Taylor Review: Working Practices 12.37 pm The Parliamentary
Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial
Strategy (Margot James) With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like
to make a statement about the independent review of modern...Request free trial
-
With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a
statement about the independent review of modern
working practices which was led by and
published earlier today.
The review sets out that British business is
successful at creating jobs, enhancing earning
power, and improving life chances across the UK.
Employment rates are the highest since records
began. Unemployment and economic inactivity are at
record lows. More people are in work than ever
before, and minimum wage rates have never been
higher. This is a story of success that this
Government will seek to sustain.
The UK economy’s continued success is built on the
flexibility of our labour market, which benefits
both workers and business. Businesses can create
jobs and individuals can find work because our
labour market regulation balances the demands of
both. Minimum standards set a baseline beyond which
there is flexibility to set arrangements to suit
all parties. Our dynamic approach responds well to
fluctuations in the economic cycle, without the
structural weaknesses present in some other
countries. It is important that we preserve this
success but also enhance it further. While the
majority of people employed in the UK are in
full-time, permanent employment, globalisation,
demographics and especially technology are changing
the way in which we work. We need to make sure the
British labour market stays strong and everyone in
the UK benefits from it.
That is why last year the Prime Minister asked
, chief
executive of the Royal Society of Arts, to lead an
independent review into employment practices in the
modern economy. That review has now been published,
and I am delighted to lay a copy in the House
Library today. It is a thorough and detailed piece
of work for which I am very grateful, not only to
Matthew and his panel members but to the numerous
businesses, trade unions, organisations and
individuals who have provided their views on this
very important topic.
The review has a strong, overarching ambition that
all work in the UK should be fair and decent, with
realistic scope for fulfilment and progression.
Matthew has outlined seven principles to meeting
that ambition. I urge hon. Members to examine those
principles and the rest of the report in detail,
since it is an important contribution to a crucial
subject.
In summary, those principles are that our national
strategy for work should be explicitly directed
towards the goal of good work for all; that
platform-based working offers welcome opportunities
for genuine flexibility, but there should be
greater distinction between workers—or, as the
review suggests renaming them, “dependent
contractors”—and those who are fully self-employed;
that there should be additional protections for
that group and stronger incentives for firms to
treat them fairly; that the best way to achieve
better work is through good corporate governance,
good management and strong employment relations;
that it is vital that individuals have
realistically attainable ways to strengthen their
future work prospects; that there should be a more
proactive approach to workplace health; and that
the national living wage is a powerful tool to
raise the financial baseline of low-paid workers,
but it needs to be accompanied by sectoral
strategies, engaging employers, employees and
stakeholders to raise prospects further.
This is an independent review addressed to
Government. Although we may not ultimately accept
every recommendation in full, I am determined that
we consider the report very carefully and we will
respond fully by the end of the year.
has been
clear: the UK labour market is a success—the
“British way” works. He has also said, however,
that there are instances where it is not working
fairly for everyone. For example, he highlights
where our legislation needs updating or where
flexibility seems to work only one way, to the
benefit of the employer. We recognise the points
made. We accept that as a country we now need to
focus as much on the quality of the working
experience, especially for those in lower-paid
roles, as on the number of jobs we create, vital
though that is.
This Government have made a commitment to upholding
workers’ rights. The Prime Minister has said
repeatedly, in this House and elsewhere, that as we
leave the EU there will be no roll-back of
employment protections. The Queen’s Speech also set
out that this Government will go further than that
and seek to enhance rights and protections in the
modern workplace. Today’s publication of the “Good
Work” review, and the public consideration of
Matthew’s recommendations that will follow, will
help to inform the development of our industrial
strategy this autumn. I commend this statement to
the House.
-
When the Prime Minister took office last year, she
stood on the steps of Downing Street stating that
she was on the side of working people. Despite that
rhetoric, the Conservatives have been in government
for seven years and in that time have done very
little for working people. They have presided over
a lost decade of productivity growth. They have
implemented the pernicious Trade Union Act 2016,
which is, frankly, an ideological attack on the
trade union movement, curbing its ability to fight
for and represent workers’ interests. They have
inflicted hardship on public sector workers with a
pay cap that was confirmed for yet another year by
the Department for Education yesterday. They
promised workers on boards, but rowed back scared
when powerful interests said that they were not
particularly keen on the idea. And they have
introduced employment tribunal fees, which have
made it much harder for workers to enforce their
rights.
Today’s publication of the Taylor review was a real
opportunity to overhaul the existing employment
system in a way that would protect workers in a
rapidly changing world of work. But, in the words
of the general secretary of Unite, the biggest
union in the UK:
“Instead of the serious programme the country
urgently needs to ensure that once again work pays
in this country…we got a depressing sense that
insecurity is the inevitable new norm.”
Indeed, the Minister confirmed that she might not
even accept all the proposals in the Taylor report,
in any event.
Although the report is positive in sentiment in
many areas, it misses many opportunities to clamp
down on exploitation in the workplace. I do not
have time to cover them all today, but I have
specific concerns that the report may allow the
Government to interpret references to the so-called
dependent contractor in such a way as to allow them
to row back on recent court victories for workers
such as Uber drivers and those who work for Pimlico
Plumbers.
Recent case law has suggested that a worker on a
platform should be entitled to the minimum wage as
long as the app is switched on and they are ready
and willing to accept trips. However, the review
suggests that the platform may insist on payment by
piece rate, such that only an average driver,
working averagely hard, will earn 1.2 times the
minimum wage. That raises issues of enforcement and
regulation—what constitutes a reasonable piece rate
across platforms?—and it is something of a retreat
from the common law position. Will the Minister
confirm that the Government will not undermine
workers’ rights on the minimum wage in that way?
Founder of Pimlico Plumbers and Conservative donor
Charlie Mullins said this morning that the report
holds Pimlico Plumbers up as an example of
“best practice in the gig economy.”
This is a company that our judicial system has
found to be an example of worst practice.
The report does very little to strengthen the
enforcement of workers’ existing rights. Although
Taylor agrees with Labour’s position on shifting
the burden of proof to employers in determining
self-employed status, the report does little else
in that area, and it needs much more work. There
is, for example, no movement at all on employment
tribunal fees, which are a barrier to justice for
many workers.
If the Prime Minister wanted ideas on strengthening
workers’ rights, she could just have come to us.
Just four of our manifesto commitments would go a
long way to ending the scourge of exploitation in
the gig economy: giving all workers equal rights
from day one; strengthening the enforcement of
those rights by beefing up and better resourcing
Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, rather than
imposing pernicious cuts, and by allowing trade
unions access to every workplace; abolishing
employment tribunal fees; and fining employers who
breach labour market rights and regulations.
In the spirit of the so-called collaboration that
the Prime Minister is so desperately seeking, will
the Minister commit today to implementing those
four simple measures, as a start? If not, will she
accept that the Conservative party is not, and
never will be, on the side of working people?
-
I am glad that the hon. Lady found some positive
aspects in the report on which to compliment
. I
appreciate that she will not have had time to read
it all yet, but I urge her to do so. It contains
many recommendations that will be of benefit to
workers and are worthy of the greater consideration
that the Government will give them.
I will not comment on each of the recommendations
that the hon. Lady raised, because they are
’s
suggestions and, as I have said, they will be given
due consideration. She criticised the Government’s
record, so I would like to remind her that this
Government have introduced the national living wage
and presided over the minimum wage reaching its
highest rate, in real terms, since its
introduction. The wage increases in the last year
have been highest among the lowest paid, thanks to
the national living wage. We have nearly doubled
the budget for the enforcement of the national
living wage. We have doubled fines for companies
that underpay their employees. We have banned the
use of exclusivity clauses in zero-hours contracts.
We have done all that against the backdrop of
protecting the growth in employment, which is, at
almost 75%, at its highest level since records
began.
Our record is one of achievement. The hon. Lady
criticises us for enacting the Trade Union Act
2016, but most reasonable people would not
criticise the idea that workers who are members of
trade unions should have a proper say when their
union decides to take strike action. That is the
primary purpose of the legislation.
It is not all a garden of roses, otherwise the
Prime Minister would not have requested to
undertake the report. The Prime Minister said, when
she announced ’s
investigation, that flexibility and innovation are
vital parts of what make our economy strong, but it
is essential that those virtues are combined with
the right support and protections for workers. The
Taylor review came to understand that flexibility
does work for many people, and it is clear that an
agile labour market is good for protecting
employment.
-
Does my hon. Friend agree that productivity is at
the heart of boosting wages for lower-paid workers?
There are some really good examples of employers,
working with the Living Wage Foundation and others,
who have managed to boost the pay of lower-skilled
workers by focusing on productivity, and that
should be at the heart of this issue.
-
I wholeheartedly agree with my hon. Friend.
Productivity is central to our industrial strategy.
We have established a £23 billion fund to promote
quality jobs, better skills and the higher pay that
is, as he says, so important.
-
I refer to my entry in the Register of Members’
Financial Interests and my trade union activity
over the 20 years before my election.
Today’s response to the Taylor review from the
Government tells us everything we need to know
about their frailty and approach to workers’
rights—a weak set of proposals that probably will
not be implemented and a set of talking points that
leaves the balance of power with employers and big
business. It was interesting that neither the Prime
Minister nor the Minister mentioned or commended
the role of the trade unions in securing fair
rights at work. Does the Minister agree that a
“right to request” is different to a fundamental
right enshrined in law? If a request is refused,
what enforcement action will the Government take to
force employers to do better?
Does the Minister accept that the report makes no
distinction between a flexible workforce and the
exploitation of that workforce? Does she also agree
that while the Taylor report tries to propose new
rights, some of those rights have been secured by
trade unions taking employers to court, as the
shadow Minister suggested? Can the Minister tell us
what action the Government will take to enforce
minimum wage payments when 200,000 workers in the
UK are not paid the minimum wage? Will the
Government advertise rights at work services, such
as the Equality and Human Rights Commission, and
does the Minister agree that it is time for a fair
rights at work Act to guarantee fundamental rights
at work?
-
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his critique. The
“right to request” has been useful and valuable
when it comes to requesting flexible employment. In
any case, it is a recommendation that Matthew made,
but it certainly warrants careful consideration.
The hon. Gentleman mentions enforcement, and we are
committed to making sure that workers on zero-hours
contracts or the minimum wage get paid what they
are legally entitled to be paid. That is why we
have doubled the resources available to HMRC in the
last two years to ensure enforcement of those
important laws.
-
I welcome ’s report
today and commend the Minister on her statement,
especially on tackling maternity and pregnancy
discrimination, which the report says has doubled
in the last decade and needs more action. Will the
Minister outline what provisions in the report
address the issues raised by the Women and
Equalities Committee about workers’ lack of rights
to access antenatal care during the working day,
which the Minister—in her response to the
Committee’s report—indicated would be addressed
through the Taylor report?
-
I commend my right hon. Friend on the work that the
Committee, which she chaired, has done to tackle
the issue of outrageous discrimination against
pregnant women. It has no place in the modern
workplace. There are provisions in the Taylor
report, but work is ongoing across Government to
improve the opportunities for pregnant women in the
workplace to ensure that we make history of such
discrimination.
-
As someone who lobbied the Prime Minister with
reports on the gig economy to establish such an
inquiry, may I thank the Minister for her statement
today? May I tease from her a little more about the
Government’s position on the trade-off between
minimum standards at the vulnerable end of the
labour market and flexibility? If the news reports
are right, goes for
flexibility rather than always implementing the
national minimum wage. May we have an undertaking
from the Government that they will always abide by
the national minimum wage, even if that means a
loss in flexibility?
-
I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on all the
work he did on these matters in chairing the Work
and Pensions Committee in the last Parliament. I
can assure him that minimum wages rates are
sacrosanct. There will be no trade-off when it
comes to ensuring that everybody is paid at least
the minimum wage. When he reads the report, he will
be more encouraged. Many of the people who attended
the Taylor review’s evidence sessions said that
they liked the flexibility of working atypically
and that we should not lose that, but that
flexibility should not be a one-way street with
individuals absorbing all the risk. Although we
will consider the recommendations further, I assure
the right hon. Gentleman that I very much agree
with those sentiments.
-
Does the Minister welcome the fact that the review
established that the majority of employers follow
good practice, and agree that our focus should be
on those who do not to ensure that we level the
playing field for all employers, all employees and
all businesses?
-
I agree strongly with my hon. Friend. Employers who
choose to break the rules—they are a small
minority, but they exist—must expect consequences
for their actions. The vast majority of businesses
behave properly towards their employees, and they
must not find themselves at the wrong end of an
uneven playing field.
-
I declare an interest having done some work with
the Chartered Institute of Personnel and
Development during my time outwith the House.
I welcome the Prime Minister saying that there will
be no roll-back of workers’ rights, but let me just
say that those words are rather a departure from my
experience of the Conservative position when I was
Liberal Democrat Minister for employment relations
in the coalition. I know that the Minister is
genuine on this important issue, and it is a
thoughtful report of more than 150 pages. As she
prepares the Government’s response to the report,
will she commit to consulting widely across the
House through debates and speaking to the Select
Committees on Business, Energy and Industrial
Strategy, on Work and Pensions, and on Women and
Equalities, to get the right response?
-
I thank the hon. Lady for her comments and commend
her on her role in the coalition Government. I am
glad that she acknowledges that the Government have
moved forward in their appreciation of the
difficulties faced by certain workers in the areas
on which has
focused. I can give her every assurance that we
will indeed consult widely not only with industry,
trade unions and members of the public, but across
the House.
-
I welcome the report. At this early stage, can my
hon. Friend give any indication as to what enhanced
opportunities may be created for people with
disabilities who are in the world of work or trying
to enter it? They are a very important part of our
constituency.
-
I thank my hon. Friend for that important point.
The Department for Work and Pensions is undertaking
various measures to improve the chances of people
with disabilities accessing the workplace, and my
Department is giving all the support it can to that
inquiry.
-
said
today that he wants employers to pay national
insurance for people with whom they have a
controlling and supervisory relationship. Do the
Government plan to implement that aspect of the
Taylor review, and can the Minister reassure
workers that the Government do not plan to U-turn
on their U-turn and increase national insurance for
the genuinely self-employed?
-
I can assure the hon. Lady that, as the First
Secretary of State said earlier this week,
Parliament has spoken on the issue of national
insurance class 4 contributions. That matter is now
settled, and will not be revisited. I agree with
her that we should pay close attention to ensure
that people who are genuinely contracted to provide
an ongoing service are given the protections that
workers enjoy, and are not falsely labelled as
self-employed.
-
On a similar point, will my hon. Friend confirm
that there is a real risk that introducing the term
“dependent contractors” will fudge the issue of
whether someone is really employed or
self-employed? Should we not focus on ensuring that
the line is drawn in the right place and that those
who engage so-called dependent contractors are
paying employers’ national insurance, so that our
own tax regime does not distort the market?
-
We will certainly consult carefully on those
points. We will make sure not only that the
Treasury is satisfied in respect of tax issues, but
that we are satisfied that people are getting their
rights if they are employees or workers—or, as
is
proposing to rename them, dependent contractors.
-
The Minister has welcomed the report. Is she in a
position to accept any of its specific
recommendations today? Can she tell us when there
will be legislation to implement at least something
in it, or is this all going to be batted off into
the long grass?
-
As I said earlier, we will look at and consult on
every single recommendation, but at this very early
stage it is not really for me to say which I am
personally inclined to recommend accepting and
which I am not. I hope that the right hon.
Gentleman will bear with us. Over the next six
months—well, I said by the year end; it might be a
little longer than six months—we will consult
widely across the House, and the right hon.
Gentleman will have every opportunity to make his
views known.
-
I spent 45 years in the gig economy, and what I
liked about it was that it was very flexible. In
order to build a career, I found myself delivering
bacon across north London from Smithfield market. I
also became a removal man, among many other things.
Does my hon. Friend agree that it is welcome that
the report supports a flexible labour market, and
is not in favour of restricting that flexibility
when individuals want it?
-
I think my hon. Friend has read the summary of
’s report
very carefully because he understands that balance.
He does not want us to end the flexibilities that
have helped him in his career and close them off
for people who are starting out on their careers
now. As I have said, however, we must of course
ensure that protections are in place.
-
It is not just my constituents who are part of the
gig economy who do not have security. Many of my
constituents have jobs in which they work 15 hours
a week. They are pleased and proud to be working,
but when they want full-time employment, they
instead see more people in the same organisations
being given part-time hours. When will the
Government get to grips with that element of the
economy, and ensure that all those workers have a
fair deal and the chance to work the full-time
hours that they want so much?
-
The whole basis of the report is good work and the
aspiration of good work for all, including, I
believe, the constituents to whom the hon. Lady
refers, but let me reassure her. Two years ago, the
Office for National Statistics labour force survey
found that nearly 70% of people on zero-hours
contracts were content with the hours that they
were working. However, that does mean that a third
want more hours, which is a finding that we must
embrace in the context of some of the changes that
is
recommending to help to achieve the good work and
the working hours that the hon. Lady’s constituents
want.
-
I, too, welcome the report. Does my hon. Friend
agree that flexibility in the labour market
benefits workers and employers equally?
-
My hon. Friend asks me a difficult question. I do
believe—’s report
bears this out—that flexibility benefits employers
and employees, but I am afraid that the evidence
given to the inquiry suggested that in too many
cases that flexibility is a one-way street, as I
said earlier. We must deal with the problem of
people who are really at risk and whose employment
position is far too insecure.
-
I welcome the Minister’s commitment to the
Government’s upholding of workers’ rights, but I
wonder whether, as part of the Government’s
response to the report, she will consider enabling
workers to uphold their own rights. Will she look
again at the fees for employment tribunals, which
have led to a 70% reduction in cases brought by
single claimants, such as those working in the gig
economy, against their employers?
-
The hon. Lady makes an important point, but it is
really a matter for the Ministry of Justice.
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 has raised.
-
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?
-
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.
-
The gig economy brings insecure work. Insecure work
demands new rights, but those rights will be
worthless unless the Government are prepared to put
more resources into enforcement, regulation and
inspection. Will the Minister commit herself to
providing those additional resources when
implementing the Taylor review?
-
I very much agree with the right hon. Gentleman
that enforcement is crucial. As I said, we have
doubled the resources available to HMRC for
enforcing the minimum wage and they will continue
to rise throughout this Parliament. We have also
strengthened the powers of the Gangmasters and
Labour Abuse Authority, and the recently appointed
director of labour market enforcement has been
tasked with bringing the work of the three major
enforcement bodies together to understand the
extent of the abuse and to recommend ways of giving
those agencies the resources that will enable them
to deal with it. I hope that the right hon.
Gentleman will be pleased with the outcome, in due
course.
-
I welcome the report and my hon. Friend’s
statement. Does she agree that not only is it
absolutely right for us to ensure that workers are
treated fairly, but it is good for businesses too,
because they will have a more engaged and therefore
more productive workforce?
-
I heartily agree. This is all about improving work
so that we have good work, with people who are able
to grow in their careers, and a system in which
those who are low-paid to start with need not be
low-paid forever but can aspire to a better future.
That will benefit British productivity and, as my
hon. Friend suggests, improve the competitiveness
of British companies.
-
Vital protection for all workers is provided by
trade union membership and also by trade union
recognition. Since my time at the TUC more than 40
years ago, trade union membership in Britain has
halved, while workers’ and trade union rights have
been undermined by Tory legislation. When will the
Government reverse that legislation?
-
The Government cannot mandate people to join trade
unions. Trade unions are still an important force
for the protection of workers’ rights among the
sectors of the economy in which they are still
dominant, and I commend them for their work.
-
If one talks to drivers for Uber or cleaners using
platforms such as Hassle, they will largely
acknowledge the benefits of flexibility to them. To
coin a phrase, would it not be morally unacceptable
to misread the 21st-century labour market and
construct a set of rules that forced those people
out of work, rather than allowing them to stay in
it?
-
My hon. Friend will no doubt be pleased that
very much
agrees with his thesis.
-
Over 1 million workers are being exploited by sham
umbrella companies and bogus self-employment.
Changes to tax policy are what is needed to tackle
that, but the Government prohibited from
making any firm recommendations on changing tax
policy, so how seriously can we take the Minister’s
comments today, and when on earth are the
Government going to eventually address these tax
anomalies?
-
I assure the hon. Lady that no bar was put in front
of ; he was
able to investigate as freely and as fairly as he
saw fit. It is up to the Treasury to assess the tax
situation and any potential loss of revenue, which
of course arises due to bogus self-employment.
-
To contrast the previous question, will my hon.
Friend join me in recognising one of the key
findings of the review: thanks to the Government’s
tax policies, once tax levels and tax credits are
taken into account, average take-home pay for
families with at least one member in full-time
employment is higher in the UK than in any other G7
country?
-
I commend my hon. Friend for bringing that
important fact to the notice of the House.
-
I am pleased to hear the Minister promoting this
Marxist revolution that we are now living through,
as the means of production are increasingly in the
hands of the workers. Further to what she has just
said, does she agree that the answer to some of the
challenges is not just better regulations, but
helping people to organise? If so, will she meet
me, the Community trade union, the co-op movement
and Indycube to discuss our work helping the
self-employed to organise and unionise?
-
I am aware of the independent union of
self-employed workers; it has been a force and has
contributed to the inquiry. However, I will be only
too pleased to meet the hon. Lady and her Community
organisers as part of my consultation.
-
There is a marked difference between people who set
up a business and take risks, including the risk of
self-employment, and a few unscrupulous employers
who force workers to go self-employed. In response
to this excellent report, what will my hon. Friend
do to ensure that people who are genuinely
self-employed continue to receive benefits, but the
unscrupulous employers do not?
-
My hon. Friend makes a good point. We do not want
to stand in the way of the incentives for people
who genuinely take a risk by starting a business.
They are the majority, and we do not want to do
anything that upsets that balance. At the same
time, as my hon. Friend will realise, we need to
end the scourge of fake self-employment.
-
Disappointingly, the report does not go far enough
on the issue of zero-hours contracts. The Labour
Welsh Government have failed to support the
prohibition of zero-hours contracts in devolved
areas on seven occasions. Is it not the case that
vulnerable workers in Wales are being let down by
both the Tories and the Labour party?
-
As I have said, many individuals want to work in
the flexible way that is afforded by zero-hours
contracts, and almost 70% of people on those
contracts are happy with their hours. As I have
also said, we must take steps to promote the value
of good work as an opportunity for the third who
are not, whether they are in Wales or the rest of
the United Kingdom.
-
The Minister tells us that 20% of such people are
students and that 70% are satisfied. Can she
complete the hat-trick by telling us what the mean
weekly earnings for someone on a zero-hours
contract actually are?
-
I am afraid I will have to write to my right hon.
Friend with that answer.
-
Put a copy in the Library; I am sure it will be of
educational value to all of us.
-
writes in
his report:
“We must equip our children and young people to
enter the labour market successfully, but
Government, employers and individuals also need to
make sure everyone is best placed to thrive
throughout what might be a working life spanning 50
years or more.”
How do the Government square that with the previous
Prime Minister’s policy of stopping compulsory work
experience in schools, which in its first year led
to a drop of 60,000 work experience placements in
our schools across the country? Will she look at
that again?
-
That is a matter for the Department for Education.
I agree that work experience is very important to
young people and I am sure the Secretary of State
will look favourably on that. My Department is
looking to boost opportunities for lifelong
learning to engender a culture in which people can
progress in their careers.
-
Before I became a Member of Parliament, I was
self-employed for almost 30 years. I was also the
self-employment ambassador to the previous Prime
Minister, , and I
worked with on this
report. I found him to be extremely non-partisan
and an absolute gentleman. May I urge my hon.
Friend to accept the proposed measures for the
self-employed, especially the maternity and
paternity benefits?
-
I will certainly take on board my hon. Friend’s
views, which are based on many years’ experience. I
thank him for his contribution to the report.
-
We have flexibility in the labour market on one
side of the coin, but insecurity for people in
employment on the other. There has been criticism,
for instance from Unite the union this morning,
that insecurity is to be the new norm, and we want
to avoid that. Will the Minister think about
reversing the coalition’s decision to extend from
one year to two the protection of employment
threshold?
-
I do not accept the premise that insecurity is the
new norm. One of the purposes of this report was to
look closely at the extent of insecurity and to
produce recommendations on how that might be
mitigated when it is not desired by the workers. I
will consider the question that the hon. Gentleman
raises, but it was not addressed in this report.
-
Speaking at the launch this morning, Mr Taylor
suggested that traditional cash-economy workers
such as window cleaners could use an app to collect
money and declare directly to Her Majesty’s Revenue
and Customs, so why does Uber, which has the most
cutting-edge, fully automated app, not seem to
declare the payments it makes to drivers directly
to HMRC or to collect the national insurance
numbers of drivers? Will the Minister strongly
suggest that it does so?
-
The app was one of the most interesting
suggestions. There might be limitations to the apps
currently available, but in no way was
advocating that these should be mandatory. They
should, however, be available in a more
sophisticated form than at present.
-
As the Government look towards this gig economy,
will they consider ’s remarks
that:
“Our welfare system is a cruel mess”?
On universal credit, he said that
“no one outside Government thinks it will make the
system fairer…There is a better way. A universal
basic income…can improve incentives and rewards for
work, increase human freedom and dignity”.
Will the Government consider his conclusions?
-
That matter has not been addressed by the report. I
urge the hon. Gentleman to address his questions to
Work and Pensions Ministers.
-
urges the
Government to consider reducing tribunal fees. May
I urge the Minister to go further, particularly in
relation to pregnancy discrimination? Get on with
abolishing them, and extend the period during which
a case can be brought before a tribunal, because a
period of pregnancy and maternity is a busy time
when people are unlikely to be thinking about a
court case.
-
I agree with the hon. Lady’s concluding remarks and
hope she will input her views as part of the
consultation.
-
The Minister has twice referred to the fact that
flexibility seems to work only one way—to the
benefit of the employer. Does that flexibility
include her Government’s failure to prosecute a
single employer in Wales last year for flouting the
minimum wage rules?
-
To correct the record, I was not saying that
flexibility was always a one-way street in favour
of the employer; I said that this was, in
exceptional cases, a real problem that needs
addressing, but that is not necessarily the norm.
In response to the other matters the hon. Lady has
raised, I urge her to contribute her views as we go
through the consultation.
-
When the Minister is considering how to respond to
the review, will she talk to her colleagues in the
Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport
about the youth full-time social action review,
which is considering the question of long-time
volunteering? I realise that these are slightly
different issues, but there is still a considerable
overlap. The question of safeguards and protections
is the same in some cases, so it seems sensible to
wrap the two together.
-
The hon. Gentleman makes good points about
volunteering and the framework that governs it, and
I hope that he will make them during our
consultation.
-
I want to ask the Minister two quick questions.
First, on the extension of workforce protections,
will that include secondary contractors? For
instance, if one person in a team of three or four
is the main contractor, will dependent contractor
status be extended to other people in the team?
Secondly, while being a dependent contractor might
provide a minor uplift for people who are
self-employed, does the Minister agree that some
employers will see this as an opportunity to
downgrade people with employment protection to the
status of dependent contractor against their will?
-
The hon. Gentleman raises a number of issues. There
is no intention to downgrade anybody’s rights. We
want to be in a position to safeguard people’s
rights and, when possible, improve them—we
certainly do not want to downgrade them. I am sure
that he will put his detailed observations into our
consultation.
-
This Government continue to justify the existence
of zero-hours contracts on the basis of
flexibility, but the problems could largely be
addressed if flexible working could be properly
expanded and given a framework so that we knew
exactly what it meant. Will the Government use this
opportunity to properly expand flexible working and
explain what it actually means?
-
I cannot accept the premise behind the hon.
Gentleman’s question. We are not seeking to end
zero-hours contracts, because too many people want
them and the flexibility associated with them, but
we are seeking to root out abuse where it exists.
-
The Taylor review recommends that the Government
should make it easier for people in flexible
arrangements to take their holiday entitlement. In
the past, the Minister has struggled to explain the
Government’s powers in this area. Will she tell us
what powers currently exist to enforce the payment
of holiday pay and, with the summer fast
approaching, will she act on the Taylor report’s
recommendations swiftly?
-
I can reassure the hon. Lady that has
recommended that we take the issue of holiday pay
seriously and ensure that it applies to all workers
who are entitled to it. The Treasury will be taking
forward those suggestions.
-
The Minister is right to say that the transfer of
risk is at the heart of the problem. Drivers at AO
World in my constituency are classified as
self-employed but treated as employees without
rights. Is there anything in the Taylor report that
would end the practice of fining drivers every time
there is an accident?
-
Perhaps the hon. Lady would like to write to me
with more details because this is the first time I
have heard of that particular practice. It
certainly sounds wrong, and I would be delighted to
consider it further within the powers that
currently exist.
-
Page 11 of Mr Taylor’s report says:
“we have to examine why, with employment levels at
record highs, a significant number of people living
in poverty are in work.”
For as long as I have been here, when Members have
asked questions about poverty, it has been the
Government’s practice to respond with statistics
about employment and unemployment. Will they now
finally accept that such a thing as in-work poverty
not only exists, but is a brutal fact of life for
millions of people on these islands?
-
We have always been absolutely committed to
reducing poverty, wherever it exists. The national
living wage has gone a long way towards providing
workers with a framework so that they need not sink
into poverty, and I urge the hon. Gentleman to
consider that fact further.
-
As someone who has done a few gigs in his time, may
I urge the Minister to reject the execrable
think-tankery jargon of the term “dependent
contractor”? Work is work, and workers are workers.
“Dependent contractors of the world unite; you have
nothing to lose but your chains,” is not going to
change anything.
-
Order. For those new Members of the House who are not
aware of the musical distinction of the hon. Member
for Cardiff West (Kevin Brennan), I can inform them
that he is an illustrious member of the parliamentary
rock band, MP4. If colleagues have not yet heard the
band, they have not fully lived. I hope that they
will hear the band in due course, preferably in
Speaker’s House, where it has played before and will
play again.
-
The hon. Gentleman refers to the term “dependent
contractor”. This recommendation was designed to
improve clarity and to increase the chances of
workers getting the rights to which they are
entitled, but it is just that: a recommendation. He
is free to lobby against our acceptance of it during
the course of our consultation.
-
I welcome the report’s acknowledgement that
employment tribunal fees are a barrier to justice.
The recommendation of fee-free tribunals to establish
employment status is positive, but what can be done
to ensure the quality of representation at the
tribunals? What protection will there be to prevent
the detrimental treatment of someone bringing a
claim? Is it also the case that, once someone’s
status has been determined, a fee will still have to
be paid?
-
One of ’s
recommendations is that before an employee takes a
case to an employment tribunal, they should receive
firm advice on what their status is in reality. That
would end a huge amount of uncertainty and
unnecessary expense. We will consider that and all
the other recommendations in this excellent report,
which I commend to the House. I found much of it
inspiring, and I hope that we can all work together
to improve the quality of work in this country, as
well as the number of jobs.
|