects of life. I am not saying that these are not important issues or that ultimately it would not be helpful to enact the provision, I am saying that we need to proceed with great caution, because the communities affected have significant differences of view. That is why we want to ensure that the EHRC makes a further assessment of the views and evidence on this issue, on which it will report back later this year. The Government have already said, through the work and the statement of the Under-Secretary of State for Women and Equalities, my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald, and through discussions in the other place, that if the assessment shows that we need to legislate, the option remains open to us.

Groceries Code Adjudicator Bill [Lords]

Debate between Jo Swinson and John McDonnell

Tuesday 26th February 2013 Commons Chamber

[John McDonnell]

Does that mean, then, that the Minister can now place it on the record that the Government expect the OFT to respond in a public, open, transparent and timely manner to any requests or recommendations by the adjudicator?

[Jo Swinson]

I absolutely give that assurance. If a body such as the OFT receives information, particularly from a respected public servant, we would expect it to respond appropriately as part of its general duty, but we do not want to be overly prescriptive in how we set that out in legislation. I hope that that reassurance is helpful to the hon. Gentleman and I urge him not to press his amendment.

Amendment 28 would require the adjudicator to set out in guidance which laws will apply to arbitration and where it will be conducted. The amendment is superfluous, because it would duplicate information that is already in the groceries supply order. We discussed arbitration in Committee, as did the other place when it debated the Bill. Article 11 of the order sets out the rules that will apply and the fact that

“the seat or legal place of arbitration will be London…or such other city within the United Kingdom as the Supplier nominates.”

Of course, the adjudicator may choose to publish guidance on arbitration, but we do not believe that it is necessary to make that a requirement under the Bill.

Blacklisting

Debate between Jo Swinson and John McDonnell

Wednesday 23rd January 2013 Commons Chamber

[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.

[John McDonnell]

rose—

[Jo Swinson]

I give way to the hon. Gentleman, who has worked on this issue consistently for many years.

--- Later in debate ---

[John McDonnell]

If the Government are not willing to accept an inquiry at the moment, I suggest that, because these matters are much broader than the role of the Information Commissioner’s Office, they consider the appointment of someone independent of them and employers to whom people can go to provide evidence.

[Jo Swinson]

The ICO is independent of Government and employers, and it is fair to say that hon. Members would also take the view that the Chair of the Scottish Affairs Committee is also fairly independent—of most people. It is important to ensure that people bring forward the evidence. If anything new arises, we will be happy to make sure that it is fully investigated.

The shadow Secretary of State mentioned the legislation. Clearly, significant protections are now in place, but there is the matter of false self-employment in the construction industry; there was a debate in Westminster Hall about that recently. That is a problem, although there are differences of view about its extent. Issues of employment law may need to be changed as a result of the evidence that many hon. Members now expect to come forward, and we are keeping all employment law under review during this Parliament. We will be happy to consider that.

As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State mentioned, we will not oppose the motion. Blacklisting is an appalling practice, which is unacceptable and illegal. Robust penalties are in place; the law provides for unlimited fines, in particular for the breach of an enforcement notice that the Information Commissioner has put in place. I look forward to seeing any evidence that requires investigation.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House notes that in 2009 the Information Commissioner’s Office raided the Consultation Association which revealed a blacklist and files on more than 3,000 individuals which had been used by more than 40 construction companies to vet individuals and deny people employment for reasons including being a member of a trade union or having raised health and safety concerns and that extensive personal information on individuals and their families was held; recognises that the majority of individuals have still not been informed that they were on the blacklist nor given the opportunity to seek redress, despite recent confirmation that blacklisting checks took place on Olympic construction sites and allegations that the practice took place on public projects including Ministry of Defence sites, Portcullis House and Crossrail; further notes that at recent Scottish Affairs Select Committee hearings on blacklisting the Information Commissioner Investigations Manager raised concerns that there may have been collusion by police officers and security services in the compilation of blacklists; and in addition that it was also alleged at the hearings that a blacklist of environmental activists was compiled; and calls on the Government to immediately begin an investigation into the extent to which blacklisting took place and may be taking place, including on public sector projects, and to ensure that appropriate and effective sanctions are in place to tackle and prevent blacklisting.

UK-Listed Mining Companies

Debate between Jo Swinson and John McDonnell

Wednesday 28th November 2012 Westminster Hall

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

Thank you for chairing the debate, Mr Benton, and for drawing our attention to the new clock regime, which is a very good innovation, particularly the advent of seconds. We can feel the anticipation of the countdown in the closing seconds of our speeches. I congratulate the hon. Member for Falkirk (Eric Joyce) on securing the debate. It has been an important opportunity to highlight what we are doing to increase transparency. I pay tribute to his hard work, particularly in his role on the all-party group on the African great lakes region.

I would also like to thank the hon. Gentleman for his kindness and understanding. When the debate was initially scheduled for a few weeks ago, I was suffering from the cold that was going round and had entirely lost my voice. It would not have been a particularly instructive debate in which to hear the Government’s view, because I would have been very much in listening mode only. I am glad we were able to reschedule. In doing so, it has changed from a half-hour to a 90-minute debate. I do not know whether that is pure good luck in the ballot or karma from the powers-that-be for the hon. Gentleman’s understanding. I am sure that we all appreciate having this opportunity, because we have been able to hear not only his views but contributions from other hon. Members.

In my summation, I shall outline the Government’s position and our commitment to transparency, in particular. I shall go through the latest developments on the EU rules and talk about corporate governance, with particular reference to reporting requirements and the composition of boards. I will also talk about the extractive industries transparency initiative, which several hon. Members mentioned. I will then deal with the impact of mining on the UK economy.

For far too long, the world’s poorest people have struggled to benefit from the vast natural resources in their countries. Millions of people in developing countries languish in poverty while their corrupt Governments squander or hide large payments from foreign companies. Strong EU action to create a new global standard for transparency in the extractive industries is vital to help those citizens to hold their Governments to account. I am determined that the UK will play a leading role within the EU to make the most of opportunities.

The Government are keen that the mining industry, as well as other extractive industries, provides more information on the payments it makes. Countries rich in natural resources—the minerals that industrialised nations need—can use that wealth to boost economic growth and improve social conditions for some of the poorest people in the world, who badly need that. International mining developments have the potential to boost economic growth dramatically and provide a route out of poverty for resource-rich developing countries. All too often, however, such resources act as a curse, owing to the temptations of corruption that tend to go with them.

To provide some context, the value of exports of oil, gas and minerals from sub-Saharan Africa in 2009 was five times greater than the aid it received, and prices have risen since then. There is huge potential to unlock positive development. Botswana, Zambia and the Democratic Republic of the Congo top the global chart of mineral-dependent countries—those that depend on minerals for more than a quarter of their tangible exports. Well managed extractive resources can provide a big economic jolt, but citizens of such countries are too often unable to find out how much their Governments are paid for access to the resources or how the payments are reinvested, so there is no way to hold them to account.

The Prime Minister has expressed his strong support for the transparency agenda. When he spoke in Lagos in July 2011, he made clear his support for EU action to improve the information available at both country and project level. More recently, he reaffirmed his commitment to the UK leading efforts in the EU to require oil, gas and mining companies to publish details of the payments they make to Governments. The Deputy Prime Minister has also been active in this regard, and last month he and I met campaigners, including that rather well known supporter, Bono. The Deputy Prime Minister has been a strong advocate of transparency and in particular of ensuring that the agenda is driven forward at the centre of Government with the important support of the Prime Minister.

The hon. Member for Falkirk and others talked about the accountancy and transparency directives and where we are with them, and I hope to update the House today. The Government are keen that the EU agrees strong reporting requirements—rules that could improve the lives of millions of people around the world. For the first time, the extractive industries will have to report the payments that they make in all countries in which they operate. It is proposed that such companies, whether listed or not, publish details of what they pay to each level of government—nationally, regionally and locally. Crucially, they will also have to report payments to state-owned organisations, such as energy providers. That will give citizens the information that they need on, for example, the taxes, royalties and other payments made in host countries. If we get the measures right, it will have a huge impact in helping to combat corruption in developing countries and ensure that natural resources benefit all the citizens of the countries where they are mined.

The hon. Member for Falkirk mentioned the action in the United States, which has already agreed new rules, as we know. The US Dodd-Frank Act requires listed companies to report to the Securities and Exchange Commission each year. That means giving details of the payments, whether in money or in kind, that they make to Governments. The new legislation, published in August, raised the bar on global transparency standards, which I warmly welcome. US-listed companies will have to comply with a set of strict rules that will considerably increase the amount of information available to citizens. Although the EU has been discussing the issue for a long time—things tend to take a long time with the EU—the publication of the US rules has given us an opportunity to go further than we had thought possible in the EU, because, on exemptions, project-level reporting and the threshold for reporting, the rules are more ambitious than many had expected.

In response to that bold move by the US, the coalition Government are pushing for the EU to match the US approach, on, in particular, project-level reporting and setting a low threshold above which payments must be disclosed. The threshold is $100,000 under the US rules, and it would be helpful if the EU agreed to a similar amount in negotiations. It is worth mentioning in passing that if standards in the EU and US were, as far as possible, shared, it would help companies complying with the transparency rules, because it would mean one set of requirements to comply with, rather than extra complexity and therefore extra cost. In America, there will be no exemptions from reporting, which has been a real bone of contention.

Concerns have been raised with my predecessors and me that the disclosure of payments made to a Government might be prohibited by the criminal law in some countries. I have yet to see the titles of specific Acts of Parliament in specific countries that would prohibit that type of transparency. I encourage anyone reading the debate in Hansard who strongly believes that exemptions are absolutely necessary to furnish me with the titles of the Acts that people would be unable to comply with, in whatever foreign country. I will happily receive and respond to such information, if it exists, as I expect it does not. When mining companies based in the United States and Europe have to provide the information, that will cover a large proportion of the extractive industries operating in the developing world.

The hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr Wright) raised the challenge of the EU process. I am glad that he did not say it was my fault that things were taking a while in Europe; I assure him that it is not. I may have been in this role for only two and a half months, but my predecessors were very active, as am I, on the issue. Since January, there have been 16 meetings of the Department, campaigners and the industry, five of which included Ministers. Since I took on this role, I met members of the Publish What You Pay coalition and representatives from the extractive industries on 12 September, and I again met members of Publish What You Pay on 25 October. We are therefore in close contact on the issues, because it is important to make progress. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills had an article in the weekend newspapers on this issue, and we are determined to keep up the pressure.

[John McDonnell]

It is impressive that the Minister has met such a range of organisations. Is she now willing to meet the London Mining Network?

[Jo Swinson]

The hon. Gentleman encourages me to fill my diary with more meetings—I am sure that my private office will be delighted. I will certainly look at whether it is possible to undertake that commitment. If he writes to me with more details, I will see what can be done.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jo Swinson]

The hon. Gentleman asks a genuinely interesting question. One thing that became clear to me at the first round table I held on this issue was that the industry and the campaigners started in quite contradictory positions. Getting people to a position where they have agreed to make progress has been a rather long and perhaps slightly tortuous process, which has required a great deal of engagement. Both sides have had concerns, but, to their credit, they have both recognised that tweaks to their proposals might be needed, and genuine points have been made that ultimately led to concessions. Certainly when I joined those discussions, we were getting to a much clearer position, particularly with the catalyst of the strong US rules, and that is very welcome. It is important to have strong rules on transparency, but the industry recognises that it must comply with the US rules, and it wants to make sure that it is not a bad neighbour, as it were, in the countries in which it operates. There is therefore a recognition that change is necessary.

The EU negotiations are in the trialogue process, the delights of which are not always as swift as we would like. We are keen to make sure that, if possible, that agreement is reached through the First Reading process, because that would allow us to implement the rules. I understand that there have been three sets of meetings so far. They are practically weekly at the moment, and I think the dates were 7, 9 and 14 November, but do not quote me on that. Things are prone to change in the EU—for example, there was due to be a meeting on Friday, but I heard it was off and then that it was possibly on again. None the less, whatever the specific dates, there are very regular meetings of COREPER—and other lovely EU acronyms—to ensure we get some progress.

On a range of issues, particularly the three I mentioned—exemptions, and threshold-level and project-level reporting—we are getting a greater degree of consensus. The European Parliament is still pushing some elements, in relation to the involvement of other parts of industry, on which it wants to go beyond what the US does. That runs the risk of just delaying or preventing the process, when there is a lot of consensus on extractives, so there will be further discussions.

As the hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) explained, he has unfortunately had to leave for another engagement. He made a point about outsourcing parts of the mining industry to avoid transparency. It is worth putting it on the record that the project definition is likely to tie in contracts and licences in such a way that avoidance will not be straightforward and that subcontracting will still be captured. The hon. Member for Falkirk talked about how listing companies in London might be a positive step, even when they were not UK-based. The hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) was characteristically forthright and passionate about some of the failings that he has identified. I am sure that he appreciates why I cannot go into the individual cases that he mentioned.

On the overarching issue of corporate governance, it is important that investors have information to hold companies to account. The London stock exchange has four of the top five mining exploration and extraction companies by market capitalisation—BHP, Rio Tinto, Xstrata and Anglo American. There are 119 extractive and mining companies listed on the London exchanges, of which 12 are UK companies. We want to ensure that investors can hold boards to account and encourage responsible business behaviour. We have high standards of corporate governance, but it is important that we are not complacent. Further strengthening those standards will help London stock markets, because it will give major investors more confidence.

[John McDonnell]

It is important that companies are held to account, and it is also important that Governments are held to account. Will the Minister personally examine the information that has flowed between the Government—that is, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office—and other Government agencies with regard to GCM and its operation at the Phulbari project in Bangladesh? A freedom of information request for the release of that information has been denied.

[Jo Swinson]

I will endeavour to look at the issue the hon. Gentleman raises, and write to him. I want to conclude my remarks, as there are a couple of points I want to pick up.

The tax issue is one for the Treasury, but it is important that companies pay the tax that they owe. If some of that needs discussion with other OECD countries, to make sure we have a regime that works, we should do that.

We have recently published draft regulations for narrative reporting. It is important that we make sure that it is explicit that relevant social and community issues in such reports should include a consideration of human rights. It is absolutely appropriate that investors should want to assess that in making their decisions.

Diversity on boards is also relevant to the extractive and mining industries. In the FTSE 100, there are currently 12 mining companies, half of which have no women on their boards. That means that, of the only eight companies in the FTSE 100 that have no women on their boards, three quarters are mining companies. I hope that those companies look at that in detail, because the rest of the FTSE 100 companies seem to be taking significant action, so they are lagging significantly behind. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Hartlepool mentions Cynthia Carroll, whose departure shortly from Anglo American, will leave only two female bosses in the FTSE 100.

Various hon. Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr Walker), raised the issue of the extractive industries transparency initiative, although, as the hon. Member for Islington North pointed out, it has limited effectiveness. There are 16 compliant countries so far, and another 20 are in the process. The rules that we want to agree in the EU will go much further, so it is important to get them right. However, with my colleagues in the Department for International Development, I will look at that issue. We are trying to assess the impact of any such additional burden on small UK companies that operate exclusively in the UK. However, I hear the views expressed.

Mining is, of course, important to the UK economy. My hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Guy Opperman) spoke as a passionate advocate for his constituency. Some of the issues he raised relate to other Departments, but it is the responsibility of local authorities to establish local development and local mineral plans so that it is clear how their areas will be developed. The Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government has made it clear that the green belt will be protected. He recently said in the House:

“Inappropriate development should not be approved in the green belt”.—[Official Report, 17 September 2012; Vol. 550, c. 619-20.]

That is clear. It is up to local authorities to implement conditions that are put in place, including those from the Planning Inspectorate.

In conclusion, the issue is important, and the Government are very committed to transparency. I thank all hon. Members for their contributions to the debate.

Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Bill

Debate between Jo Swinson and John McDonnell

Wednesday 17th October 2012 Commons Chamber

[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.

[John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)]

My amendment 51 seeks to prevent employers from applying for costs and using the provisions as an incentive to take part in conciliation. Is the Minister saying that such a power already exists in law and that she does not feel it should be codified? Or is she simply opposed to codifying it?

[Jo Swinson]

As far as I am aware—I am sure that inspiration will reach me if this is not the case—tribunals already have the power to impose costs, but the amendment would seek to limit the circumstances. Where proceedings have been brought or conducted in a vexatious, abusive, disruptive or otherwise unreasonable manner, it is important that the tribunal route retains the discretion to award costs. That happens in a tiny number of cases, because even when a case reaches tribunal most people engage with it in a spirit of genuine concern and with a genuine problem, but there will be some cases in which a relationship is vexatious or in which someone seeks to settle scores. If that is the case, it is appropriate for costs to be ordered in such a way.

Let me turn now to amendment 57, the proposal to amend the period for lodging a claim from one to six months for those whose limitation period would otherwise expire during the early conciliation period or within one month of the early conciliation process ending. The amendment would affect only a small number of individuals: those whose claim was brought under the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 and who had sent their claim to ACAS towards the very end of the limitation period.

We want all claimants to have the confidence to engage meaningfully in early conciliation without the fear of running out of time to bring a claim. That is why we have provided for all claimants to have a minimum of a month following the end of the early conciliation period in which to lodge a claim, regardless of its nature. It is difficult to see why individuals should require longer than a month to prepare and submit the necessary form to the tribunal, bearing in mind that they will already have gone through the early conciliation process and have been considering the matter for some time, and it is even more difficult to see why such a lengthy extension should apply to such a narrow range of claims. We want all people to be able to engage in early conciliation and to have the confidence to do so and, if it does not work, to pursue other options. I am therefore unable to support amendments 80, 51 and 57.

Opposition Members have proposed three amendments to clause 11, amendments 52, 53 and 54, which relate to the composition of the Employment Appeal Tribunal. As my predecessor, my hon. Friend the Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb), explained in Committee when a similar amendment was voted down, we believe it is right that when the issue under consideration is related solely to a point of law the matter should ordinarily be heard by a judge sitting alone. That is always the case in the EAT, of course. However, when the judge considers that there is merit in sitting with a panel, they will be able to do that, and the Lord Chancellor can also order it for specific proceedings. I am therefore unable to support the proposed amendments.

Government amendments 8, 9 and 10, to clause 12, provide for confidentiality of negotiations before the termination of employment. Since the introduction of the clause in Committee, my Department has sought and received feedback from a number of key stakeholders. Some, including the Employment Lawyers Association and some business representative groups, told us that the original wording of subsection (1), which stated that employment tribunals should not take account of offers of settlement in their deliberations, could be open to misconception and misunderstanding. Although the Government believe that the original drafting of the clause would have the desired effect—namely putting an offer of settlement outside the deliberations of the employment tribunal in unfair dismissal cases—we wish to allay those fears and are amending the drafting of subsection (1) for the purposes of clarity and the avoidance of doubt. Subsection (5) is rendered unnecessary by that redrafting, so amendment 10 is a consequential amendment to remove it. In the proposed amended clause, just as in the original, employment tribunals will remain able to consider an offer of settlement in claims being brought on other grounds.

Amendment 9 does nothing more than reflect the difference in terminology between tribunals in Scotland, where the term “expenses” is used in employment tribunal proceedings, and those in England and Wales, where the term “costs” is used. Clause 12 was debated at some length in Committee—I have no doubt that Opposition Members have fond memories of that—and none of the amendments changes the purpose or effect of the clause, which were accepted then.

Opposition amendment 81 would remove clause 12 in its entirety. It is worth going back to consider the original aim of the clause. It is aimed at helping employers and employees come to a consensual end to employment relationships that are just not working out by facilitating the use of settlement agreements. A settlement agreement offers potential benefits to employers and employees, including a much quicker resolution than that offered by the tribunal, where the average time taken to resolve a claim is 24 weeks. Employers have the security that they will not face a tribunal case that would distract them and other workers from their business activities, and employees end up with the certainty of a cash payment, avoid the time and stress of tribunal, and leave with their head held high and possibly a reference. We want to encourage more businesses and individuals to consider the use of settlement agreements as a viable and potentially preferable means of parting ways than an emotionally draining performance management or misconduct route or a costly and stressful employment tribunal.

Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Bill

Debate between Jo Swinson and John McDonnell

Tuesday 16th October 2012 Commons Chamber

[Jo Swinson]

This is a procedure about obtaining information. There are clearly differences between different cases. However, it is also clear from the consultation that this is being used as a sort of fishing expedition whereby additional questions are asked in order to produce an undue burden on business and perhaps sometimes to encourage the idea that the process might be seen to be far too burdensome and that a settlement should therefore be reached instead, even where there may not have been a breach by the employer.

[John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)]

Can the Minister say what percentage of responding organisations supported her position, because I believe that 83% were opposed to it?

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jo Swinson]

Every organisation is entitled to put forward its views and concerns. It is important that language is used carefully, as has been pointed out by various Members. Whether they are a member of the Government or not, everyone needs to be careful about the language they use in these discussions. That is not to say, of course, that we should never make any changes to provisions affecting people with disabilities, but that debate should be conducted responsibly.

The hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) was rather dismissive of many of the Government’s measures on equalities, and said that there was much consensus in these areas. These are measures that the previous Labour Government did not undertake during their 13 years in power, so if there is such consensus, the question needs to be asked, “Why didn’t they get on with it?”

[John McDonnell]

The hon. Lady completely misinterpreted what I said. I was not dismissive at all. I welcomed the measures and said that they were supported across the House. This measure, however, is one of the first steps on equality in nearly a decade that has not been taken consensually.

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jo Swinson]

I meet and speak to those Liberal Democrat colleagues regularly, and I spoke to Lester Holloway last week about these issues. Some of the points that have been made have been based on inaccurate information, such as that about black and minority ethnic staff in the commission. The commission has corrected a lot of inaccurate information and misunderstanding about the impact that the restructuring plans will have on its staff. Of course, diversity is taken very seriously in all public sector organisations, but in the EHRC perhaps more than most there is acute awareness of how vital it is.

The duties that will remain in sections 8 and 9 of the Equality Act 2006 are the core functions of the EHRC. Several Members referred to the Let’s Kick Racism Out of Football campaign, which was an excellent initiative but contained nothing at all that could not be done under section 8. It is a false argument to take something excellent that the EHRC has done in the past and say that such an initiative could not be taken in future because of the changes that we are making to section 3. It absolutely could be taken under section 8.

Several Members asked whether the changes to the EHRC were about growth. I am not going to pretend that making its remit more structured is specifically a growth measure, but that does not mean that it is not a helpful thing to do. I have outlined the impact that the provisions coming out of the red tape challenge will have on business. Business will welcome that, coupled with all the other measures that we are taking in the red tape challenge to bear down on unnecessary regulation.

Several comments have been bandied around that many Government Members wish to see the back of the EHRC and that the change is abolition by stealth. I hope that I can reassure hon. Members that that is not the case. We certainly have not heard any suggestions to that effect from Government Members. Perhaps if that was what they believed, they would have come to the House to say so today. [Interruption.] I am sure that if any of them had wished to say that, they would have done. Even if that were the case, it is not the coalition Government’s position. We recognise that the EHRC is an important institution and that equalities law is vital. It is vital to our economic recovery, because we need to ensure that we use the talents of all the people in our work force and potential work force. That is why we are ensuring that it is focused on what is most important. We want to focus the EHRC on its core functions and, as I have mentioned, strengthen its governance and accountability, in which we have already had some degree of success.

A few Members mentioned the consultation and suggested that there was not necessarily unanimous support for the Government’s measures. However, if we examine the responses that were received from individuals—for clarification, they were not Members of Parliament—we see that more than half advocated the abolition of the EHRC. Opposition Members should be slightly careful what they wish for if they urge Governments always to follow consultation results exactly. We obviously have to take views into account, but we must also ensure that important provisions and protections are not undermined. Even if there were to be a groundswell of support for doing such a thing, the Government would recognise the important protections that the EHRC ensures are in place.

The hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) asked questions about the equality advisory and support service helpline, which opened on 1 October. It has some advantage compared with the previous commission helpline. It is open for longer—from 9 am to 8 pm Monday to Friday and from 10 am to 2 pm on Saturday—and is therefore more convenient. It handles conversations that people might not want to have while they are at work, so having longer opening hours is helpful and makes the service more accessible. It is free to phone from landlines, and it will soon be free from most mobiles too.

The inaccurate suggestion was made that the helpline can be used only when there are referrals from other organisations. That is not the case. It is there to help people with discrimination problems, and there is nothing to prevent a member of the public from approaching the EASS directly, although we accept that most people probably will access it via a referral.

[John McDonnell]

Can the hon. Lady explain where it is advertised?

[Jo Swinson]

It started on 1 October and there are not massive advertising budgets at the moment, but—[Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman clearly wants some huge advertising campaign, but we do not have massive budgets available at the moment. It is important that the advice is out there, that referrals are there and that the information is available when people wish to access the service.

The hon. Gentleman also said that he was concerned about the zero-based budget exercise that was being conducted on the EHRC. However, I understand that that is now Labour party policy. At its recent conference, the shadow Chancellor said that

“the public I think would expect this, to have a proper zero-based spending review where we say we have to justify every penny and make sure we are spending in the right way.”

Perhaps the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington does not agree with the concept of a zero-based budget review, but his shadow Chancellor certainly does.

[John McDonnell]

There is a difference between conducting a zero-based budget exercise when seeking to ensure the effective operation of an organisation and having one when 62% cuts have just been made and the Government are threatening to close it.

[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—