Asked by: Stephen Kinnock (Labour - Aberavon)
Question to the HM Treasury:
To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, how many employers were issued with a financial penalty for non-compliance with the National Minimum Wage Act 1998 and related legislation; and what the total value of those penalties was in each year since 2015.
Answered by Richard Fuller
The Government is determined that everyone who is entitled to the National Minimum Wage (NMW) receives it.
HMRC balances recovering NMW arrears for workers as quickly as possible along with a robust approach to enforcement using a range of tools, including civil sanctions and the issuing of Labour Market Enforcement Undertakings (LMEUs), and Labour Market Enforcement Orders (LMEOs).
HMRC’s approach to compliance means they go beyond undertaking investigations and issuing penalties. HMRC also works with businesses to help them understand their obligations. Ultimately, HMRC want employers to get it right. It is far better for businesses and workers if an investigation is never needed.
The use of criminal prosecutions is reserved for the most serious of cases.
The outbreak of COVID-19 meant HMRC had to adapt and take pragmatic decisions about where and how to deploy resource in the most effective manner to ensure both customers and staff were protected whilst still ensuring that workers were receiving the money they were due. HMRC continued to consider all worker complaints and take enforcement action as appropriate.
The below table provides numbers for investigations, penalties, value of penalties, prosecutions, and employers from 2015-16 up to 2021-22.
Year | Number of Investigations | Investigations where arrears enforced | Investigations where a penalty was charged | Value of penalties issued | Number of prosecutions | Number of LMEUs | Number of LMEOs |
2015/16 | 2,667 | 958 | 815 | £1,780,467 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
2016/17 | 2,674 | 1,134 | 822 | £3,892,976 | 4 | 0 | 0 |
2017/18 | 2,402 | 1,016 | 810 | £14,070,621 | 1 | 0 | 0 |
2018/19 | 3,018 | 1,357 | 1,008 | £17,134,737 | 0 | 8 | 0 |
2019/20 | 3,376 | 1,260 | 992 | £18,453,289 | 1 | 19 | 0 |
2020/21 | 2,740 | 994 | 575 | £14,064,688 | 0 | 5 | 0 |
2021/22 | 2,835 | 898 | 696 | £13,173,062 | 3 | 40 | 1 |
Asked by: Stephen Kinnock (Labour - Aberavon)
Question to the HM Treasury:
To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, how many investigations involving suspected non-compliance by employers with the National Minimum Wage Act 1998 and related legislation were carried out by HMRC in each year since 2015; and how many and what proportion of those investigations led to (a) financial penalties, (b) criminal prosecutions and (c) other enforcement action.
Answered by Richard Fuller
The Government is determined that everyone who is entitled to the National Minimum Wage (NMW) receives it.
HMRC balances recovering NMW arrears for workers as quickly as possible along with a robust approach to enforcement using a range of tools, including civil sanctions and the issuing of Labour Market Enforcement Undertakings (LMEUs), and Labour Market Enforcement Orders (LMEOs).
HMRC’s approach to compliance means they go beyond undertaking investigations and issuing penalties. HMRC also works with businesses to help them understand their obligations. Ultimately, HMRC want employers to get it right. It is far better for businesses and workers if an investigation is never needed.
The use of criminal prosecutions is reserved for the most serious of cases.
The outbreak of COVID-19 meant HMRC had to adapt and take pragmatic decisions about where and how to deploy resource in the most effective manner to ensure both customers and staff were protected whilst still ensuring that workers were receiving the money they were due. HMRC continued to consider all worker complaints and take enforcement action as appropriate.
The below table provides numbers for investigations, penalties, value of penalties, prosecutions, and employers from 2015-16 up to 2021-22.
Year | Number of Investigations | Investigations where arrears enforced | Investigations where a penalty was charged | Value of penalties issued | Number of prosecutions | Number of LMEUs | Number of LMEOs |
2015/16 | 2,667 | 958 | 815 | £1,780,467 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
2016/17 | 2,674 | 1,134 | 822 | £3,892,976 | 4 | 0 | 0 |
2017/18 | 2,402 | 1,016 | 810 | £14,070,621 | 1 | 0 | 0 |
2018/19 | 3,018 | 1,357 | 1,008 | £17,134,737 | 0 | 8 | 0 |
2019/20 | 3,376 | 1,260 | 992 | £18,453,289 | 1 | 19 | 0 |
2020/21 | 2,740 | 994 | 575 | £14,064,688 | 0 | 5 | 0 |
2021/22 | 2,835 | 898 | 696 | £13,173,062 | 3 | 40 | 1 |
Asked by: Stephen Kinnock (Labour - Aberavon)
Question to the HM Treasury:
To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, how many reports from (a) employees and (b) third parties involving suspected non-compliance of employers with the National Minimum Wage Act 1998 and related legislation were received by HMRC in each year since 2015.
Answered by Richard Fuller
HMRC considers all complaints from workers, conducts a program of proactive compliance activities, and delivers a program of educational activities to support employers to get it right.
Anyone not being paid what they are entitled to can complain online at: https://www.gov.uk/minimum-wage-complaint or can contact the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service on 0300 123 1100. HMRC will not tell an employer who complained without the person’s consent.
Year | Worker complaints | Third party information |
2015/16 | 1,516 | 418 |
2016/17 | 2,573 | 789 |
2017/18 | 6,027 | 2,154 |
2018/19 | 4,924 | 2,351 |
2019/20 | 3,332 | 2,413 |
2020/21 | 2,771 | 2,286 |
2021/22 | 3,310 | 2,944 |
Asked by: Stephen Kinnock (Labour - Aberavon)
Question to the HM Treasury:
To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, whether the Government plans to re-convene the China-UK Joint Trade and Economic Commission and the Economic and Financial Dialogue following their suspension as a result of the Chinese Government introducing the Hong Kong National Security Law.
Answered by John Glen - Paymaster General and Minister for the Cabinet Office
China is an important trading partner for the UK and there is considerable scope for mutually beneficial trade and investment, while ensuring our national security and values are protected.
We have always been clear that our trade relationship does not come at the expense of human rights, and where we have concerns, we will continue to speak out and take action. The UK has taken firm action following restrictions on the rights and freedoms of the people of Hong Kong and has introduced a bespoke immigration route for British Nationals (Overseas) and their families.
There is no date for the next Economic and Financial Dialogue (EFD) or the Joint Trade and Economic Commission (JETCO).
Asked by: Stephen Kinnock (Labour - Aberavon)
Question to the HM Treasury:
To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, whether the sanctions placed on Myanmar Economics Holdings Ltd on 25 March 2021 include (a) financial services and (b) insurance.
Answered by John Glen - Paymaster General and Minister for the Cabinet Office
Yes. Myanmar Economics Holdings Ltd was designated under the Global Human Rights Sanctions Regulations on 25 March 2021. The Regulations impose financial sanctions through a targeted asset freeze on designated persons. This involves the freezing of funds and economic resources (non-monetary assets, such as property or vehicles) of designated persons and ensuring that funds and economic resources are not made available to or for the benefit of designated persons, either directly or indirectly. The asset freeze prohibits the payment of insurance premiums in the absence of a licence from the Office of Financial Sanctions Implementation (OFSI).
Asked by: Stephen Kinnock (Labour - Aberavon)
Question to the HM Treasury:
To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, what assessment he has made of the potential merits of changing the Coronavirus Jobs Retention Scheme to help industries such as the steel industry that are experiencing a shortage of skilled workers to reduce the hours of their employees in preference to furlough.
Answered by Jesse Norman
The Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme is designed to help those who otherwise would have been made unemployed and provide support to businesses as quickly as possible. Allowing employers to move staff to part-time and claim the difference would have involved delay and substantially increased the risk of fraud. It is also inconsistent with public health guidance for people to stay at home. However, there is flexibility in the scheme as employers can decide how many staff to furlough, and staff can be furloughed multiple times while the scheme is in operation, provided they are furloughed for a minimum of 3 weeks.
Asked by: Stephen Kinnock (Labour - Aberavon)
Question to the HM Treasury:
To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, what assessment he has made of the potential merits to industries such as the steel industry which are experiencing shortages of skilled workers of amending the Coronavirus Jobs Retention Scheme to enable employers to furlough employees for shorter periods of time.
Answered by Jesse Norman
To be eligible for the Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme, firms must have created and started a PAYE payroll scheme on or before 19 March 2020, enrolled for PAYE online and have a UK bank account. Once on furlough, employees cannot work for their employer but they can undertake training or volunteer subject to public health guidance, so long as they are not making money for their employer or any organisation linked or associated with their association, or providing services to their employer or any organisation linked or associated with their association.
The arrangement between workers and their employers remains subject to negotiation. To be eligible for the scheme, each employee must be furloughed for a minimum of three weeks at a time. This is consistent with public health guidance seeking to minimise the number of people outside their homes on a regular basis. There is no restriction on the number of times an individual could be furloughed or the maximum period, other than the life of the scheme.
Employers may also be able to benefit from other schemes and measures such as the VAT deferral and the Coronavirus Large Business Interruption Loan Scheme. Further details can be found online at: https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/financial-support-for-businesses-during-coronavirus-covid-19
Asked by: Stephen Kinnock (Labour - Aberavon)
Question to the HM Treasury:
To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, what assessment he has made of the potential merits of (a) removing or (b) lowering the credit rating eligibility threshold for the Covid Corporate Financing Facility to enable larger corporates without the requisite credit rating to gain access to that scheme.
Answered by Steve Barclay - Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
The facility is open to firms that can demonstrate they were in sound financial health prior to the shock, allowing the Government to look through temporary impacts on firms’ balance sheets and cash flows from the shock itself. If a firm believes it is the equivalent of investment grade, there are now two ways in which a firm can demonstrate this in order to be eligible for the CCFF:
• The company should speak to their bank, and if their bank’s advice is that the firm was viewed internally as investment grade as of 1st March, they should contact the Bank of England (CCFFeligibleissuers@bankofengland.co.uk). The BoE will then draw on a range of information, including banks’ internal ratings of a firm, to check whether the firm is equivalent to investment grade.
• The company or their bank can speak to the major credit ratings agencies to secure an assessment of credit quality in a form that can be shared with the BoE and HMT. Credit ratings agencies have been primed to process these assessments much more quickly than they normally take.
The CCFF is just one of a number of schemes; and the government has also launched the CBILS and CLBILs schemes, as well as making VAT deferral available, and protecting commercial leaseholders against automatic forfeiture for non-payment. Together the CBILS, CLBILS and CCFF ensure almost all viable UK businesses can apply for a government backed loan.
Asked by: Stephen Kinnock (Labour - Aberavon)
Question to the HM Treasury:
To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, whether the Government plans to extend the Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme to workers who will be put on short-time working arrangements.
Answered by Jesse Norman
The Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme is not designed to subsidise part-time work but to support individuals who would otherwise have been made redundant. The minimum amount of time an employee can be furloughed for is three weeks, but the employer can decide on how many employees to furlough and can furlough them multiple times while the scheme is in operation.
Asked by: Stephen Kinnock (Labour - Aberavon)
Question to the HM Treasury:
To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, whether employees eligible for the Coronavirus Jobs Retention Scheme will also qualify for additional state benefit support.
Answered by Jesse Norman
The Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme announced in March will help firms keep millions of people in employment. Universal Credit is designed to adjust as income changes. Individuals who are furloughed will continue to be paid by their company. If their wages fall, this will be taken into account by the Universal Credit system. Under the Job Retention Scheme, employers will be required to pay employees at least 80% of their wages, up to £2,500 per month. Employers can top this up but they are not required to do so.