Tuition Fees

Michael Tomlinson Excerpts

Wednesday 19th July 2017 Commons Chamber

[James Cartlidge]

I am afraid and suspect that that is true. I think that it is also the case that the higher interest rate enabled the Government to increase the low threshold under Labour to the higher threshold of £21,000 under us.

On the subject of the cap—this goes back to my intervention on my right hon. Friend the Member for Harlow—if we are able to raise the threshold at which people pay, that is a fairer deal for the student because it ensures greater quality. They repay when their earnings reach a point where we think it is fair for them to start doing so. I think we should look at that, but it is not cheap. My understanding is that if we raise the threshold to £25,000, it will cost almost £2 billion a year in lost income to the Revenue. That is not a minor detail.

We really have to make a decision, as a country and a Parliament, about our priority. What is the most important thing that we want from higher education? Why do people go to university? In my view the most important thing is to have the highest-quality education possible—the best quality degrees. That is what matters. We need to think about the upside, which is that someone who goes to university could earn £250,000 more in their lifetime—the figure is often far more than that—than someone who does not. In fact, to access highly paid professional jobs people need a degree.

[Michael Tomlinson (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (Con)]

Was my hon. Friend as interested as I was to discover that the uplift is £250,000 for females and only £170,000 for males? Both are significant figures, but is it not interesting that the larger figure is the uplift for females who go to university?

[James Cartlidge]

I am always interested in female uplift. The striking thing is that, regardless of whether they are a man or a woman, university is an incredible opportunity for individuals to improve their standing and their circumstances and to get a career, so that they can afford a home and to raise a family. That is the upside.

To me, the most important thing is the quality of the degrees. I worry that if we go back to a free system, the quality of degrees will not improve but fall, partly because the funding will fall. We will go back to rationing the funding and the places. If we are honest, will the students who go to university when it is “free” take their education as seriously as those who go when it is not? Of course, it is not free. That is the great delusion. As my hon. Friend the Member for Solihull (Julian Knight) said, it is not free; it is just that somebody else pays, rather than the beneficiary. The whole of society pays.

The money has to come from somewhere. The Labour party will supposedly pay for it by raising corporation tax. Never mind the fact that all the evidence shows that by cutting corporation tax, we are raising the revenue to the Exchequer. This will not happen without a cost. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East (Mike Kane) chunters about the Laffer curve—he’s having a laugh about the Laffer curve! If Labour Members studied this, they would realise the reality. The OECD figures show that the predicted tax take from corporation tax when it goes to 17% will be the same percentage of GDP as in 2010 when it was at 26%.

The point is that there is a downside of going back to free education. We have to pay for it in some way. What we need is the upside, and the upside is having a competitive graduate system so that our graduates have the best quality qualifications.

I want to conclude with the big picture. The big picture is that people who go to university now are heading into a much more competitive labour market—a globalised, international labour market. Whatever the effects of Brexit are, that will not change. When our children go to university, they will be up against it. They will be up against graduates from India and all over the world. We need to give them the best weapons in their hands—the best tools with which to navigate their way through the challenges of life—and that means getting the best possible qualifications. I therefore urge my hon. Friends to consider the importance of quality.

Finally, I will remark on a very welcome measure that my hon. Friend the Minister for Universities, Science, Research and Innovation has brought in. As I understand it, universities will be able to raise fees to the maximum level only if they can demonstrate that their teaching is of the highest quality. We are moving towards a quality-based scheme. I very much welcome that and we should all support it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Michael Tomlinson]

On poorer students, does the hon. Gentleman not welcome the fact that more students from disadvantaged backgrounds are going to university than ever before—an increase of 43% from 2009 to 2016, and an increase of 73% from 2006 to today?

[Wes Streeting]

As someone who has always campaigned for wider access to higher education and who believes strongly that we should have more, rather than fewer, better educated people in our country, I welcome the fact that more students are in higher education than ever before. I am glad that the hon. Gentleman raises that point, because it brings me to the issue of Government complacency. It is not really a surprise that more young people are going to university than ever before: there are more young people than ever before. In addition to the shocking record on part-time and mature access—students in those cohorts tend to be from non-traditional and under-represented backgrounds in higher education—the Government are hugely complacent about the extent to which working-class young people are being deterred from accessing higher education by fear of tuition fees and debt.

--- Later in debate ---

[Michael Tomlinson (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (Con)]

It is a real pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Bury North (James Frith). He paid a fitting and generous tribute to his predecessor and my friend, David Nuttall. He spoke with eloquence and with confidence. He said that his passions are politics and music; I would stick to politics and cricket. He said that we should not be trading insults, so I look forward not to trading insults with him in future but to disagreeing well. I am sure there is much on which we will disagree, but I look forward to his future contributions in this place.

In a very short speech, I shall make just a few points. The history of tuition fees has already been mentioned, providing a helpful reminder of what happened. The fees were introduced by the Labour party in 1998. In 2001, the Labour party manifesto pledged:

“We will not introduce top-up fees.”

Then Labour proceeded to do just that in 2004. The final piece of the jigsaw that has not yet been mentioned is the Liberal Democrats’ pledge in 2010 that they would scrap university tuition fees, and, in coalition, they voted to put them up.

This debate is not just a timely reminder of those facts, but an opportunity for us to consider the issue of social justice. It is an issue that my right hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon), the new Chairman of the Education Committee, picked up. I love his vision and his picture of the ladder. What we mean by social justice should be opportunities for the next generation, particularly for those who are less advantaged. Others can make the economic argument. My hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake) did so eloquently and well. I fear that the Leader of the Opposition has dug himself into a bit of a hole if we listen to what he said in the run-up to the election campaign—the promise that he made on the stump to students—and what was said at the Dispatch Box this afternoon.

It may seem counter-intuitive, but more people from disadvantaged backgrounds are now going to university than ever before—not just more people, but a higher proportion of people. The Minister set it out quite rightly at 43%. It has gone up from 13.5% in 2009-10 to 19.5% in 2016. The proportion has gone up 73% since 2006. This is not an accident, but a result of this Government’s policy. The quid pro quo is that we give universities more money, but, as part of the deal, they must ensure that there is social justice and that more people from less well-off backgrounds get to university. We heard some of that from the Minister this afternoon. I look forward to more about it in the future. The hon. Member for Ilford North (Wes Streeting) said that we should not be complacent. He is absolutely right—we should not, and this Minister and this Government should ensure that these statistics persist and that we continue to see more people from poorer backgrounds going to university, improving their life chances. It is happening now under a Conservative Government.

What would happen if Labour got into power and introduced its policy? We would see a reduction in funding, reduced access, crumbling institutions and fewer students—and, importantly, on the question of social justice, we would see fewer students from disadvantaged backgrounds going to university. How do we know that is true? How do we know that is right? We look at Scotland; we look at what has happened when student tuition fees have been taken away. My hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Alex Chalk) made this point in an intervention earlier and he is absolutely right. These are not my words but those of the Sutton Trust—they tried it in Scotland and there were

“particularly negative consequences for less advantaged students.”

If people are concerned about social justice and about the ladder mentioned by my right hon. Friend the Member for Harlow, they should follow this Government’s policy on tuition fees.

Taylor Review: Working Practices

Michael Tomlinson Excerpts

Tuesday 11th July 2017 Commons Chamber

[Margot James]

The hon. Lady makes an important point, but it is really a matter for the Ministry of Justice. Matthew Taylor has not actually recommended that we get rid of fees for employment tribunals, and I think we should recognise the positive aspect: the upsurge in the number of employment disputes that have been settled through mediation. However, I will continue to look at the issue that the hon. Lady raises.

[Michael Tomlinson (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (Con)]

The report praises and supports flexibility in the labour market, where individuals want it. Does my hon. Friend agree that it may be especially, but not exclusively, beneficial to students and young people?

[Margot James]

I do agree with my hon. Friend. The figures suggest that nearly 20% of people on zero-hours contracts are students. Such flexibility also benefits many people who have parenting or caring responsibilities and do not want to work full-time. We certainly do not want to end that flexibility but, as I have said, we do want to improve protection.

European Union (Approvals) Bill

Michael Tomlinson Excerpts

2nd reading: House of Commons
Tuesday 4th July 2017 Commons Chamber

[Michael Tomlinson (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (Con)]

The Minister is being generous with her time. She indicated one other country that has yet to ratify or vote on this—namely, Germany. Does she have, or has she been given, an indication as to when support may come from Germany?

[Margot James]

Any such comment from me would be speculation, which I intend to avoid, but I point out that Germany, like the United Kingdom, needs the consent of its national Parliament before its Ministers can vote on such draft decisions.

As I said, all member states apart from Germany and ourselves have agreed the Fundamental Rights Agency decisions, and we do not believe that any of the draft decisions are contentious. The Government are committed to being constructive in the UK’s ongoing engagement with the EU. Holding up progress on business that is simple and uncontroversial would undermine that approach and the principle of sincere co-operation that lies behind it. It is therefore clearly in the UK’s interests to approve these draft decisions. Delaying the decisions could have a negative impact on the UK’s exit negotiations with the EU, including discussion on any future framework. There will, of course, be further opportunities to examine more fundamental aspects of the work of the EU in other debates. However, I am sure hon. Members will recognise that, whatever their views on EU exit, it is in the UK’s interests to approve these draft decisions.

--- Later in debate ---

[Bill Esterson]

Of course the hon. Gentleman is absolutely right, which was why it was right for the Bill to be in the Queen’s Speech. I was merely questioning why it had been given such prominence. Given that it consists of only two lines, why was something weightier not presented first?

I have mentioned the pay cap, the turmoil in the Conservative party, and the agonising over whether public servants should be given a pay rise. There is also the debate about tuition fees, the debate about whether there should be more police and firefighters—

[Michael Tomlinson]

rose—

[Bill Esterson]

I will give way again.

[Michael Tomlinson]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way, but I fear that he may be being a little bit churlish. He has the opportunity now to set out the Labour party’s position in relation to the Bill. He is, of course entitled to go on speculating about what might or could not or should have been debated at this time—as long as you allow him to do so, Mr Speaker—but he has the opportunity to debate this subject now. What does he have to say about it?

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his inquiry. I could not know what the hon. Member for Sefton Central (Bill Esterson) would say until he had said it, but now that he has said it, I can tell him that he should not have said it.

It would be advisable now for the hon. Gentleman to return to the subject of the European Union (Approvals) Bill. I very gently remind the hon. Gentleman, who is quite a seasoned parliamentarian, that it consists of two clauses, of which—and I say this not least for the benefit of those who are attending to our proceedings elsewhere—the second is “Extent, commencement and short title”. The only substantive clause is clause 1. The question of the pay cap is a matter of enormous interest, but it is wholly irrelevant to the question of clause 1 and consideration of the Republic of Albania, the Republic of Serbia, the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights, and the relationship between the European Union and the Government of Canada in respect of competition law.

--- Later in debate ---

[Bill Esterson]

I think we are in danger of wandering away from the subject—[Interruption.] I have no idea why Conservative Members find that funny, but there we are. Obviously, the hon. Gentleman and the Democratic Unionist party are particularly exercised by that matter, among others, but I dare say that this is something that the Minister can pick up on, perhaps on another day.

Competition delivers benefits to consumers, to businesses and to society as a whole. Competition policy therefore contributes to boosting jobs, growth and investment. The Commission pursues this objective by enforcing competition rules, sanctioning breaches and promoting a competition culture internationally. The proposed agreement will improve the administrative co-operation between the European Commission and the Canadian Competition Bureau. Ultimately, consumers in the European Union and in Canada benefit from competition policy and from the sanctions that contribute to a stronger deterrence of anti-competitive behaviour. More effective competition enforcement results in more open and competitive markets in which companies can compete more freely, enabling them to generate wealth and to create jobs. It also gives consumers a better choice of products at lower prices.

This new agreement is substantively the same as the existing one, which has been in place since June 1999. This agreement just adds new provisions on the exchange of information. Even after we have left the European Union, UK companies operating in the EU will still be subject to the jurisdiction of the European Commission in anti-trust and merger investigations, as all non-EU countries are. Information on UK companies will still be transferable after Brexit. After Brexit, the European Commission will still share information about UK companies with Canada but will not be bound to share the information about the UK it receives from Canada with the UK. I would like the Minister to address that point.

This agreement relates to administrative co-operation between the European Commission and the Canadian Competition Bureau, so public consultation and an impact assessment were not considered necessary by the Government, and, as the Minister has now said on a number of occasions, she does not think that there will be financial implications. The Government have noted in the explanatory memorandum that this new agreement will have no impact on UK law and no financial implications.

The European Scrutiny Committee did not at first clear the proposal. The Chair of the Committee, the hon. Member for Stone (Sir William Cash), who I dare say will make a contribution to the debate, requested further information about whether and in what way the United Kingdom could participate in the agreement following withdrawal. The Minister responded to the Committee on 24 October, stating that

“the Government will ensure that the UK is in the strongest possible position to cooperate on competition matters with our international partners...There are a number of options for securing the means for international cooperation…As the form of any cooperation agreement will depend on our negotiation with the EU and negotiations with other countries such as Canada it is too early to say what exact form international cooperation will take.”

That raises a number of questions about transitional arrangements in the longer term. In response to that letter, the Committee subsequently cleared the documents.

That brings us to the question of what arrangements will exist after we leave the EU. The Minister referred in her letter to seeking to extend the current arrangements. For how long does she think that will be necessary? What guarantee is there that it would be possible to extend them? UK companies operating in the EU will still be covered by this agreement. The difference will be that, while the European Commission will continue to share information with Canada about UK companies, that information will not be shared with the UK unless a further agreement is reached. She said in her letter that any co-operation agreement would depend on negotiation. How long does she think those negotiations are likely to take? What will she be seeking to achieve in them? We have now reached the point at which Ministers need to start answering the questions about transitional and longer-term arrangements for these and many other matters.

There is no doubt that competition is vital to our economy, to the success of our businesses and to the prosperity of the people of our country. Encouraging healthy competition is vital. The role of national Governments, and of international co-operation, is to create a fair market, not just a free market. It is also to avoid anti-competitive practices, including the creation of cartels through mergers and acquisitions which distort the market; the undercutting and exploitation of workers and smaller businesses; the use of zero-hours contracts where workers have little choice; the treatment of smaller businesses by banks that will only fund those with liquid assets; and the delays in the payment of invoices by larger firms. Those are all examples of anti-competitive and exploitative practices in which Governments—nationally and internationally—should find ways of intervening to set a level playing field. Governments should be a partner to business and to the workforce. They should encourage those wishing to start and grow a business. They should be investing, and they should have the right strategy for infrastructure and skills. They should have an industrial strategy. Underpinning all that should be the right approach to competition, which is what this part of the Bill is all about.

We need answers to the questions about what happens after we leave the EU and about what transitional arrangements will be in place. The nature of the Minister’s comments in her letter to the European Scrutiny Committee show just how complex these questions are, and it is time we started to get some answers.

[Michael Tomlinson]

I am following the shadow Minister’s speech closely. He has mentioned the European Scrutiny Committee several times. Will he join me in calling for the Committee to be reconstituted as soon as possible? His speech has demonstrated the important work it does, and it needs to get going straight away.

[Bill Esterson]

I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman was in the Chamber before this debate started, when my hon. Friend the Member for Bootle (Peter Dowd) made an impassioned plea to you, Mr Speaker, for the Select Committees to be reconstituted as soon as possible. Of course I agree with the hon. Gentleman.

Labour accepts the referendum result and recognises that Britain is leaving the European Union, but we need to negotiate for strong transitional arrangements to ensure that there is no cliff edge for the economy. We also need to give much greater priority to retaining the benefits of the single market and the customs union than we have seen from the Government so far. We should not accept any watering down of workers’ rights and environmental standards as a result of Brexit. We will seek significant improvements to the repeal Bill to ensure that there is proper oversight of the use of new powers and no drop in EU rights and protections.

In that context, the discussions that we are having this afternoon are really important. We on the Labour Benches will seek—as, I believe, will the Minister—a strong, collaborative new relationship with the EU, not as a member but as a partner. We will seek to remain a member of common European agencies that benefit the UK, such as Europol, Eurojust and the Erasmus scheme. Perhaps the arrangements we are discussing today can be added to that list. We have to get this right, but we are not in a strong position as we enter the negotiations. I want to see the Prime Minister change her approach. She must drop the idea that “no deal” is a viable option. She must also put a much stronger emphasis on jobs, on the economy and on retaining the benefits of the single market and the customs union, and she must bring Parliament back into the Brexit process, as we have seen happening today. The fact that we are debating this Bill shows that we must retain the benefits of the co-operation and relationships that we currently have with the EU.

I said at the start that this was a Bill with only four draft decisions, but it is indicative of what is to come as we address the challenges of Brexit. As far as this Bill goes, the Minister really does need to answer the questions about transitional arrangements and negotiations so that we can continue to share information to the benefit of our economy and of the people of this country.

--- Later in debate ---

[Michael Tomlinson]

I declare an interest as someone who served on that Committee in the previous Parliament. Has my hon. Friend received any assurances about when the Committee will be reconstituted? Does he agree that that is a matter of urgency?

[Sir William Cash]

I am glad to respond, because I have been very much engaged on that subject. In fact, one of the last things I did on the day of Dissolution was to write to the Chief Whip asking him to ensure that our Committee was reconstituted immediately after the election, because in 2015 the whole process went on until November, by which time we had a monument of documents. In the meantime, many things are being decided in the European institutions, many of which are directly relevant to the Brexit negotiations. It is therefore incredibly important that this House has an opportunity to assess the sorts of things that are being decided, subject to the Committee clearing the documents.

As hon. Members may know, if the European Scrutiny Committee imposes scrutiny reserve on a document because we think it is so important that it has to be debated, the Council of Ministers cannot conclude its consideration of those matters, and the Government cannot make a decision to carry the matter through, unless and until that debate has taken place. When we have a pile of documents—I understand there are some 200 documents in the pipeline—and a pile of explanatory memoranda explaining the Government’s position on them, the position the Government adopt on the documents in the negotiations will be highly interesting.

My hon. Friend the Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole rightly raises the question of getting on with the job, and I am given to understand, without committing anybody to anything, that the Government are taking steps to accelerate the process because it is so important. Of course, we will discuss the other Select Committees later this afternoon. Their schedules and the allocation of chairmanships to each party will be decided, and I understand that that has been discussed through the usual channels, so I do not expect it to be terribly controversial, but for all the reasons I have set out, it is important for the European Scrutiny Committee to get going.

I entirely endorse what the Minister said about the Canada agreement, which again was discussed by the European Scrutiny Committee. We agreed that we would let it go ahead, but the explanatory notes on the Bill indicate some implications for United Kingdom companies operating in the EU after Brexit, which is the bit we should be most concerned about at the moment:

“Following the UK’s exit from the European Union, UK companies operating in the EU will still be subject to the jurisdiction of the European Commission in antitrust investigations and, where the thresholds are met, in merger investigations in the same way as for other non-EU companies operating in the EU. Information relating to UK companies based in the EU would therefore still be transferable under the new Agreement.”

That is becoming a bit of a hot potato. I made a representation to the Prime Minister the other day on the question of citizens’ rights, and we hear a lot about the question of City regulation, and here it is coming up again.

Some people are making too much of it. An enormous amount is emerging from the commentariat and on programmes we sometimes find ourselves listening to but that we perhaps ought to switch off. They are trying to make out that, somehow or other, the real problem is that we have to stay in the European Court of Justice, which is complete rubbish. We do not have to stay in the European Court of Justice and, far more than that, we are not going to stay in the European Court of Justice, because we will be repealing sections 2 and 3 of the European Communities Act 1972. The Labour party has made it clear that we will not stay in the single market or the customs union, which raises some of the biggest issues relating to the ECJ. Frankly, as I told the House the other day, we have to come up with a sensible arrangement that does not prejudice the regaining of our judicial sovereignty. At the same time, we must agree some form of tribunal that enables us, through a parallel bilateral “source of law” agreement, to have a decision-making process that does not and cannot keep us in the European Court of Justice. That is not a matter of opinion or of wishful thinking; staying in the ECJ is fantasy land.

--- Later in debate ---

[Michael Tomlinson (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (Con)]

It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for North Antrim (Ian Paisley), who speaks, as ever, with eloquence and authority. I want to pick up on just one of the issues he raised at the beginning of his speech, but first, Mr Deputy Speaker, this is the first opportunity I have had to congratulate you on your election, and I do so. It is also the first opportunity I have had to say how delighted I am to be returned for Mid Dorset and North Poole—from Bere Regis to Bearwood, Wareham to Wimborne and all points in between—and I will do my utmost to repay the trust that my constituents have put in me.

I shall make a short contribution to the debate, not least because I see that colleagues also want to catch your eye, Mr Deputy Speaker. I stand here as someone who voted to leave the European Union and who has an optimistic vision of our country outside the European Union, but the irony is not lost on me that this afternoon we are debating two countries that want to accede to the European Union while we, the United Kingdom, are leaving. Be that as it may, it is an important debate and it is important that we get this right. As the Minister has said both at the Dispatch Box and in correspondence, it is important that while we are still a member of the European Union we fully engage, and that is what we are doing this afternoon.

The rather helpful explanatory note mentioned the European Scrutiny Committee, as did the hon. Member for Sefton Central (Bill Esterson) and other hon. Members, and it is clear that the works of that Committee permeate the Bill. Although that is not the purpose of the Bill, I am delighted to be given the opportunity to say what an important job the Committee does. I declare an interest, having served on it, and I want to reaffirm that it is essential that it gets up and running as quickly as possible. The former Chairman of the Committee—and, I hope, the next Chairman—my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Sir William Cash), emphasised that documents were piling up even as we speak. I re-emphasise the urgency and importance of getting that Committee up and running, and I am disappointed that there is no reference to it on the Order Paper in relation to the debate later this afternoon.

Let me pick up on one point. On the first occasion, the European Scrutiny Committee did not clear this legislation from scrutiny, but required further clarification. I am delighted that the Minister provided that clarification, which enabled the Committee to clear the document and enable this process to happen. We must of course emphasise that we are leaving the European Union but, for as long as we remain members, we will play a full and sensible part in it. That is what we are doing this afternoon, and I am delighted to have played a small part in the debate.

Fuel Poverty

Michael Tomlinson Excerpts

Tuesday 21st March 2017 Commons Chamber

[Ian Blackford]

I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has risen to explain that, but he cannot get away from the fact that he sat there and smugly laughed when I made my point about the one nation. The point I am making is that it is your Government—I apologise for using the word “your”, Madam Deputy Speaker. It is the Government who are responsible for over-charging highlanders, because they will not recognise that we should have a universal market. It is the Government of the United Kingdom who should address that. Laughing, which is what the hon. Gentleman did, at highlanders and islanders is not acceptable. I hope people in Scotland were watching what happened on the Government Front Bench just now.

[Michael Tomlinson (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (Con)]

As ever, the hon. Gentleman is standing up to make an impassioned, eloquent and compassionate speech, but may I pick him up on one point? He mentioned “one nation”, and my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary intervened. Earlier in the hon. Gentleman’s speech, he mentioned the triple lock. Is that not something for which to thank the Government, rather than castigate them? Will he acknowledge when the Government get things right, as well as challenge them when he perceives there are errors?

[Ian Blackford]

I will happily do so, and I have spoken about the triple lock on many occasions, but we have had debates here in the recent past in which many Members have questioned continuing with the triple lock. I am asking the Government to commit to retaining that triple lock in order to drive pensioners out of poverty. I commend the Government because they did the right thing in that particular case, but I hope that their commitment to the triple lock will be sustained so that it continues to drive pensioners out of poverty.

When they are right, I happily give credit to the Government, but I do not take kindly to Front-Bench Members laughing when I am standing up for my constituents in pointing out that the definition of “one nation” that the Government talk about is inappropriate when highlanders and islanders are not being treated fairly. There should be equity and fairness, but they do not exist in the UK today.

The highlands and islands of Scotland experience the harshest climatic conditions in the UK and record levels of fuel poverty. There is far greater, area-wide dependence on the use of electricity for heating as well as lighting, but the standard unit price charged is 2p per kilowatt-hour more than in most other parts of the UK, and 6p or more for the various “economy” tariffs on offer. Perhaps 2p per kilowatt-hour does not sound much, but it is a price premium of 15%. That is what this Government are doing to people in the highlands and islands. They are punishing people there on the basis of where they live, despite the fact that, in many cases, we produce the cheapest electricity, as we do in Skye. The Government are culpable over that, which is why I am asking the Minister to address the point when he sums up later this afternoon. That price for living in the highlands and islands is set by the Government, and it is not acceptable.

On top of all this, there is far greater reliance in off-gas areas on using domestic heating oil and solid fuel, which pushes up household heating costs further still. As a result, domestic energy bills in off-gas areas are, on average, £1,000 more per annum than the £1,369 dual fuel national average for 2014. Figures from the Lochalsh & Skye Energy Advice Service in my constituency suggest that the average total heating bills in Skye and Lochalsh amount to an eye-watering £2,218 per annum; for those whose primary heating is from oil, the average is as high as £2,519. To cap it all, electricity customers with prepayment meters, often the least well off, not only have to pay additional standing charges, but are discovering that their notional right to change to a cheaper supplier has become impracticable.

The Government must also accept that having 14 regional markets in the UK, with consumers in the highlands and islands paying a premium, is discriminatory. Many Members claim that responsibility for fuel poverty is devolved, which of course it is, but we have no control over the pricing or the regulatory environment; we can deal only with the consequences of fuel poverty that are symptoms of a market that is wholly under the jurisdiction of Westminster.

Our Government in Edinburgh have taken a range of actions to mitigate the effects of fuel poverty, but we need the tools that would come with having greater powers—notably through independence—to be able to deal fully with the circumstances that lead to fuel poverty. We are having to clear up the effects of the lack of a universal market and the pricing regime. Tackling fuel poverty has been a priority for the SNP Government, and by 2021 we will have committed over £1 billion to making Scottish homes warmer and cheaper to heat.

The financial support to tackle fuel poverty is increasing. The Scottish Government’s budget for fuel poverty and energy efficiency measures in 2017-18 will be £114 million, an increase of more than 11% on the previous year. An independent review of the way in which fuel poverty is defined has been undertaken by a panel of four academic experts in the light of concerns that current definitions may be impeding efforts to target those most in need. In the meantime, there is a new pilot programme in rural areas offering targeted support to cut energy bills.

Although fuel prices are beyond our control and fuel price moves can militate against our efforts to reduce fuel poverty, it is welcome that, owing to relatively stable market conditions, the number of people in fuel poverty in Scotland has fallen by 100,000. That reduction was heavily influenced by the measures that we have introduced. However, it is worth noting that fuel poverty in Scotland would be at only 8% if fuel prices had only risen in line with inflation between 2002 and 2015. High and rising pricing is our biggest enemy—and I use that word advisedly.

Scottish Government action has been commended by, among others, the Scottish Fuel Poverty Strategic Working Group in a recent report, but more needs to be done in a holistic manner to tackle the scourge of fuel poverty. New affordable homes are part of that mix, and this year the Scottish Government will invest £590 million to increase the supply of affordable homes in Scotland. Targeted financial support of £1,900 for low-income families through the Best Start grant also helps—support, incidentally, that is £1,400 higher than what is on offer from the UK Government.

We are taking our responsibilities seriously. Through those measures, through such initiatives as supporting a real living wage and through the recently published Child Poverty (Scotland) Bill, we will use our powers to improve the conditions of many of those who are suffering fuel poverty in Scotland.

Finally, I want to reflect on the recently announced 14.9% increase in electricity pricing by SSE and on the fact that a 5% increase in prices pushes an additional 46,000 people in Scotland into fuel poverty. In the past, I have commended SSE for its customer service and the astonishing way in which its staff respond when bad weather leads to power interruptions, as it sometimes does during the winter months in the highlands. The speed of the response of the company and its customer service have been exemplary. Notwithstanding that commendation, however, it should be recognised that being effectively a near-monopoly supplier in the highlands and islands also brings a duty to act in a spirit of social responsibility. After all, in many respects SSE is a public utility in all but name. A price rise of this magnitude is simply not justified; the company has let itself down.

We await SSE’s financial results for the year to March 2017, but its interim statement forecast a year of growth and dividend increases. In the year to March 2016, its dividends to shareholders increased by 18.3% to £708 million. I would caution the company to ensure that it behaves in a socially responsible manner at all times. Increasing rewards to shareholders so generously does not sit well with the reality of so many of its customers being in fuel poverty, and now being pushed further into fuel poverty by this price increase. I am not against the company’s making a reasonable return on its investments—it must generate sufficient cash to invest in future electricity generation—but it must also balance the needs of all its stakeholders. In particular, affordability and the ability to pay bills must be at the heart of its thinking when it is addressing executive pay and shareholder rewards.

I welcome today’s debate, but we need action from the UK Government, most notably on the creation of a universal market. People should not be penalised because of where they live. Equity and fairness must be introduced, and it is time for the Government to take appropriate action.

Draft Reporting on Payment Practices and Performance Regulations 2017 Draft Limited Liability Partnerships (reporting on Payment Practices and Performance) Regulations 2017

Michael Tomlinson Excerpts

Thursday 9th March 2017 General Committees

[Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Turner. The Minister quite rightly said that it is important that we do all we can to support business in this country, and in particular smaller businesses. That is exactly what improving payment practices should achieve. There is, of course, a big irony here, the day after the Budget, when many people who run small firms and are self-employed are scratching their heads, comparing the Prime Minister’s previous comments about the UK being the best place to start and grow a business with the broken promise on not increasing national insurance contributions.

[Michael Tomlinson (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (Con)]

On that point, it would be very helpful if the hon. Gentleman could inform us of the Labour party’s policy.

[Bill Esterson]

The Conservatives are in government. It is a shame that they promised in their manifesto not to put up national insurance contributions and then went and did exactly that.

We have better news today. As the Minister rightly said, according to the Bacs report, £26 billion is owed in late payments. She mentioned the importance of attacking that, which the regulations will contribute to. She also mentioned the potential cost to business of the regulations of £17.7 million. The latest Bacs report cited a figure of £2.5 billion a year for the cost to business of late payments, and said that 50,000 business deaths will result if we do not do something about it. She quite rightly said that the investment of £17.7 million will reap an extremely positive return to the UK economy and businesses. That is why we broadly support the proposals and will not oppose the regulations.

There has been a delay in bringing forward the regulations, but I am glad they are now here. This is not a silver bullet; it is one of a number of tools needed to change a UK business culture where it has been seen as acceptable to pay small firms late. There has been systematic poor practice in the day-to-day business approach of some larger firms, which use it for their own credit management and to their own benefit, to the detriment of their smaller suppliers.

We need two things to address the imbalance of power in supply chains. First, the regulations must be robustly enforced, with substantial fines and consistent sanctions against businesses that pay late and/or fail to report fully. Secondly, we need the published reports to be accessible and easily searchable, which would follow through on the “name and shame” element behind the regulations, as well as allowing small businesses to review potential clients’ payment practices.

We also want more robust, wide-ranging action on late payments that goes far beyond the encouragement or very veiled threats to late-paying large firms that have typified the approach of Conservative Governments —not just this one, but in previous years. That includes having the right person appointed to the role of Small Business Commissioner, which the Minister mentioned—someone with a background in small business and an expertise in the supplier side of business contracts. The Government also need to push forward with the corporate governance Green Paper, which has been discussed, ensuring that small business suppliers are represented at board level in large firms. That is a crucial element in making sure that the kind of level playing field hinted at can be achieved.

Who and what do the regulations affect? Companies and partnerships fall within scope of the two sets of regulations if they are medium-sized or above, which means having more than 250 employees. Contracts fall within scope if they are for goods, services or intangible assets—although I think I am right in saying that they do not include financial services—and if they are covered by the law of any part of the United Kingdom, unless they are specifically excluded from that by both parties. What happens if a firm falls below or goes above the threshold of 250 employees during the reporting period? Will that firm have to report on their payment practices for the whole or part of the period?

The regulations mean that qualifying companies and partnerships will have to report descriptions of their standard payment terms and of their dispute resolution process, where there is a payment issue with a supplier. What will happen in the event of some of the sharp practices that have led us to need these regulations—for example, where a company queries an invoice on the last day before payment is due and then the clock starts to run again, which is a well-known tactic used by some larger companies? What will the impact of such challenges be? How will the regulations affect the reporting in that kind of example? How will the reporting be policed? Without proper teeth, who is to say whether the reporting by companies is accurate? Will it be policed through the audit process, and how detailed will that policing be?

The regulations also require statements about payment practices and policies, including the availability of electronic invoicing, supply chain finance and whether businesses are members of a payment code of conduct—the Minister mentioned the prompt payment code, which I shall return to later—and statistics about performance for each reporting period, including the proportion of payments due in the reporting period that were not paid within the contractual payment period. Again, what is the mechanism for ascertaining whether that is happening? There will also be statements about the proportion of payments made in the reporting period that were made within the timeframes of one to 30 days late, 31 to 60 days late and more than 60 days late. I will come back to the point about more than 60 days, as there is a potential inconsistency with existing regulations.

Another reporting requirement is the average number of days taken to make payments, which is calculated by adding the number of days it took to make all the relevant payments and dividing it by the number of payments. Successive Governments have tried and failed to tackle the problem. Various approaches have been tried, from praising good payment practices, creating intra-industry codes, setting up a Small Business Commissioner and introducing the innovation of a right to interest on late-paid bills. The latest initiative is to require large firms to disclose their payment practice and performance.

Conservative Governments in the 1990s opted for what was described as moral encouragement—naming and shaming—and shied away from more concrete steps, such as statutory rights to interest on unpaid bills. In the 1990s, businesses were able to claim interest only if a term to that effect was included in the contract or if the courts decided to award interest in their favour in the course of the recovery proceedings. When the Labour Government came to power in 1997, they introduced the Late Payment of Commercial Debts (Interest) Act 1998 to give companies legal remedies beyond those of the normal commercial courts. EU legislation followed that approach and extended creditors’ rights further. However, none of those changes, whether voluntary or on a statutory footing, changed the tide on late payments. Will the measures that are being finalised today change the situation?

In 1993, the Forum of Private Business estimated that 89% of small and medium-sized businesses were paid late. On average, they were paid 51 days after the due date. Twenty three years later, the Federation of Small Business, in “Time to Act: the economic impact of poor payment practice”, reported that 61% of small businesses are paid late, with an average payment delay of six weeks. Moreover, in 2016 the Federation of Small Business found that 30% of payments are typically late. That number was up from 2011, when it was only 28%. Hon. Members who are paying attention will have noticed that some of those figures say slightly different things. That is because different organisations use different data and baselines.

The 2011 EU directive on combating late payment in commercial transactions already states that the period for payment in a business-to-business contract should never exceed 60 calendar days—I said I would come back to that point. In these regulations, the Government are asking businesses and partnerships to report what percentage of their payments are made after 60 days. Is it not inconsistent merely to ask businesses about their payment practice after 60 days when the legal framework already says it is illegal to go beyond that 60-day period? It does not sound like a very good sign to me.

Another example of where more needs to be done is the prompt payment code. Although the total number of signatories is 1,936, according to the Government website, very few of them are medium-sized or large private sector firms. When NHS trusts, councils, Government Departments and so on are taken out, there are just 184 signatories with a turnover of more than £500 million a year, a further 84 with a turnover of between £100 million and £500 million year, and 110 with a turnover of between £25 million and £100 million. That means that only 378 firms with a turnover of more than £25 million have signed up to the prompt payment code. According to figures from the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, there are 7,000 large firms in the United Kingdom. How will the regulations help us to move from the 378 that have signed up to the prompt payment code to all 7,000 carrying out the practices in the regulations, which is what we all want to see?

Is the duty to change what we need? While we are supportive of any measures to tackle late payment, in particular requiring larger firms to lay out their payment practices, all this prompts the question whether we are throwing another policy at a problem that has persistently withstood the “moral encouragement” approach. The duty in the regulations has the potential to do a lot more than that, but only if specific actions are taken. The reports will be published, to use the Minister’s words, on a Government web-based service, and they are due to be published within 30 days after the last day of the reporting period, which I assume means the tax-reporting period.

How will simply saying, “It will be published online,” help the smaller companies, which need to understand their potential customers’ payment practices before deciding whether to contract with them? The web-based service needs to be easily searchable. It needs to show how different companies compare with each other and to show what the industry standard is. For small businesses to benefit from the regulations and for us to create the kind of balance between large and small firms that the Minister rightly referred to, the system needs to operate effectively. How the web-based service is run will be crucial, so can she say more about how it will work? If it works properly, we could see a step change in the way that smaller firms are treated by their larger customers.

This is not just fine detail. The danger, as we have seen, is that attempted actions on late payment amount to just moral grandstanding, rather than creating effective tools to tackle this scourge, which, as the Minister and I have both said, delays payments amounting to £26 billion at any one time. The regulations require companies to provide a statement on whether their payment practices and policies allow them to deduct money from payments as a charge to a supplier to remain on the qualifying company’s list of suppliers or potential suppliers. That is clearly a step forward, but there is another problem, which has not been addressed in these regulations, namely the ability of companies to award themselves a discount for early payment. That has been excluded from the regulations, and I will come on to what the Government response to the consultation said on that point.

The courts have a fairly broad take on what standard payment terms are, and obviously they will be the terms used in the vast majority of contracts. It would be for the company to prove in dispute that tweaks such as discounts are standard and known to all their contracting partners. I would be surprised if deductions for paying on time were considered to be so standard as to be not worth recording, but we can be reasonably certain that where there is wooliness, some of those most likely to cut corners will do just that. If we are going down the route of closing off loopholes, as the stipulation on deductions for remaining on a supplier’s list suggests, we ought to go the full way and explicitly include deductions that allow companies to pay less for paying early.

The draft regulations were going to include a requirement to report on interest owed for late payments. However, that requirement has been dropped. The Government response to the consultation says:

“Several issues emerged through further engagement with businesses. Feedback suggested that most businesses do not routinely record how much late payment interest they may be liable for, and would therefore require costly upgrades to software in order to report the total liability. Linked to this is the fact that a claim for interest under the Late Payment Act may be brought up to six years later. Businesses felt that requiring reporting to cover the previous six years would be particularly difficult because the data may not have been recorded in a way that allowed extraction. The costs associated could be substantial and could result in a figure that would be difficult for users of the data to interpret, as it would cover a different time period to other metrics which are limited to the six month reporting period.

We believe that businesses should focus their efforts on not incurring interest by paying on time, rather than calculating potential interest. This will be kept under review. We will also take into account the lessons that the introduction of reporting on interest liable in the public sector can teach us, once it has been introduced in April 2017.”

Perhaps the Minister will give us some more information on what is meant by “kept under review”.

The business response to the consultation was, “We don’t record that”, but that is a pretty poor excuse. Previously we have made the case, including during the Committee stage of what became the Small Business, Enterprise and Employment Act 2015, that interest should be applied automatically to late payments, because it is too onerous for small businesses to go after much bigger clients themselves. First, they do not have the internal resources to do so or to take legal action. Secondly, and probably more to the point, such action could damage a major contract, which might represent the majority of the supplier’s revenue. That has always been one of the problems, but the commercial reality is that a supplier challenging its big customers runs the risk of losing them for future business. That is one of the key challenges in dealing with the problem.

The Government response, quoting business submissions to the consultation, drives that point home. Businesses do not record such matters and they do not have the software to manage interest on late payments, because the threat of a small supplier slapping interest on their late payments is so remote that there is no incentive for them to do so. Perhaps the Government should consider such an incentive. After all, records have to be kept for seven years for audit purposes—I think it is 10 years for plcs; the Minister can correct me if I am wrong—so that kind of recording would sit naturally alongside existing requirements to record account information.

The good thing about the draft regulations is that they start to recognise that, because of the deep imbalance of power in supply chains, we cannot simply leave the problem to suppliers to fix. Obviously, automatically applying interest to late payments would be preferable, but a decent first step would be to require the recording and reporting of interest owed. That would serve as a wake-up call for large firms about how much they might find themselves out of pocket because of their behaviour, and as an easy way for suppliers to see how much they could collectively be entitled to, in particular from persistent late payers.

We broadly support the aims of the draft regulations. I have posed a number of questions. My sense is that this is the start of the process and not the end, and that there is room for improvement, adaptation and addition to the regulations, not least when the Small Business Commissioner is in post. Will the Minister tell us when that will be? I look forward to her response.

Steel: Preserving Sustainable Jobs and Growth in Europe

Michael Tomlinson Excerpts

Tuesday 7th February 2017 General Committees

[Mr Hurd]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his suggestions. He opened with a humble suggestion—experienced Ministers know that those are the most dangerous. I will, in the same spirit, take what he said on board and feed it to my Secretary of State, whom I am seeing after this Committee, because we have a meeting with the steel sector trade unions. I make that undertaking.

On the energy costs, the assurance the hon. Member for Aberavon is seeking is one that I gave on the Floor of the House at departmental questions the other day. As he knows, we have made a commitment on compensation. We have made it quite clear that we want to move to an exemption-type scheme. He knows because he is well informed, but that process is taking longer than we expected and wanted. We will therefore continue with compensation until that is worked through. I have made that undertaking on the Floor of the House and it stands, because we totally understand the need for consistency and visibility. I hope that that is reasonably clear.

On the broader challenge, I genuinely welcome the APPG report. As the hon. Gentleman knows, it feeds into what I hope is quite a deep collaborative set of conversations between Government and leaders of the steel sector about its future. Those leaders have embraced the challenge we have set, which was that we need to move on from the language of survival, sticking plasters and muddling through, to a situation in which we have politicians and society recognising the steel sector for what it needs to be, which is an incredibly important foundation sector and part of a dynamic and valuable national supply chain. They bind to that, and the process that we are working through is informed by the capability study we funded and input such as the APPG report. That will all feed into, I hope—if the right spirit and rigour are in place—some form of sector deal in which Government and industry can set out their mutual commitment to some form of agreed common goal. That is an exciting process and I hope he welcomes it. We welcome his contribution.

In that context, and going back to what I was saying, the hon. Gentleman and the report are quite right to identify that the issue of energy costs is now a complex one. We have to move from where we are now. After a lot of sticking plasters have been applied, we still have a gap. As he said, the factors determining that are complex and relate to wholesale energy costs, our energy mix and network costs. They also relate in part to ongoing policy commitments. We need to take a bit of time and work with people who have an interest and expertise in this area, so that we thoroughly investigate all our options.

As the hon. Gentleman might expect, the Department has done a lot of work in this area, but it needs to be sweated a bit harder. Our commitment is to publishing a road map later this year to show what our strategy is. That will be informed by the review that we are setting up, which is, in part, an external challenge relating to our processes and work. This issue is of such importance that it requires a structure and process around it that leads to a strategy that is more long term than the sticking-plaster approach we have taken until now. That has not got us to where we need to be, in respect of having a level playing field for this sector and others—this is not just about the steel sector—that are, quite rightly, pushing us hard.

[Michael Tomlinson (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (Con)]

I want to pick up the point about the automotive sector specifically and the 10% tariffs. The hon. Member for Aberavon said that our Prime Minister—not this Minister—said that no deal was better than a bad deal. However, does the Minister agree that the best way to get a worse deal is by saying that we want a deal at any cost? Specifically on tariffs, the value of the pound has dropped by some 15% since 26 June. Therefore, in the automotive industry there is still a 5% net even on 10% tariffs. Nobody wants tariffs—we all want free trade—but we can surely go into negotiations in the knowledge that we are already 5% better off.

[Mr Hurd]

I agree with my hon. Friend. The only thing I would add is that currencies move. Therefore, this is not necessarily a structural shift that we can rely on. It has provided some relief and some offset not only for the auto sector, but for the steel sector, as hon. Members who represent steel seats, if I can put I that way, are well aware. The message that I get from chief executives of steel companies is, “Yes, it is helping.” The picture is complicated because some input prices have increased, but either way, we cannot rely on that completely as the long-term solution for the steel sector. The sector is facing other big, structural issues, not least the massive, deep-seated problem of structural overcapacity, which we have to address. Arguably, that is even bigger and more fundamental than the issues raised by Brexit.

Oral Answers to Questions

Michael Tomlinson Excerpts

Tuesday 8th November 2016 Commons Chamber

[Jesse Norman]

Of course, in the context of the steel industry, it is important to recognise the commitment that the Government have made to Hinkley Point C—a major industrial commitment of their own. I recognise the hon. Gentleman’s point, but we are not going to be railroaded into going beyond the timetable that has already been described. An orderly process is in place, a highly respected former Minister is running the thing, and we will be looking at the issue with the care and consideration that it deserves.

[Michael Tomlinson (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (Con)]

It is reliable, it is green, it would form an important part of our energy mix—and it would boost the south-west economy to boot: will the Minister support it?

Exiting the EU and Workers’ Rights

Michael Tomlinson Excerpts

Monday 7th November 2016 Commons Chamber

[Greg Clark]

We have discussed a number of areas in which the Government have extended workers’ rights. My hon. Friend the Member for Dover (Charlie Elphicke) cited the important protection against exclusivity in zero-hours contracts. This Government and our predecessors introduced the national living wage. The hon. Lady should therefore be a bit more generous in giving credit. Of course, the working time directive, like all other directives that are part of EU law, will be transposed into UK law so that there is continuity.

[Michael Tomlinson (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (Con)]

Contrary to what the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Melanie Onn) says, the Conservatives have a record of such action over hundreds of years. Robert Peel, the father of Sir Robert Peel, introduced the very first factory Act under the rather wonderful title of the Health and Morals of Apprentices Act 1802.

[Greg Clark]

My hon. Friend is exactly right and we continue that tradition today. I am not sure that we regulate the morals of apprentices, but the health of apprentices is very important. The Conservative party has been the party of workers’ rights over the centuries, from Shaftesbury’s Factory Acts to William Hague’s Disability Discrimination Act 1995. The Conservatives have always understood that the decent treatment of people at work is not at the expense of industrial success, but a foundation of it.

Since 2010, the Conservatives have strengthened the rights of workers. This April, the Government introduced the mandatory national living wage for workers aged 25 and above, meaning that a full-time low-paid worker earns £900 more a year than they did before its introduction. We have also cracked down on employers who break national minimum wage and national living wage law. We have increased the enforcement budget by more than £9 million and strengthened enforcement so that people who break the law face an increased financial penalty—it has increased from 100% to 200% of arrears.

Our measures to protect workers’ rights and support our labour market have meant more people in work, more people earning a living and more people contributing to the prosperity of the UK than ever before. Our high employment rate is complemented by strong protections for UK workers, so our country is not only a great place to start a business, but a great place to work. However, to maintain that position, especially as we leave the European Union, we cannot stand still. We need to make further changes that support workers’ rights in the tradition of Conservative Governments over the years.

--- Later in debate ---

[Clive Lewis]

That is a very important point, and it is one to which I shall come back in the future.

Let me return to the issue at hand. While I welcome now, as I have before, the Government’s recent apparent Damascene conversion when it comes to workers’ rights, I cannot but remain sceptical about how deep it goes. When it comes to limiting the number of hours people have to work in a week and giving temporary workers the same rights as permanent staff, the Conservative party has resisted at every turn the enhanced protection for workers that was introduced through EU legislation. Yet now we are asked to believe that they will defend that legislation. How are the workers of this country supposed to trust them? The public have already been misled about what Brexit will mean.

[Michael Tomlinson]

The hon. Gentleman says that these developments are recent, but as I pointed out to the Secretary of State, in fact they go back hundreds of years—back to 1802, which saw the very first factory Act enacted by a Conservative Government. Furthermore, there is no need for these laws to be protected by the EU, because we enhance those protections and have already done so.

--- Later in debate ---

[Michael Tomlinson]

As ever, the hon. Gentleman is making his case eloquently. However, did he fail to listen to the speech made by the Secretary of State, who set out clearly that all these rights will be transferred?

[Neil Gray]

For how long? In addition, does the Secretary of State carry the confidence of his Back Benchers? We are still to find that out. As I have said, so many of his colleagues have given us mixed messages about the so-called “burden” of EU workers’ rights on this country.

A substantial component of UK employment law is grounded in EU law, and where it exists it provides a minimum standard below which domestic employment cannot fall. Although some protections already existed in domestic law before being enhanced at an EU level, in many cases new categories of employment rights have been transposed into domestic law to comply with emerging EU obligations. Subject to the provisions of the EU withdrawal arrangement or a subsequent trade agreement, withdrawal from the EU would mean that the UK employment rights currently guaranteed by EU law would no longer be so guaranteed, which leaves us reliant on a Conservative Government to step up for workers.

A post-Brexit Government could also seek to amend or remove protections enshrined in EU law for UK workers. The House of Commons Library paper makes it clear that EU-derived employment rights that feature in primary legislation would be relatively safe from the effects of leaving the EU, but would be

“newly susceptible to the possibility of change.”

--- Later in debate ---

[Michael Tomlinson (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (Con)]

It is a great pleasure, Madam Deputy Speaker, to catch your eye in this important debate. It is also a great pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn), the Chairman of the new and important Brexit Committee. I hear what he says, but I am concerned about revealing too much of the negotiating position. I enjoyed what he said about the ECJ and the body of case law. He is right that there is an important amount of work to be done in that regard. It is also a pleasure to follow my right hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Anna Soubry). We approach this from different sides having fought on different sides of the argument in the run-up to the EU referendum and, I suspect, on some of the detail thereafter. I applaud the tone and maturity of her speech. I also applaud what she said about triggering article 50, and entirely and wholeheartedly agree.

Employment and workers’ rights is a very important subject. I am chairman of the all-party parliamentary group on youth employment. Very sensibly, my predecessor, my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich North (Chloe Smith), changed the name of the group from “youth unemployment” to “youth employment”—an altogether more positive outlook—and I have continued that tradition. Each month, we look at the latest figures and statistics on unemployment and the labour market. My right hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe is entirely right in her analysis of those figures. I am afraid that the hon. Member for Norwich South (Clive Lewis) is wrong in much of his analysis. I need only mention one or two points to show that that is correct. Employment is at a record level of 31.8 million—up by over 500,000 this year, and up by over 2.8 million since 2010. The hon. Gentleman said that wages are decreasing, but he is wrong. Pay, including bonuses, rose by 2.3% over the past year. There are now over 740,000 job vacancies, despite the fact that we are at record levels of employment and of people claiming jobseeker’s allowance. Just touching on those figures makes it abundantly clear that when the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy and the Prime Minister say that the Conservative party is the workers’ party, it is said with a very straight face, utterly seriously and sincerely.

In the nine minutes or so that you have allowed me, Madam Deputy Speaker, I want to discuss two points. First, there are the accusations made by Opposition Members that the Conservative party cannot be trusted with workers’ rights. Secondly, it has been said, wrongly, that we rely on and need the European Union in order to protect workers’ rights. Those accusations are wrong on all fronts.

It is successive Conservative Governments who have strengthened workers’ rights. My right hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe, who made many good points, mentioned two issues: the living wage and lifting those on low pay out of taxation. I will add a third, namely the coalition Government’s measures on family rights, including maternity and paternity rights, which the Secretary of State himself mentioned. Those rights are not reliant on the EU; they go further than the EU. The EU’s minimum requirement of 14 weeks is far outstripped and exceeded by the 52 weeks introduced by this Government.

I will come back to the EU, because for now I am going to concentrate on the successes and track record of successive Conservative Governments. I mentioned in an earlier intervention the wonderfully titled Health and Morals of Apprentices Act 1802, which was introduced by Robert Peel, the father of the Robert Peel with whom we are more familiar. He was first baronet and Member of Parliament for Tamworth, and the Act was the very first document on the statute book to formally protect workers’ rights. For the very first time, working hours and conditions of labour were regulated, not by a Labour Government—the party did not yet exist—or a Liberal Government, who were very illiberal at times, but by a Conservative. His son, as Prime Minister in 1844, continued that tradition and further strengthened workers’ rights.

In 1878, Disraeli consolidated the Factory Acts. In 1901, Lord Salisbury further consolidated and enhanced workers’ rights. Neville Chamberlain is remembered for many things, but rarely for his excellent work further consolidating and strengthening workers’ rights in his Factories Act 1937. I could go on, but I will mention just one more example, because I am mindful of your time restriction, Madam Deputy Speaker. In 1961, another Conservative Prime Minister, Harold Macmillan, introduced another consolidating Act and workers’ rights were strengthened.

People could say, “1802, 1878, 1901 and 1961 are ancient history. What relevance do they have?” They are relevant not only because it was Conservative Prime Ministers who strengthened the rights of workers, but because it happened before we were in the EU. Far from requiring the EU, we were leading the way and doing so at every turn.

I turn to the false argument that we need the European Union in order to have strong workers’ rights. That is wrong. In fact, the United Kingdom has been ahead of the game for a long time in terms of workers’ rights, particularly health and safety, which is very important. I will digress momentarily, because the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 was enacted by a Labour Government. We should not forget, however, the important work of Willie Whitelaw, who unfortunately was booted out of power before he had a chance to enact that legislation as the Secretary of State for Employment. He stood at the Dispatch Box in January 1974, before the general election, attempting to legislate on the subject.

I will stick with the theme of health and safety at work. The United Kingdom has consistently had one of the lowest rates of fatal injury across the EU. According to a 2016 paper that refers back to 2013, the rate was 0.51 per 100,000 employees. Of course, any figure relating to fatalities is too high, but it is worth noting that that figure is among the lowest in the EU—it is second only to Malta—in terms of health and safety records.

I will mention just one other statistic that is worth taking into account: only 1.4% of United Kingdom workers reported an injury occurring at work that resulted in sick leave, compared with 1.8% in Spain and 3.1% in France. Again, the figure is too high, but it is among the lowest and it demonstrates a high level of commitment in this country to the health and safety of workers. We are consistently ahead of the European Union and have been for a long time.

The hon. Member for Swansea West (Geraint Davies) mentioned—I have no doubt that he is still discussing it now—the European Court of Justice, but he was wrong to pray in aid the ECJ as some sort of helper for workers’ rights. The truth is quite the opposite. Let me give just one example. In 2007, the ECJ determined whether this country was in breach of article 361 of the 1989 European directive on health and safety at work. Thankfully, the Court eventually determined that this country was not in breach of it: it took it only 33 years to determine that this country had, in 1974, secured the very workers’ rights that the proponents of the EU who opposed us had said that we had not enacted. It is a shame that it took 33 years for the ECJ to accept that the 1989 directive had already been secured by this country. Those rights that the EU said that we should protect had already been protected in 1974. We do not need the European Union in order to protect workers’ rights. This country has long been ahead of the game.

[Melanie Onn]

In the spirit of this and the immediately preceding Government’s championing of workers’ rights, does the hon. Gentleman acknowledge that a rule that stood for more than 150 years, namely that a worker injured as a result of a breach of health and safety legislation could bring a civil claim for damages, was simply swept aside in 2013, meaning that only criminal sanctions are applicable, thereby reducing the rights of working people?

[Michael Tomlinson]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her intervention, because that was the very point that the ECJ looked at in 2007. It determined that a criminal sanction was a more than sufficient and adequate remedy and protection for workers. It determined that this country was ahead of the game back in 1974, albeit as a result of an Act introduced by a Labour Government. The Prime Minister is right to say that we should leave the jurisdiction of the ECJ. We do not need its help in order to be ahead of the game when it comes to workers’ rights.

Does that mean that all is perfect? No, of course it does not—there is always room for improvement—but neither does it mean that the accusations levelled at us from the Opposition Benches are right. The Prime Minister and the Secretary of State have confirmed that EU law will still apply and that existing workers’ rights are guaranteed.

I can see your thumbs drilling away, Madam Deputy Speaker. I have exceeded my nine minutes by a minute, but I have had an intervention. I will end by saying that the Secretary of State is absolutely right to call us the workers’ party. We should not rely on the EU or the Labour party to protect workers’ rights, because they will not do so. Workers’ rights did not start with the EU, nor will they end when we leave. We can be confident that, under this Prime Minister, workers’ rights will be protected.