Delegated Legislation Committee
Information Commissioner (Remuneration)
The Committee consisted of the following Members:
Chair: Sir Henry Bellingham
† Brennan, Kevin (Cardiff West) (Lab)
† Burghart, Alex (Brentwood and Ongar) (Con)
Coaker, Vernon (Gedling) (Lab)
† Cooper, Rosie (West Lancashire) (Lab)
† Davies, Chris (Brecon and Radnorshire) (Con)
† Dunne, Mr Philip (Ludlow) (Con)
† Ellman, Mrs Louise (Liverpool, Riverside) (Lab/Co-op)
† Elmore, Chris (Ogmore) (Lab)
† Freer, Mike (Finchley and Golders Green) (Con)
† Huddleston, Nigel (Mid Worcestershire) (Con)
† James, Margot (Minister of State, Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport)
† Lefroy, Jeremy (Stafford) (Con)
† O'Brien, Neil (Harborough) (Con)
† Reeves, Ellie (Lewisham West and Penge) (Lab)
† Sheppard, Tommy (Edinburgh East) (SNP)
Smeeth, Ruth (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Lab)
† Wragg, Mr William (Hazel Grove) (Con)
Robert Cope, Committee Clerk
† attended the Committee
Fourth Delegated Legislation Committee
Wednesday 14 March 2018
[Sir Henry Bellingham in the Chair]
Information Commissioner (Remuneration)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the motion, That, from 1 April 2018—
(1) the Information Commissioner shall be paid a salary of £160,000 per annum and pension benefits in accordance with the standard award for the civil service pension scheme;
(2) this salary shall be increased by 1% each year on 1 April;
(3) the Information Commissioner in post on 1 April 2018 shall also be paid, as part of their salary, a non-consolidated, non-pensionable annual allowance of £20,000 for the duration of the single-term appointment; and
(4) all previous resolutions relating to the salary and pension of the Information Commissioner shall cease to have effect.
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship for the first time, Sir Henry. The Information Commissioner, as data protection registrar, was first introduced in 1984. The current structure of the role arises from three key pieces of legislation: the Data Protection Act 1984, the Data Protection Act 1998 and the Freedom of Information Act 2000. It also arises from duties in relation to the Privacy and Electronic Communications (EC Directive) Regulations 2003.
Since its introduction, the role has demanded great independence and integrity, not least in the important function of holding the Government to account, combined with an ability to make difficult and finely balanced judgments. That is particularly the case now, when data is at the forefront of the political agenda domestically—with the Data Protection Bill in Parliament—and internationally. As the Prime Minister highlighted in her recent Mansion House speech, the UK’s exceptionally high standard of data protection is one of the foundations that will underpin our post-Brexit trading relationship with the European Union.
It is crucial, therefore, that we can attract and retain world-class individuals, such as the current commissioner, who bring to the role the skills and experience that enable them to navigate the delicate balance of protecting the rights of the individual while enabling growth and innovation at an important time for our economy. They must also be able to represent the UK effectively in the international arena.
The Government have carefully considered the commissioner’s salary in the light of changes to the role and its responsibilities since it was last reviewed in 2008. The proposed increase is justified for the following reasons. First, the changing data protection landscape has vastly increased the Information Commissioner’s responsibilities and the challenges she faces. The digital revolution has turned data into the new oil and has enabled a constant stream of technological innovations that support growth to bring benefits to society.
The Minister has rightly pointed out that it is a bit of an oddity that the salary has not been uprated annually and has been frozen for some years. Does she have the figure for what the salary would be now, had it been uprated in line with other public sector pay?
I do not have that information for the hon. Gentleman. If it is available or can be worked out, I will write to him and provide it.
Data protection laws and the role played by the Information Commissioner are critical to retaining the right balance between innovation and privacy. The changing commercial and technological landscape brings new challenges to the Information Commissioner and her office on an almost daily basis. For that reason, we are modernising our data protection laws and providing new and stronger powers for the commissioner. Those changes are necessary, but they expand the remit of the commissioner’s role significantly, with new responsibilities, including an age-appropriate design code, and new requirements, such as supervising data protection impact assessments and breach notifications. It is important to ensure that the remuneration for the role reflects the increased importance, challenges and responsibilities.
Secondly, the salary has fallen below the market average for comparable roles. As data protection becomes an increasingly important concern for organisations, recruitment for well-qualified staff has become increasingly competitive. We must be able to compete for the best talent for such a critical role in our economy. The regulator must be able to keep up with the organisations it regulates, some of which—Google and Facebook, for example—have seemingly limitless reserves.
Third, it is of vital importance to Britain’s place in the world that the Information Commissioner’s Office benefits from the best possible leadership for the foreseeable future. As the Prime Minister made clear in her speech, we see the UK and the Information Commissioner continuing to play a role in data protection issues with the European Union. This will be possible only if the commissioner’s role is appropriately rewarded in order to continue to attract individuals who will have an impact on the world stage.
The commissioner’s role in relation to freedom of information remains of key importance. The number of FOI requests received by all monitored bodies increased from just under 35,000 in 2008 to more than 45,000 in 2016. Again, the burden of casework for which the commissioner is responsible has also increased significantly, from 2,646 cases received in 2008, to 5,433 received in 2017.
I would also like to mention the commissioner’s increasing role in the regulation of the privacy and electronic communications regulations. In particular, the ICO continues to tackle nuisance telephone calls and texts, which, as hon. Members will know, can cause a great deal of distress. The commissioner took on responsibility for the telephone preference service last year. In the same year, the commissioner issued 23 companies with over £1.9 million of fines for nuisance marketing.
The incumbent commissioner, Elizabeth Denham, brings a high level of expertise to the role. Ms Denham previously held the position of Information and Privacy Commissioner for British Columbia and Assistant Privacy Commissioner of Canada. To date she has steered the ICO through a number of important issues, such as several landmark enforcement cases, representing the UK in collaborative work with EU colleagues on the implementation of general data protection regulation and a period of rapid expansion.
It is in recognition of her unique mix of skills and the current heightened complexity of the role that the motion also includes a £20,000 per annum allowance for the current incumbent. In previous debates on the matter, hon. Members have highlighted the undesirability of fixing for many years a salary for a senior public official and then having to compensate for this with a relatively large increase. To that end, we have also included an annual 1% increase to help the commissioner’s salary keep pace with the salaries of comparable roles.
In summary, we believe that the increase in the commissioner’s salary appropriately reflects the importance of the role and their achievements to date in growing the ICO and supporting data controllers across the country to prepare for the new data protection framework. In the context of the expanding remit of the ICO, Ms Denham’s record of outstanding leadership is vital to maintaining the UK’s reputation as a global leader in data protection. I would like to take this opportunity to thank her for the excellent work she does.
It is a pleasure to have a knock under your captaincy, Sir Henry, and it is no different this afternoon. This is an interesting proposal. As I understand it, the proposal will bring the Information Commissioner’s remuneration to at least £10,000 more than the Prime Minister’s remuneration. It would be interesting if the Minister, when she sums up at the end of the debate, could explain why the commissioner should be paid more than the Prime Minister, given that in recent years the Government have often used that as a benchmark for the most highly paid in the public sector, including chief executives in local government and so on. I am interested to know whether the Minister has considered that and thought it through.
Earlier I asked the Minister what the commissioner’s pay would have been had it been uprated. It is an odd affair. I agree with her that this is something that comes every few years and the salary is frozen in the meantime. I do not know whether the situation is unique, but it is unusual. She should have that figure—I do not know whether she has received any in-flight refuelling during the course of her speech, but she might be able to tell us more at the end of the debate.
With regard to the reasons for the increase, we need to know how much of it is justifiably related to inflation, the cost of living and so on in the meantime—in other words, what the salary would have been uprated to had it been treated like any other public sector or public service job—and how much of it is related to extra responsibilities. The Minister said that one of the reasons for the extra pay is the extra responsibilities under data protection and that another was because the market for this set of skills, for one reason or another, has become tighter—presumably either supply has dried up or demand has increased—and therefore it is justified to attract a world-class person to the role. Her third reason was really the same as the second: having a world-class person in the role.
The Minister also cited the increased workload in relation to the number of freedom of information requests now received by the Government. I might say that the reason Governments receive more requests is that often they do not give out the information they are asked for in the first place, as they should by law. Most of my requests are turned down at first, and I have to threaten to contact the Information Commissioner before the Government usually cough up what they could have given out after the first request. I will leave that aside, though. It is a fact that they are dealing with more freedom of information requests, whether that is because the thirst for information has become more acute over time or because the Government are turning down more requests, which have to go up to the commissioner.
The Minister also cited new responsibilities on nuisance calls and texts and for the telephone preference service, which I welcome. Actually, I introduced a ten-minute rule Bill for that about 15 years ago, and when I was a consumer Minister we increased the fines for companies that make nuisance calls. I welcome the further progress that has been made since. It would be useful to receive that information from the Minister when she replies, if she has received it in the meantime through the usual inspired route.
The other point I want to make relates to paragraph (3) of the motion, which says that
“the Information Commissioner in post on 1 April 2018 shall also be paid, as part of their salary, a non-consolidated, non-pensionable annual allowance of £20,000 for the duration of the single-term appointment”.
Just to be clear, will the commissioner not be earning £180,000 per annum, rather than £160,000, as a result of the Government’s proposal, albeit with that additional allowance being non-pensionable and for the duration of the single-term appointment? Will she clarify what that is all about? It seems to be an unusual proposal. Why do the Government not simply pay the rate that they say is needed to attract the right person? Why is that additional emolument being added to the regular salary? Will the Minister confirm that in practice the commissioner will earn a salary of £180,000, to be increased by 1%? Just to check—I think the answer is no—will the 1% increase also apply to the additional £20,000?
I agree that the role of Information Commissioner is very important. Not least, they have to process very important requests, like the one pointing out the failure to meet data protection legislation by important apps, such as Matt Hancock. I know that there is a lengthy complaint on her desk in relation to the numerous breaches of data protection law that that app is responsible for. It will be interesting to see her report when she eventually gets around to telling us what she thinks of that complaint. I recommend it to hon. Members—it has very detailed and interesting observations on the way that app illegally hoovers up people’s data for use. There are other examples of that practice, but I give that as one.
We all have to be careful and take stock when discussing very high rates of pay in the public sector. In recent years, lots of public sector workers have seen a real fall in their salary. It is an insult that public servants have seen seven years of real-terms pay cuts, while many at the top have been awarded with large pay increases. Labour’s 2017 manifesto recommended that we roll-out maximum pay ratios of 20:1 in the public sector and in companies bidding for public contracts. It cannot be right that wages at the top keep rising while everyone else’s stagnate. I have checked, and it appears that this salary does not breach that 20:1 pay ratio. We appreciate that the commissioner’s remuneration has not been increased since 2008.
At this moment, I am not minded to ask my hon. Friends to vote against the increase, but I am be interested to hear the Minister’s answers to the questions that I have asked.
I came to the Committee wanting an explanation and a rationale for the proposed increase. In fairness, the Minister gave that explanation to my satisfaction in her opening remarks. I will therefore not seek to divide the Committee or offer any opposition to the proposal. If the job was judged to be worth £140,000 ten years ago, it is not unreasonable to say that it is worth £160,000 today.
I, too, am concerned about the exact nature of the additional £20,000 that is proposed as a bonus. Could the Minister clarify whether this money is going with the incumbent—following the individual—or being attached to the job as an enhancement of the post’s terms and conditions? If it is the latter, it seems unnecessary not to consolidate it into the salary and simply value the post at £180,000—if that is the effect of this decision. If, however, this is an attempt to reward the incumbent, and it would not necessarily flow with the post were the job to become vacant and be re-advertised, that is a different matter. I think that would be a more satisfactory solution.
I thank both hon. Gentlemen for their questions and scrutiny, which I will do my best to answer.
I can now answer the question posed by the hon. Member for Cardiff West during my opening remarks. He asked whether the commissioner’s salary, had it been increased since 2008 in line with annual permissible public sector increases, would now amount to just over £154,000. I can confirm that he is right in his calculations. The salary plus the £20,000 uplift comes to £180,000. As he said, that exceeds that of the Prime Minister.
The hon. Member for Cardiff West posited most of the reasons for the judgment that we have come to. He mentioned the greater workload, which will be infinitely greater after the implementation of the GDPR into British law this summer. There is no doubt that the workload has increased and will increase further. He also talked about the very limited supply of the sort of skills the current commissioner has. It is a global recruitment market, and we consider ourselves very fortunate to have Elizabeth Denham in the role. There is a very limited number of people who have her global reputation, her skill set and her experience.
The hon. Gentleman also talks about salary levels for comparative roles. We looked at comparative public sector roles and found that the average for such a position, looking at all the regulators, is £184,000. Some are paid less and some are paid more, but that is the average.
I am extremely grateful to the Minister. I am just trying to follow her logic. In practice, then, the baseline salary she is proposing represents a real increase of £6,000, if we take into account the uprating, because she says it would have been uprated to £154,000 by now had it simply been uprated for inflation. The only real increase that she is proposing to the salary is that £6,000. I am struggling to understand, given everything she has said, why the Government have decided to package it up in this way with the additional £20,000. If, as she has explained, the role is more important and needs a world-class individual, why does that not form part of the overall salary? What is the logic for that?
The logic for that was touched on in remarks made by both the hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Edinburgh East. It is packaged up in that way because the allowance is only for the current incumbent; it is attached to the individual, rather than the role, as expressed in the regulations. That is the reason for the decision.
The app introduced by my right hon. Friend the Member for West Suffolk (Matt Hancock) was mentioned. I can assure the hon. Member for Cardiff West that the app complies 100% with data protection law—I am sure he will share my pleasure at that confirmation. I think I have dealt with all the questions I have been asked. I am pleased to be able to confirm this new salary and package for the Information Commissioner. As I said earlier, I consider that we are very fortunate to have Elizabeth Denham in this role.
I agree with the Minister’s last remark; Elizabeth Denham is a highly talented individual and she was extremely impressive when she gave evidence last year on the Digital Economy Bill. She is obviously an exceptional individual, so I understand what the Minister is saying. It is preferential, however, when we come to public service and public sector-type appointments, to have a rate for the job and a salary that we recruit to. We can get into all sorts of issues if we start deciding those personal types of payments tied to the individual.
Nevertheless, it is not our intention to divide the Committee. I will only say, without trying your patience too much, Sir Henry, that the investigation into apps and whether they comply with the Data Protection Act is the responsibility not of Ministers but of the Information Commissioner, whom the Minister is proposing to pay rather handsomely to carry out the task. If I were the Minister, I would not be so emphatic in judging from the Front Bench whether any particular app complies with data protection legislation. She can say that she believes it does, but she cannot confirm that, because it is not her role.
On that last point, perhaps I stand corrected—time will tell. It is indeed the responsibility of the Information Commissioner to make such emphatic remarks about whether something qualifies as 100% compliant.
I have highlighted three justifications for the entirely reasonable increase in the Information Commissioner’s salary, and I am delighted to have the Committee’s agreement that that should be put into law.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Employment Rights Act 1996 (Itemised Pay Statement) (Amendment) (No. 2) Order 2018
The Committee consisted of the following Members:
Chair: Joan Ryan
† Caulfield, Maria (Lewes) (Con)
† Charalambous, Bambos (Enfield, Southgate) (Lab)
† Docherty, Leo (Aldershot) (Con)
† Donelan, Michelle (Chippenham) (Con)
Flynn, Paul (Newport West) (Lab)
† Griffiths, Andrew (Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy)
† Harris, Rebecca (Lord Commissioner of Her Majesty's Treasury)
† Hoey, Kate (Vauxhall) (Lab)
Lammy, Mr David (Tottenham) (Lab)
† Pidcock, Laura (North West Durham) (Lab)
† Robinson, Mary (Cheadle) (Con)
† Slaughter, Andy (Hammersmith) (Lab)
† Smith, Nick (Blaenau Gwent) (Lab)
† Swayne, Sir Desmond (New Forest West) (Con)
† Syms, Sir Robert (Poole) (Con)
† Thomson, Ross (Aberdeen South) (Con)
† Twigg, Derek (Halton) (Lab)
Yohanna Sallberg, Mems Ayinla, Committee Clerks
† attended the Committee
Third Delegated Legislation Committee
Wednesday 14 March 2018
[Joan Ryan in the Chair]
Draft Employment Rights Act 1996 (Itemised Pay Statement) (Amendment) (No. 2) Order 2018
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Employment Rights Act 1996 (Itemised Pay Statement) (Amendment) (No. 2) Order 2018.
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Ryan. It is also a pleasure to bring the order to the House, because in doing so we are protecting the rights of thousands of workers and ensuring that everyone is paid fairly. In our response to the Taylor review of modern working practices, the Government agreed with the principle of increasing transparency for workers. Workers should have access to information on their rights and entitlements. In fact, today’s order goes beyond the recommendations made by Matthew Taylor in that review.
The order was laid alongside the Employment Rights Act 1996 (Itemised Pay Statement) (Amendment) Order 2018. Together, the orders will give all workers across the economy the right to a regular payslip and require all employers to provide better information in those payslips to help workers understand what exactly they are being paid for. They will provide workers with more information on their pay and help workers spot if they are being underpaid. For example, the Employment Rights Act 1996 (Itemised Pay Statement) (Amendment) Order 2018 will require employers to increase the amount of information provided in time-paid employees’ payslips. That means employers will have to state clearly the number of hours that those workers are being paid for.
Put simply, if a worker receives a payslip recording 20 hours of work, when she or he has worked 25 hours, there is a clear case of underpayment. The transparency ensured by providing hourly information will assist workers in identifying and addressing cases of underpayment, including in some cases national minimum wage underpayment. Up to 1.6 million people will be entitled to receive information on the amount of time they are being paid for in their payslips.
The second order, which we are debating, extends the right to receive an itemised payslip to all workers. Currently only employees—a subset of workers—are entitled to a payslip. The order will mean that an estimated 300,000 workers who do not currently receive a payslip will start receiving one. These simple and practical changes will help workers up and down the country spot and address underpaid wages.
Whenever a worker thinks they may have been underpaid, I encourage them to raise it with their employer. Unfortunately for some workers, that is not always feasible. In those cases, workers should call ACAS for free and confidential advice. I commend the work of that organisation. However, although Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs will look into potential national minimum wage underpayments, a worker will need to raise a complaint with an employment tribunal if they do not receive a payslip or the information to which they are entitled.
To develop the policy, we consulted widely with a variety of stakeholders, including employer and worker representatives and payroll and software providers. The exercise established that the majority of stakeholders supported the principle of greater transparency and sharing more information with workers. We are encouraged that the majority of employers already provide all their workers, not just those who are employees, with a payslip. Furthermore, some employers also include breakdowns on the hours worked by their staff. The orders therefore bring all employers under one set of standards.
It is access to information on the amount that a worker or employee is being paid, so it could be paper or it could be electronic.
I have listened to the arguments for even greater detail in payslips, which I am sure hon. Members may want to make. It is important that we introduce the measure in a proportionate way that does not overburden employers who are trying to do the right thing.
The need to provide greater transparency over pay in workers’ payslips was first recommended by the independent Low Pay Commission. It said:
“We recommend that the Government reviews the current obligations on employers regarding provision of payslips and considers introducing a requirement that payslips of hourly-paid staff clearly state the hours they are being paid for.”
Bringing these orders into force is part of a wider Government crackdown on wage underpayment. Those aged 25 and over are entitled to the national living wage of £7.50 per hour, and I am pleased to say that the Government will increase that rate above inflation to £7.83 from next month. That is a pay rise of £600 a year for those on the national minimum wage. In all, increases to the national minimum wage and national living wage will benefit more than 2 million workers. It is a well-earned pay rise.
We recognise that, as the minimum wage rises each year, the risk of non-compliance increases. We are actively taking steps to tackle non-compliance and sending a clear message to employers that underpaying workers will not go unpunished. It is simply wrong and must end, which is why the Government continue to invest heavily in ensuring workers are paid correctly. We have doubled our investment in minimum wage enforcement and spend more than £25 million annually on investigating employers and ensuring they meet their legal responsibilities.
It is right that workers are provided with transparent information on their employment rights. It helps empower workers to hold their employers to account. It is essential for good work and underpins a productive and motivated workforce.
It is fantastic to be here this morning discussing a long-overdue extension of entitlement for thousands of people. The most basic demand is that someone providing their labour for another should be able to see what they have been paid and what has been deducted from that pay.
It is also important that workers, whatever their classification, should know how their pay has been calculated—the reverse is a situation in which thousands of people are unable to decipher what they have been paid, the deductions from their pay, whether the deductions were in order and the method of payment. That has resulted in thousands of people being completely unaware whether they have been given the correct pay or whether it meets the legal minimum. For many, the lack of clarity is a stumbling block to seeking pay justice.
Acknowledging that there exists an unequal power relationship between an employer and employee is fundamental. Knowledge is power and an itemised pay statement for those classified as workers—the right is currently given only to those classified as employees—is certainly a start, so I welcome the statutory instrument. As the Low Pay Commission stated:
“A cross-cutting problem impeding workers bringing…cases, and HMRC enforcing the minimum wage, is uncertainty regarding the hours for which they are being paid…Incorrect recording of hours worked, and therefore subsequent underpayment, is likely an important driver of non-compliance.”
Although we do not oppose the statutory instrument, the Minister will expect me to suggest improvements and to make political points. I have just a few. First, I wonder why it has taken so long to implement such an important change. Trade unions have been calling for it for such a long time. I understand that there are administrative challenges, but why will it take a further year to implement the change? I am sure the Minister will need to balance the consideration of the time businesses will need to prepare for administrative changes with the protection workers need from potential pay abuses. An itemised pay statement is vital in proving pay abuses and a year is a long time to wait for someone who currently suspects pay abuse.
I hope the Minister will agree that the pay statement should include all that is currently set out in the Employment Rights Act 1996, but I would like clarity. I was interested in some of the points made about hours paid. The provisions in the Act should rightly apply to workers, but to protect workers and make their pay crystal clear, the pay statement should include the hours worked and the rate paid for those hours. Otherwise, there will still be ambiguity and confusion over whether the pay is correct.
I note that the impact statement refers to extending the right to receive a payslip to workers, so that they can assess information
“including from the number of hours they are being paid for”.
Will there be an account of how many hours and the rate paid for those hours in the new itemised payslip in the extension of itemised payslips to workers?
Although welcome, the SI is only a small step on the road to improving employment conditions. The Opposition argue that the Government need to go further. In our opinion, employers should be required to give all workers a statement of their terms of employment, recognising the power imbalance I cited. We believe that all statutory employment rights should be applicable to workers from day one of the employment relationship, regardless of the hours of work. The scope of the statutory instruments regulating working time, part-time, fixed-term work and agency work should be reformed into a much simpler single employment definition. I am sure many people would celebrate that. In addition, non-standard forms of work should be regulated to address the specific insecurities that that sector faces.
We will support this statutory instrument with the knowledge that it is a small drop in the ocean to improve employment rights. Clarity from the Minister on hours worked and the rate for those hours would be very helpful.
I thank the hon. Lady for the way in which she has engaged with the order. We are united in our desire to bring greater rights and greater protections to our constituents. We want people to be paid fairly, with good terms and conditions, and to be motivated and happy in their work, which is why, through the Matthew Taylor report, the Government will for the first time monitor and benchmark ourselves on the quality of work and not just the quantity. That is a huge step forward.
We share a desire to address the things that the hon. Lady talked about. In our positive response to the Matthew Taylor report, we looked to take forward all the issues—52 of the report’s 53 recommendations. We want greater clarity from day one, and a contract for people from day one, to ensure that agency workers and temporary workers have greater understanding of who employs them and what their rights are.
The hon. Lady mentioned the clarification of the status of workers, which is fundamental. As working conditions and the way we act as consumers change because of technology and so on, so people’s way of working changes. To ensure that they have the proper rights and protections and are paid properly, we need to clarify their status. It should not be that the only way for people who are unsure about their status—employed, self-employed or worker—to get that clarity is to employ a very expensive barrister and go to court. We want to make it simpler.
The hon. Lady talked about disaggregation—the technical term for the breaking down of hours—and I listened closely. I understand her points. What we are keen to do, and must do, is introduce that in an affordable way for employers, recognising the extra cost burden. As the Committee heard, we consulted widely with employers, trade unions, payroll specialists and the people who write the relevant software. They said that there would be an extra burden of cost that they felt unable to bear at this stage.
However, I am minded to ensure that all workers have greater transparency and greater understanding of how they are paid, as the hon. Lady said. That is not included in the draft order, but I am watching it closely and reserve the right to return to the House with further regulation if needed.
In the Minister’s opening contribution, there was talk of the hours paid. That is where my confusion came from. To be clear, the itemised pay statement will not have to include the hours worked and the rate at which those hours are paid. Will the Minister acknowledge that that is a very important step for pay justice?
Let me clarify for the hon. Lady: payslips will need to include the total pay, deductions and the hours that the person is being paid for—a clear ability for anyone to ensure that they are paid correctly when they are being paid the minimum wage.
The draft order will extend the basic right to receive a payslip to all workers in the economy. The Employment Rights Act 1996 (Itemised Pay Statement) (Amendment) Order 2018 requires employers to support workers by providing a greater level of detail in payslips.
I am proud to bring these employment rights into force at a time when the Government are accused of being intent on slashing the rights of employees. It is said that, when we leave the European Union, there will be a bonfire of employment rights, starting a race to the bottom, to a Singapore-style economy. Through the draft order, the Government are clearly increasing the rights of workers. Through measures such as this and the Matthew Taylor review, we are showing that we do not need the European Union to ensure that we have worker protections and rights. We will enshrine them in this place. We will ensure that British employees and workers, and people working in the British economy, are properly protected and properly paid, and have their rights fully enforced.
We expect basic fairness in the workplace. The right to receive clear payslips is an important building block of what good work should look like—meaning work underpinned by fair and transparent employment practices, where workers can hold their employers to account for being paid fairly and for all hours worked. Upholding fair and transparent work practices is an integral part of the “good work” agenda that the Government and I embarked upon following the review of modern working practices. That is why last year we ensured that £10.9 million in arrears for 98,000 workers were clawed back for the minimum wage. We want everyone to have easy access to information about their working arrangements and the rights to which they are entitled.
I am grateful to the Minister. Under the Employment Rights Act, the suggestion is that an itemised pay statement asks for the gross amount of wages or salaries, the amount of deductions, the net amount of wages and the amount and method of payment. Nowhere does it talk about the hours paid. I am just wondering where that will come. Is it in the draft order, because I cannot see it? How will the Minister monitor whether those hours are being captured on the pay statement?
The measure will be enforced. I urge the hon. Lady to read the draft order again, because it contains that completely. I have even received divine intervention that clarifies definitely—it is in the SI. Perhaps I can point it out to her after the event.
I agree. As part of my role, I meet regularly with unions, employers, and employer and employee organisations. Such transparency is the sort of thing that we are introducing through the Matthew Taylor review. There is a plan to engage with stakeholders over the coming weeks and months as this comes into force. Through such engagements, I will monitor the situation to ensure that the transparency and change in the relationship between worker and employee that we want are delivered. I therefore assure the hon. Gentleman that my beady eye will be trained. I will talk at length with the unions to ensure that we deliver fairness for workers, and that people are being paid correctly. The draft order forms a crucial part of our efforts to ensure that no worker is underpaid.
Question put and agreed to.