Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Jo Swinson and Julian Smith

Thursday 16th October 2014 Commons Chamber

[Jo Swinson]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question; he is an avid campaigner on these issues. I think there is great joy about the new measures on women bishops that will come forward for debate on Monday. We need to look at what requirements are needed by religious organisations, as there may well be some cases where they need particular provisions to be made. I will happily look into the issue and write to him.

[Julian Smith (Skipton and Ripon) (Con)]

3. What steps she is taking to increase representation of women on the boards of public institutions.

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

The Government want half of new public appointments to be women by the end of this Parliament. The Cabinet Office has established the Centre for Public Appointments, which is supporting Departments in modernising recruitment practices, removing long-standing barriers, and emphasising skills and ability over previous experience. This has attracted a more diverse field of candidates to these important roles. The proportion of new female appointments stood at 39% last year, but there is clearly more to do.

[Julian Smith]

Does the Minister agree that as well as board appointments, it is vital that we have more women chief executives in public sector roles? Will she pay tribute to Ros Tolcher, who has become the chief executive of Harrogate hospital, which serves part of my constituency, taking to 100% the female leadership of NHS hospitals supporting Skipton and Ripon?

[Jo Swinson]

I certainly support the hon. Gentleman in congratulating the excellent senior women delivering public services in his local health care system. It is important that we have women on boards but also in executive roles. We have been making progress on this in the private sector, although there is clearly a lot more to be done there as well. The executive challenge has perhaps been a slightly more difficult nut to crack at the same speed at which we have been able to improve the numbers of women on boards more generally. The work we are doing to improve the pipeline support for women in the workplace is absolutely vital.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Jo Swinson and Julian Smith

Thursday 24th October 2013 Commons Chamber

[Jo Swinson]

The hon. Gentleman rightly outlines the devastating impact on communities that can happen when companies go into administration. Those involved in dealing with the administration of a company have a variety of different issues to prioritise. We are making sure that the problem is looked at in a range of ways. We are simplifying insolvency processes and considering some of the issues rightly raised by Members—about pre-packs, for example, with an ongoing review. We are looking at fees, too, which have sometimes meant that people cannot get as much of their money back as they should in these unfortunate circumstances. The Government are taking forward all those issues.

[Julian Smith (Skipton and Ripon) (Con)]

This week marks the 50th anniversary of the groundbreaking Robbins report. Will the Minister for Universities and Science confirm that this Conservative-led Government will continue the spirit of Robbins and ensure that higher education is open to all?

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Jo Swinson and Julian Smith

Thursday 5th September 2013 Commons Chamber

[Jo Swinson]

The hon. Gentleman is right to mention the cost of child care, and the Government are well aware of the challenge that it poses for working mums and dads. That is exactly why we have announced a new tax break of £1,200 per child per year for child care costs. Just this week, we have extended the free early education entitlement to two-year-olds, and it will double next year to include the most disadvantaged 40% of two-year-olds. There is also an additional £200 million in universal credit. We recognise the important point he raises and are acting on it.

[Julian Smith (Skipton and Ripon) (Con)]

Will the Minister do everything she can to encourage employers to keep in touch with their employees during maternity leave? That would improve many of the challenges that exist.

[Jo Swinson]

My hon. Friend makes a very valid point. Ensuring that employers and employees stay in touch during the period of maternity leave can ease the return to work and make the process work better for everybody involved. The “keeping in touch days” that were introduced fairly recently—within the last few years—as part of maternity leave have helped in that. We are of course considering how that successful initiative can be extended further through the shared parental leave that we are introducing.

Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Bill

Debate between Jo Swinson and Julian Smith

Tuesday 16th April 2013 Commons Chamber

[Jo Swinson]

I understand the hon. Lady’s disappointment and the arguments put forward in the other place. She is right to an extent that the debate has become largely symbolic. In a sense, I would argue that it has become purely symbolic. If we were writing the 2006 Act from the beginning and that long list of equality and human rights duties that I have just outlined, people would not say, “Those duties are not sufficient.” Everything that the EHRC wants to do can be done under the existing duties, so she is right that the debate is to some extent symbolic. I do not believe that our measure will have an impact on the day-to-day work of the commission.

[Julian Smith (Skipton and Ripon) (Con)]

To follow what the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green) has said, I remind the House that John Wadham told the Public Bill Committee that he does not regard the change as an attack on the EHRC’s remit. There was no worry in that respect. Since that time, the EHRC made a vague and odd press statement, but John Wadham said that the change does not affect the philosophy, approach or goals of the organisation.

[Jo Swinson]

I take on board my hon. Friend’s point. We discussed on Report the EHRC council’s evidence to the Committee. As he says, repealing the general duty does not impact on those equalities and human rights duties. There is no suggestion that section 3 of the 2006 Act has any interpretive value in relation to other legislation, including that Act—it has no specific legal effect in and of itself. I understand the concerns, but I challenge hon. Members to suggest what concrete things the measure stops the EHRC doing. The EHRC has the powers and tools it needs to do its important work, which is how it should be.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Jo Swinson and Julian Smith

Thursday 14th February 2013 Commons Chamber

[Julian Smith (Skipton and Ripon) (Con)]

7. What steps she is taking to increase female representation on company boards. [R]

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

In 2010 we asked Lord Davies to review the obstacles preventing women from making it on to corporate boards. Following his report, a range of steps have been taken. They include a voluntary code of conduct for executive search firms, amendments to the UK corporate governance code, changes to narrative reporting, and the establishment of the Women’s Business Council. Over the past year, 38% of those appointed to the boards of FTSE 100 companies have been women.

May I congratulate my hon. Friend on the arrival of his new baby daughter, who, for all we know, may be a board director of the future herself?

[Julian Smith]

I thank the Minister for her answer, and I congratulate the Government on the excellent work that they have done to increase the number of women on boards. May I urge them, however, to focus particularly on the pipeline in companies this year, and to encourage our UK corporate boards to engage in a robust discussion about child care, “keep in touch” days, and the big cliff that appears when women reach childbearing age?

[Jo Swinson]

My hon. Friend is right. That is the point at which, for many women, it becomes very difficult to participate in the workplace at the same level as before. However, there is a great deal that employers can do to help both mums and dads to play a stronger role in the workplace. The Government’s “think, act, report” initiative is encouraging companies to think about what they can do not only to recruit the best women, but to retain and promote those women and ensure that their talent is nurtured all the way to the boardroom.

Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Bill

Debate between Jo Swinson and Julian Smith

Wednesday 17th October 2012 Commons Chamber

[Jo Swinson]

I will in due course, but I want to make a bit of progress first.

I welcome this opportunity to set out the changes that we have proposed and respond to those made by others, continuing the work of my predecessor to bring reform to the employment tribunal system. Let me begin by explaining the amendments that we are making through new clause 8, which will amend existing provisions in the Employment Tribunals Act 1996.

Following his fundamental review of the rules of procedure for employment tribunals, Mr Justice Underhill made a number of recommendations about how the rules might be improved. In some instances, he felt that the primary legislation would need to be amended before desirable changes in the procedural rules could be made. These changes will help to achieve more effective and targeted case management which will benefit all tribunal users.

The first change involves deposit orders. Tribunals can currently require a party to pay a deposit of up to £1,000 as a condition of continuing to proceed with a weak claim. However, a judge cannot currently use a deposit order to weed out the weak elements of a particular claim, and must instead attach a deposit order to the entire claim as a condition of proceeding. That lack of flexibility does not aid effective case management. Enabling judges to make better-targeted deposit orders will give both parties a clear sense of where they should focus their efforts, encouraging a more realistic approach to settlement, and I believe that it will also lead to greater use of such orders.

The second change relates to the recoverability of witness expenses for people who choose to represent themselves at tribunals and seek a preparation time order in respect of their work on the case. An oddity in the current costs regime places people who represent themselves at tribunals at a disadvantage, as a tribunal cannot make a costs order for witness expenses and a preparation time order in respect of the same party. We are amending the Employment Tribunals Act 1996 to remove that unnecessary restriction.

The final change deals with the recoverability of lay representatives’ costs. Mr Justice Underhill considered that those who chose to be represented by a non-lawyer, and who had paid for that service and advice, should not be put at a disadvantage when a tribunal concluded that the other party’s conduct meant that a costs order was warranted. I agree that those who choose to engage lay representatives rather than lawyers should not be disadvantaged when it comes to the award of costs, and I intend to use the existing powers in section 13 of the Employment Tribunals Act to change the rules of procedure in order to allow for such costs orders. The new clause helps to clarify the scope of section 13 by introducing a definition of the word “representative”.

Let me now deal with new clauses 1 and 2, tabled by the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Katy Clark), which amend clause 15. Along with the organisation Public Concern at Work, she has been a powerful advocate on this subject, and we discussed it recently during a Westminster Hall debate that she had initiated.

I think we can all agree that, in an ideal world, legislation for whistleblowing would not be needed at all. In such a world, all employers would be open and receptive when an issue was raised, and would not seek to silence or drive out a person who brought important matters to their attention. However, as we know, such enlightened approaches to whistleblowing are not universal, so legal protection is required. We are equally keen to ensure that the protection offered by the public interest disclosure legislation is not abused by those who seek to rely on it for purely self-interested reasons. Clause 15, which has already been debated in Committee, will ensure that the whistleblowing provisions cannot be used to advance purely personal interests.

New clause 1 addresses a different aspect of the public interest disclosure legislation. It proposes the removal of the good faith test, which has been in place since the legislation was introduced. That would mean that individual whistleblowers would retain the benefit of employment protection even if their reasons for blowing the whistle were malicious, if they deliberately set out to cause commercial damage, or if they acted out of a desire for personal revenge.

There is clearly a balance to be struck. We are conscious of the recommendations of Dame Janet Smith’s inquiry into the tragic circumstances of the Shipman case. She suggested that the good faith test be removed to encourage more whistleblowers to come forward. We also recognise that the motivations of whistleblowers are not always clear-cut. Personal feelings, particularly when a relationship has broken down, sometimes make it difficult to understand the intentions of the person who is making a disclosure. Having said that, I should add that, as we have already made clear, we believe that the legislation is working well overall, and that the good faith test serves an important purpose.

We are also keen to avoid making a change that could allow individuals access to an uncapped award when their motives for blowing the whistle were malicious, and I therefore do not believe that there is a clear-cut case for removing the good faith test. However, I recognise that the hon. Lady has raised an important issue relating to this specific element of the public interest disclosure regime, and we will continue to look closely at the policy aims of the test to ensure that they are still being achieved.

[Julian Smith (Skipton and Ripon) (Con)]

Does the Minister agree that there is much more scope for whistleblowing in this country, given the number of whistleblowers in America and the incentives that they are given to come forward? Does she agree that there may be more work for the Government to do in future months?

[Jo Swinson]

I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. It is a positive thing that we have an environment where people, rightly, feel able to come forward and blow the whistle. The legislation that was enacted was important and is generally working well. We are proposing small changes to it in this Bill, but it is absolutely important. For the reasons that I outlined, that legal protection is necessary and we should be proud of the fact that we have such legislation.

--- Later in debate ---

[Julian Smith]

I am heartened by these amendments, because one of my concerns in Committee was that this process with ACAS could become far too formal. It is really important that as this early conciliation develops we make it as informal as possible.

[Jo Swinson]

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Julian Smith]

I am heartened that the Minister is not seeking to make any changes to the clause. Is she surprised that the Opposition are so unenthusiastic about helping the 4.5 million small businesses that will benefit from the clause?

[Jo Swinson]

It is intriguing, given the experience of Opposition Front Benchers as employment lawyers. It is worth bearing in mind that compromise agreements already exist and existed for 13 years under the previous Government. They have a lot of merit, but tend to be used by large firms in particular—large firms, which can afford to employ expensive employment lawyers. Small and medium-sized companies often feel very afraid of taking on such conversations and that is what we are seeking to address.

I recognise that there are concerns about how the clause might work in practice and what safeguards there may be for individuals, many of which my colleague, my hon. Friend the Member for North Norfolk, addressed in some detail in Committee. I strongly believe that in clause 12 we have found the right balance between protecting individuals and giving employers the flexibility and confidence they need to manage their businesses effectively. It is about balance. The settlement agreements measure provides a mutually beneficial solution for employers and employees as regards ending the employment relationship. Let us be clear that this is not, as some have suggested—and as Opposition Members have been suggesting from a sedentary position—the first step to no-fault dismissal or Beecroft-lite. We have made it abundantly clear that we will not go down that path.