Charles Walker highlights the role of employment agencies as a useful route for getting people back to work. He also takes the opportunity to condemn the practice of tips being used to make up employees' wages in parts of the hospitality industry.

Mr. Charles Walker (Broxbourne) (Con): I am grateful to be called to speak on this interesting Bill. Before I came to the House, until 2001—actually, I did not come here until 2005. I would have liked to have come here in 2001, but unfortunately, when I stood against the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Stephen Pound) in 2001, I added 2,500 to his majority, instead of reducing it. He is grateful for that, and we get on very well. Until 2001, I was a director of an employment agency called Blue Arrow. In the late 1990s, I remember having some fairly testing meetings with the right hon. Member for Macclesfield—

Mr. Ian McCartney (Makerfield) (Lab): Makerfield.

Mr. Walker: I apologise. I had some very testing meetings with the right hon. Gentleman, and to be fair some of the practices taking place in the employment agency industry were unacceptable. Quite rightly, he outlawed them, and hopefully they no longer take place. However, I accept that there is a small rump of people operating in employment agencies who let everyone else down. I do not want the employment agency sector to be tarred with the same brush as those whose business behaviour is still outside the bounds of the acceptable.

Employment agencies play an important part in our labour market. The Government recognise that, and very early on after introducing the new deal they included employment agencies among the bodies placing difficult people who had been out of the workplace for a long time. My party recognised that employment agencies play an important role, too, and when we form the next Government we will hopefully pledge to use employment agencies to help people get back into work. Employment agencies are extremely good at helping the economy to flex in response to changes in the market. There can be sudden increases in demand, and employment agencies are very good at identifying a labour pool and filling that demand. Employment agencies are very useful for allowing women who have been out of the workplace for a number of years to re-enter it. They are very useful for placing youngsters in the workplace—yes, in temporary jobs, but jobs that allow them to prove their worth to a future employer.

Ms Katy Clark: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that a great deal of work has been done by Labour Members, and by the trade union movement, to campaign for fair employment rights for agency workers. Does he support that?

Mr. Walker: The hon. Lady makes a very interesting point, and that was a useful intervention. I will come on to the issue in a moment. As I have said, employment agencies provide a useful route back to work for people who are often hard to place in work, and who struggle to find a permanent job because they have been out of the labour market for too long, or do not have the experience to get into the labour market in a substantive, permanent position.

I have an admission to make: if I had been a Member of Parliament when the minimum wage was introduced, I probably would have voted against it. I do not know for certain that I would have done so, because I was not here, but at the time—as the right hon. Member for Makerfield knows, because I sent him some papers on the subject—my instinct would have been to vote against it. However, I would have been wrong to have done so. The minimum wage has proved to be a step in the right direction. It has allowed people dignity at work, and why should the taxpayer subsidise bad employers? That brings me on to my next issue of concern—

Mr. McCartney: Before the hon. Gentleman leaves the subject completely and forgets to answer the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Ms Clark), let me put the point another way. If, in the future, a Conservative Government were in a position to sign the European directive on temporary agency workers, would he advocate signing it?

Mr. Walker: The right hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point about the agency workers directive. That directive has been mooted in Europe for about the past 10 years, and for nine of those years his Government have made a very good case on why we should not sign up to it. Their case has been very convincing; they said that we did not need it in this country, and that it would have a negative impact on the labour market and would reduce employability. That must be the case, or it would have been accepted five years ago. If one were cynical—I am not—one might think that the sudden embracing of the working time directive had more to do with the need to access trade union funding for future political campaigns than with the need to improve the lot of the down-trodden worker. Far be it from me to suggest that. I hope that answers the right hon. Gentleman’s question.

Ms Katy Clark: The question that the hon. Gentleman is being asked is whether he supports the discrimination that takes place against agency workers, who do not get the same sick pay, holiday pay or other entitlements as other workers doing the same job. Will he respond to that?

Mr. Walker: I probably will not give the hon. Lady the answer that she is looking for, but I fully bought into her Government’s reasons for not signing up to the directive. I was convinced by their arguments on why it would be a bad idea for the UK to sign up to it. I have gone along with those arguments for nine years. The Government have changed their mind, and they need to put forward the arguments, to me and to others, on why the change of course is good. I leave it to the Minister, when he winds up, to make the argument in favour of the country signing the working time directive. If his arguments are good enough and convince me, I will certainly join the hon. Lady in the Lobby to vote in support of the working time directive. However, it is incumbent on the Minister to persuade me that I need to be there.

I accept that the minimum wage was a good idea, but I am still concerned about the fact that we tax people who earn the minimum wage. I know that that is outside the ambit of the debate, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I shall not try your patience by speaking on the issue for more than 30 seconds. The minimum wage gives people a salary of about £11,000 a year, but as soon as they earn £5,000 or £5,500, they start paying tax on their earnings, and then have their money laundered back to them in the form of tax credits. That is not right, and it perhaps robs people of their dignity.

I mentioned my concerns about the hospitality industry to the Minister for Employment Relations and Postal Affairs, who opened the debate. It is disgraceful that when I add £5 or £10 to a bill at a restaurant, and pay on a credit card because I do not have any cash on me, that money can be used to make up the wage of the person serving me. That is wrong, and most people in this country—apart from the few who own restaurants—agree. As the Government struggle to become more popular with the wider electorate, it would be good for them to seize on the issue. The practice is wrong, and they would have the support of the vast majority of the British public if they addressed it. I am not sure whether that would make up the 19 per cent. deficit in the polls, but it would be a good start.

Mr. Simon: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that people should not make the mistake of thinking that by leaving a tip in cash they are necessarily ensuring that it will go directly to the worker concerned? Even when tips are left in cash, unscrupulous employers still find ways to divert that income stream to themselves.

Mr. Walker: The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. I am sorry if I misled the House and anybody watching by suggesting that if people leave cash it is more likely to find its way into the pockets of the person who served their table. I would hope that the cash would be put in that person’s pocket before the avaricious restaurant owner got his or her hands on it. Any restaurant chain that carries out the practice deserves to be named and shamed. I really wish and hope that we get to grips with the issue extremely soon, whichever political party is involved.

I turn briefly to the issue of tribunal claims. It concerns me greatly when someone who has been disadvantaged in the workplace and is successful in their claim at an employment tribunal then has to wait months—sometimes longer—to receive the money that they are owed. These people have mortgages, families, outgoings and other costs that need to be met. They will often not have a job, because they have been removed from their previous job unfairly. When a tribunal award is made, we need to make sure that the money is forthcoming quickly.

I did not want to be partisan in this debate, but I am going to be. I am a proud member of Amicus-Unite, a trade union. Like the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Ms Clark), I believe that the trade unions make a positive impact in our day-to-day lives, and we are a better country for having them. I do not want to go against the will of the House, but I have deep concern about British National party members being allowed to join trade unions. From my time in Broxbourne, I know how the BNP operates. I have run a three-year campaign against it that has by and large been successful; we removed the BNP councillor whom I inherited when I was selected for my seat.

The BNP operates outside the normal boundaries of acceptable political and democratic behaviour. Its campaigns are nasty and personal. I know that for a fact, because I have been on the receiving end of a number of them. A number of Members here will have given some time to campaigning in the London assembly elections. The literature that the BNP was putting around in those elections was hateful and despicable. It was really unpleasant stuff. Anyone who dares to criticise the BNP, as I do and other brave Members do in their constituencies, is subject to a torrent of abuse and hate—to national campaigns of abuse and hate.

Letters were sent to my office and my local newspaper, and e-mails were sent from wherever in the country I dared to stand up and speak out against the BNP. A low point came in the local elections. My local newspaper ran a poll about who people were going to vote for. The BNP, of course, organised a telephone campaign and a newspaper called me up and said, “Mr. Walker, 52 per cent. of your constituents are going to vote BNP in the local elections. How do you feel about that?” I said, of course, that it was total nonsense—and guess what? I was proved right.

I fundamentally believe that the BNP has no place in any organisation of which I am a member, be it the Conservative party or a trade union. I received this from a BNP supporter:

“I note with interest your recent and misguided comments regarding The British National Party...You call yourself a Tory, yet are absurdly a member of a Trade Union. You call yourself British, yet clearly despise our Islands...Did you know that your namesake was the first man to be executed after the State of Illinois reinstated the death penalty? A fitting fact, you’ll no doubt agree.

Have a good day Mr Walker”.

The writer had also implied that I was being watched. That is the BNP that I have come to know and that operates outside the normal boundaries of political discourse. I accept that, at the moment, many people, for whatever reason, are voting for the BNP—to catch the attention of politicians, to poke us in the eye, to get us to sit up and listen to their concerns. However, voting for the BNP is in a different league from being a member of the BNP, which is a malevolent organisation. Personally, I would not want a member or ex-member of the BNP in my political party, my association or my trade union. There is no place for that party in membership organisations.

7.16 pm

...

CHARLES' OTHER CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE SAME DEBATE

Mr. Charles Walker (Broxbourne) (Con): The Minister has said that the award can be varied upwards or downwards by 25 per cent. Will he explain to the House the circumstances in which there would be a downwards move?

Mr. McFadden: One such example might be where an employee had been found to have a case, but they had not complied with the code. Although they still had a case, the tribunal might judge that the award to them should be lowered by up to 25 per cent.

...

Mr. Walker: In the Minister’s experience, which sectors of our economy are most prone to breaking the law relating to the payment of the minimum wage?

Mr. McFadden: It is the traditionally lowest paid sectors. For example, this year we have targeted minimum wage enforcement on the hospitality industry, which has a record of low pay. Most employers in that industry are happy to abide by the law, but we have seen some cases of underpayment. We consulted last year on proposals for a new penalty for underpayment of the minimum wage and a fairer way of calculating arrears. Our conclusion was that the enforcement regime should be strengthened in several respects.

...

Mr. Walker: One thing that concerns many people in the House, particularly in relation to the hospitality industry, is the handling of tips. Will the Minister take any action against those restaurants and establishments that include tips as part of the salary, as opposed to treating them as a gratuity paid by the customer to a member of staff for excellent service?

Mr. McFadden: We have had representations on the subject, including from my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire, North (Jim Sheridan), who has been very active on that matter. To clarify, everybody in an industry where tipping is common is entitled to the minimum wage, but when tips and gratuities are processed through the payroll of the employer it can, at the moment, count towards the minimum wage. That issue has been raised and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has said that he is looking into it.

Mr. Walker: When my newspaper informed the BNP organiser in Broxbourne that I had received an implied death threat from a BNP member, his response was that I was being oversensitive to some loose language. Does that not accurately sum up the BNP at every level of its hierarchy?

Mr. Brown: I can only agree with the hon. Gentleman; it very much does. He probably could not give a finer example of its attitude.

...

Mr. Walker: I thank my hon. Friend for his kind words.

The BNP is no longer a problem in Broxbourne, in the sense that it is no longer a political force. It has been wiped out over the past three years. The real problem is the way in which its members behave and communicate. They do not understand civilised political discourse: their raison d’être is intimidation and veiled threats of violence. That is the real problem with the BNP, not just in Broxbourne but throughout this country of England that we love so much.

Mr. Clifton-Brown: I entirely agree. I think that the problem with the BNP, or at least some of its members, is the fact that they hold such extreme views that they cannot understand why those views, and their behaviour, are not at least accredited by others.

...

Mr. Walker: Will the Minister not accept that the ability to change one’s mind is the sign of a mature politician? I understand that he has changed his mind on nuclear energy, for example. Is he not a mature politician?

Malcolm Wicks: Sadly, I am even more mature at least in a chronological sense—I do not suggest in any other sense—than the hon. Gentleman. Of course, when the facts, circumstances or evidence changes, one should change one’s mind. Just to be accurate in terms of my own position, on civil nuclear I have moved from being nuclear-neutral to being in favour. However, I must not get back into my comfort territory, as I am in temporary employment tonight in talking about employment. [Interruption.] I do not want this to be an interview.

| Hansard