Ethnicity Pay Gap

Debate between Paul Scully and Caroline Nokes

Monday 20th September 2021 Westminster Hall

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Paul Scully)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hosie. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Elliot Colburn) and the Petitions Committee on securing this debate on a really important issue. I am sure that we can all agree that it has been an interesting and informative debate, and I am really grateful to everyone who has contributed.

My hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington did an excellent job of opening the debate, as one would expect of him and of a member of the Petitions Committee. As you may know, Mr Hosie, I served on the Petitions Committee for a number of years, and I know from personal experience how important and valuable its work is. My hon. Friend set the scene in a very balanced and comprehensive way and demonstrated the complexity of the issue, showing that it is not simply a binary one. There are a lot of concerns and possible unintended consequences, which I will explore in a second, and we need to put those into the mix in order to make sure we get our consideration of this subject right.

Petitions are a great way to ensure that we do not overlook issues, and that we in Parliament, in Government, and in my Department consider the matters that are of most concern to the people we represent. Today’s debate is no exception to that: the petition was signed by over 130,000 people, including 322 people in my own constituency of Sutton and Cheam, which is testament to the interest there is in ethnicity pay reporting as a means of achieving a fair workplace. I understand that the petitioner, who is here today., the many people who signed the petition, and the MPs who spoke today and others are really concerned that the Government have yet to publish their response to the 2019 consultation on mandatory ethnicity pay reporting. Clearly, the past 18 months have not been what any of us were expecting, but I want quickly to set out the journey we are on in regard to ethnicity pay reporting, giving some background and explaining some of the issues we are juggling as we consider how best to take things forward.

First, I should make it absolutely clear that the Government are committed to building back better from the pandemic, and building back fairer in doing so. People from all backgrounds must have the opportunity to achieve their potential, and a key part of building a fairer economy is ensuring that our businesses and other organisations reflect the nation’s diversity from factory floor to boardroom. That is essential to our levelling-up ambitions.

We know that we face challenges in ensuring equal access and fair representation for people from minority ethnic backgrounds in the workplace, and that we need to do so much better. Although they are improving, employment rates for ethnic minorities continue to be lower than they are for white people. The evidence also shows that once in work, people from ethnic minorities progress less and earn less money than their white counterparts, but the picture is complex, and outcomes vary substantially between ethnicities and by gender within ethnic groups. For instance, over two in five Pakistani or Bangladeshi workers are in the three lowest-skilled occupations, but Indian people are the most likely of any ethnic group to work in the highest-skilled occupations and have the highest average hourly pay.

I said that I would set out the journey that we are on. In 2016, as has been mentioned, the Government asked Baroness Ruby McGregor-Smith to examine the barriers faced by people from ethnic minorities in the workplace, and to consider what we might do to address them. One of her recommendations was that the Government should legislate for mandatory reporting and ethnicity pay data by £20,000 pay band. The Government’s response said that they were persuaded by the case for reporting. Baroness Ruby McGregor-Smith’s report highlighted the fact that equal participation and progression across ethnicities could be worth an additional £24 billion to the UK economy annually, but that we expected businesses to take the lead in reporting voluntarily.

In 2018, the Government commissioned a “one year on” report, which showed that, disappointingly, limited progress had been made. Just 11% of employees reported that their organisations collected data on ethnicity pay. Given that fact, we consulted on mandatory pay reporting in the same year. That consultation sought views on the benefits of monitoring and publishing ethnicity data; what might be reported; and what contextual information should be provided, such as narrative, action plans and ethnicity data classifications. The responses to that consultation raised a series of issues, showing that establishing a standard ethnicity pay reporting framework would be considerably more challenging than was the case even for gender pay gap reporting. There are genuine difficulties in designing a methodology that provides accurate figures and allows for interpretation and meaningful action by employers, employees and the wider public.

To give Members one example, we would expect the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy to be leading from the front when it comes to all things relating to workers’ rights in business. The Government website talks about civil service pay and says that

“of civil servants whose ethnicity was known, Asian and White staff had the lowest average annual pay (£27,200), followed by Black staff (£28,400), staff with Chinese ethnicity (£29,500), and staff from the Mixed ethnic group (£29,600), with staff from the Other ethnic group having the highest (£30,000)”.

The problem is that the average median annual pay for all of the civil service was £27,100—£100 lower.

Anyone with a basic grasp of statistics would say, “It’s not possible to have every ethnic group that is recorded above the average median pay for the entire civil service”. That is because 22% of the civil service did not identify, which is clearly skewing the figures. That is just one of the anomalies, or unintended consequences. It is not something that we cannot get around, but it is illustrative of how statistics can be misread and a problem misdiagnosed.

[Caroline Nokes]

It is interesting to note that Zurich commented that 87% of its workforce had identified which ethnicity they were from, so why is BEIS doing so much worse than a private sector company?

[Paul Scully]

This is the civil service as a whole. What I am saying to my right hon. Friend is that the figures are clearly skewed by that 22%. We want to get accurate reporting, but everybody, according to this, is above the average median pay. That cannot be the case; that is not possible. If the figures have been skewed, we cannot diagnose the problem from them, so we must work through those figures and work through a methodology, so that we can ensure that we have robust figures.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Paul Scully and Caroline Nokes

Wednesday 7th July 2021 Commons Chamber

[Paul Scully]

As I said, when parliamentary time allows we will bring legislation forward. I value the hon. Lady’s work and the conversation we had with Pregnant Then Screwed and Maternity Action. We continue to have plans for roundtables to understand the issues better, bringing those two groups together again, along with businesses.

[Caroline Nokes (Romsey and Southampton North) (Con)]

Tragically, maternity discrimination does not just happen in the labour market—it also happens in labour wards. What work is the Minister doing across government to make sure that we drive down the horrific death toll that sees black women four times as likely to die in childbirth than their white counterparts?

Beauty and Wellbeing Sector Workforce

Debate between Paul Scully and Caroline Nokes

Wednesday 23rd June 2021 Westminster Hall

[Paul Scully]

The hon. Gentleman, as ever, predicts the next few paragraphs of my speech. Yes, we want to encourage and work with the sector, and incentivise it to take on more apprentices. I am aware of how highly skilled and valued practitioners are, but they are tempted to start careers in different industries because they have lost confidence in the sector’s future viability. That is why it is important that we talk about it, support the sector and demonstrate how viable and flexible it is, and how it very much has a key role in the high street ecosystem that I talked about earlier.

[Caroline Nokes]

My hon. Friend was quick to respond that he wishes to support apprenticeships and demonstrate how important they are in the sector. Can he outline what specific work he is doing with the Department for Education to make sure that it, too, promotes them?

[Paul Scully]

I can indeed, and I will come to that in a second. We also have to examine why apprenticeships were in decline before the pandemic began. We can look at it holistically across Government with the Department for Education, the Department for Work and Pensions and BEIS.

We have provided a range of support for the beauty and wellbeing sector. For example, the sector is eligible for the kickstart scheme, which provides a fully funded six-month job for 16 to 24-year-olds on universal credit and at risk of long-term unemployment. I am pleased to say that 600 high quality industry-designed apprenticeship standards are now available. I want to work with the sector to increase the number of small and medium-sized beauty businesses offering apprenticeships.

The Government have recently increased the cash incentive to £3,000 for every apprentice that a business hires, and that helps to maintain and attract the sector’s future workforce. It is good to see sector initiatives aimed at upskilling the workforce. For example, I commend L’Oréal on its education platform, Access, which I am told 54,000 hair professionals have used. We will continue to work with the sector to advance the reputation of beauty and wellbeing as an invaluable, skilled and highly rewarding career path.

I have talked about some of the issues that the hon. Member for Swansea East raised in her speech. I was pleased that she was forthright in mentioning the benefit of holistic treatment to the menopause. It is important that we do not shy from talking in this place about a treatment that can be of so much benefit to so many women across the country. It is great to see that issue highlighted.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Southampton North talked about the entrepreneurial spirit, as did the hon. Member for Strangford. My right hon. Friend is absolutely right that we should not talk about just beauty therapists and just the beauty sector. As we have heard, the hospitality sector, for example, has a low bar to entry, but that does not make it a low-skilled sector. The hair and beauty sector does not have a particularly high bar to entry, but someone cannot just pick up a pair of scissors and expect to walk into a hairdresser’s and say, “Can I start work, please?” It is really important to demonstrate the skills required in the sector.

The hon. Member for Bradford South talked about regulation, and we are working with the Department of Health and Social Care to look at regulation and what needs to be done for particular treatments. We will continue to make sure that we can work with the Department, the APPG and the sector to ensure the safety of customers. They need to see not just a certificate on the wall, as she said, but that there are skills behind it. We have to be really careful in those areas.

The hon. Member for Strangford talked about people—specifically, women—setting up businesses. We have talked about the fact that this is largely a female-led-business sector. He is absolutely right when he talks about female entrepreneurs. This fits into a wider piece of work that we are doing in my Department. What are the barriers to female entrepreneurs? They include access to finance, peer-to-peer networking and mentoring. The issue there is not just having the big beasts—the Deborah Meadens, the Richard Bransons and all those people. It is how you get mentors for people who have perhaps just opened their first salon, having been a mobile worker for a number of years; perhaps they have just taken on their first employee—it is about all those kinds of things. That is the kind of example that women want to see—someone in their mould, speaking to them about their issues. It is a question of getting consistency across the country, but also, as I have said, access to finance.

Alison Rose, the chief executive of NatWest, led the Rose review a few years ago. I chair the Rose Review Board with her—we have a meeting next week—and we talk about access to finance. We have 100 signatories to the “Investing in Women Code”, which involves a number of venture capitalists as well as lenders. We are trying to get them to change their teams so that they can get diversity of thought in their investment decisions. That will lead to having diversity in their investments and ensure that they are investing in more women, and that has to be brilliant for the UK economy.

We also have the start-up loans, available for anybody to set up a new business, of up to £25,000, alongside free mentoring. That is run by the British Business Bank and has been since 2012, and 40% of those loans are going to women. That is clearly far lower than the percentage of women in the population, but compared with some other lenders, it is going in the right direction. We still need to do more, so I am pleased to be able to encourage that. The Budget in March from my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer was focused on helping those most affected by the pandemic, including small businesses and vulnerable groups such as young people, women and those from disadvantaged groups in our communities. It is really important that we continue to do that.

In conclusion, we will continue to listen to the sector to understand its views and concerns. As we move to step 4 on the road map, we will work together to address the key problems facing the beauty and wellbeing workforce, discussed in the debate today. We will keep on reviewing the data; we will keep on making an assessment against the four tests at least a week in advance and will announce whether we proceed to step 4 on the new date of no later than 12 July. I want the sector to fully open as soon as that is safe, so that it can bounce back and recover from the restrictions and the financial pressures caused by the pandemic. That will help to address the issues relating to jobs and the skills gap. There is clearly more to do, after we reopen, to address the longer term challenges for the sector, but we need to keep making the point that the beauty and wellbeing sector is a fantastic industry to work in because of the people and the skills that they bring.

Arcadia and Debenhams: Business Support and Job Retention

Debate between Paul Scully and Caroline Nokes

Wednesday 2nd December 2020 Commons Chamber

[Paul Scully]

I cannot give specifics on a taskforce or any other group, but we will look acutely at what we can do for supply chains and the future of the high street. When flagship stores like the 200-odd-year-old Debenhams leave our high streets, it is so important to make sure that we have a co-ordinated response. I will happily work with the hon. Gentleman on that.

[Caroline Nokes (Romsey and Southampton North) (Con) [V]]

My hon. Friend, and the whole House, is concerned about the numbers of jobs potentially lost in the Arcadia Group, but we also have to be concerned about those employed by microbusinesses, perhaps without premises, who have so far not benefited from Government schemes to support them. Will he think again about those who so far have not had Government support and may well be adversely impacted by the news we have heard about Arcadia if they work in the retail supply chain?

[Paul Scully]

My right hon. Friend raises a really important point. We have wrapped our arms around the economy, but clearly it is very difficult to do things at pace to cover everybody. We will always make sure that we reflect on what happens, to help as many people as we can and try to fill the cracks as best we can.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Paul Scully and Caroline Nokes

Wednesday 21st October 2020 Commons Chamber

[Paul Scully]

This is important, and we know that certain sectors are the worst affected. It is important that we actually do everything we can with “Hands, face, space” to make sure that our economy can start to open again and create opportunities, but we have also put in support with universal credit, the coronavirus job retention scheme, the self-employed income support scheme and the wider winter economy to help everybody, but especially the disadvantaged women that the hon. Gentleman describes.

[Caroline Nokes (Romsey and Southampton North) (Con)]

Women make up a significant proportion of those employed in the fitness, leisure and wellbeing industry. Can my hon. Friend tell me what work he is doing with the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport to recognise that physical, mental and financial wellbeing go hand in hand? The sector is now having to manage variable lockdowns, and there will be a knock-on impact if businesses cannot recover financially and resume their role of contributing more than £2 billion annually to the nation’s economy.

[Paul Scully]

We know that physical activity is absolutely crucial to the wellbeing of our nation as well as to our economy. We have been working closely with the national sports council, Sport England, to continue promoting health and fitness during lockdown. This includes the Join the Movement campaign that it has launched, which provides tips, advice and guidance to tell people how they can keep or get active in and around the home. As I have said, it is so important that we keep as many gyms open as possible, where possible, but ultimately, this is about getting the economy up and running again. Lives are first in our priorities, but the economy and livelihoods must be absolutely up there.

CCRC Decision on 44 Post Office Prosecutions

Debate between Paul Scully and Caroline Nokes

Monday 5th October 2020 Commons Chamber

[Paul Scully]

Yes, I am anxious, because it is important that we keep the network up at the target level we set of 11,500. The hon. Lady is right that some of the difficulty is due to the situation gone by; some of it is due to the ongoing complexity of the Horizon system and resource availability. I am glad that the chief executive, Nick Read, comes from a business where he is used to dealing with people as stakeholders, not just as employees, so engaging in a more positive future relationship with postmasters. She is right to talk about rural and urban areas. In London, although clearly we do not want to lose post offices, it is relatively easy compared with some rural areas to get to the next post office, but that is not an excuse to diminish the network in London.

[Caroline Nokes (Romsey and Southampton North) (Con)]

In his previous response, the Minister said he is anxious about the future of the network. I welcome the statement that the Post Office wants to reset the relationship with sub-postmasters, but if he is anxious, what measures is he going to take to make sure that that actually happens? He says that he expects compensation from the Post Office “in due course”, but will he put a timescale on that?

[Paul Scully]

On compensation, it depends on the situation of the people involved. Those who have been wrongfully convicted have recourse through the courts. I have regular contact with Nick Read, the chief executive, and other members of the board to make sure that we look at post office closures as reported to me by MPs and from updates, and increase and improve recruitment of postmasters, which will be achieved through a better future relationship.

Horizon: Sub-Postmaster Convictions

Debate between Paul Scully and Caroline Nokes

Wednesday 10th June 2020 Commons Chamber

[Paul Scully]

The sub-postmasters who have been wronged by this want some justice and they want it quickly. What I do not want to happen is a public inquiry that may take many, many years and cost them a lot of money to get more legal representation in. When people have the chance to study the terms of reference, they will realise that the chair will be independent of Government and independent of the Post Office, and that he or she will listen to them to make sure that their stories are told—not just listen to them but make sure that those stories are actually there to feed into making sure that this can never happen again. Then, I hope, they will see that justice can be done.

[Caroline Nokes (Romsey and Southampton North) (Con)]

I thank my hon. Friend for his response to my hon. Friend the Member for Cleethorpes (Martin Vickers), but one of the stumbling blocks to a judge-led inquiry is cost. Does he agree that it is absolutely imperative that the honest, decent sub-postmasters and sub-postmistresses across the whole country, and indeed specifically in Romsey and Southampton North, should not have a price put on lifting the stain on their characters?

[Paul Scully]

Sub-postmasters who have been wronged, including in Romsey, need to ensure that their voices can be heard quickly, with no cost. They need to be sure that this can never happen again, and get the acknowledgement that there have been severe mistakes that have caused misery for so many.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Paul Scully and Caroline Nokes

Monday 25th February 2019 Commons Chamber

[Caroline Nokes]

I commend my hon. Friend for her enthusiasm and determination to see a seasonal workers scheme introduced. As she knows, the pilot starts this month and we are determined to work closely with the horticultural sector and those companies that are piloting the scheme to ensure that we evaluate it thoroughly and look for the best way to take it forward.

[Paul Scully (Sutton and Cheam) (Con)]

13. What steps he is taking to tackle domestic abuse.