Are hairdressers really *that* bad at paying the NMW?

With the Workers’ Party – or is it the Party of Equality? – leaving no stone unturned in its titanic struggle to “end discrimination and finish the fight for equality in our country”, last month saw the Department for Business, Innovation & Workers’ Rights name & shame another 115 minimum wage (NMW) rogues. Well, another 113 NMW rogues, once you exclude the two businesses – London-based Danhouse Security and Scottish business C & R Tyres – the Department had already named & shamed for the very same breaches of the NMW, in November 2014 and February 2015 respectively.

How hard can it be to manage an Excel spreadsheet? Too hard for the mandarins at BIS, obviously.

The inclusion of Monsoon Accessorize for the retailer’s failure to pay an average of £72.68 to 1,438 of its employees predictably dominated press and media coverage, but otherwise the list of 113 was much like all previous rounds of naming & shaming in being comprised almost entirely of small fry – many of them very small fry indeed. Excluding Monsoon Accessorize, the average underpayment (and so financial penalty) was £2,537.65, and the average underpayment per worker just £1,124.53 (that is, less than the £1,200 that the Party of Equality thinks it is entirely reasonable to charge low-paid workers to pursue a tribunal claim for race, sex or other discrimination). And, excluding the 1,438 Monsoon Accessorize employees, NMW underpayments were recovered by HMRC for just 255 employees of the other 112 firms.

In 53 of all 113 cases, the total underpayment (and so financial penalty) was less than £1,000, and in all but 15 cases it was less than £5,000. In 77 of the 113 cases, just one worker was underpaid, and only in 13 cases were five or more workers underpaid by the employer. Lucky the Coalition government upped the maximum penalty to £20,000 per worker, eh?

And, as with previous rounds of naming & shaming, the list of 113 was dominated by local hairdressers & beauty salons (25); pubs, cafes and hotels (16); and second hand-car dealers (8). I know – not least because former BIS mandarin Bill Wells keeps telling me – that the NMW apprenticeship rates might be difficult for small hairdressing business owners to fully understand, but does that really explain HMRC’s apparent obsession with the sector? And when-oh-when are BIS going to start naming & shaming some of the 100+ social care employers that, back in April this year, then BIS minister Jo Swinson said HMRC were then investigating? (Yes, Bill, I know, there is absolutely no abuse of the NMW in the social care sector, the authors of all those reports saying the opposite are simply deluded).

So – not that Gem will notice, she’s far too busy fighting HR wars with her lightsaber at #CIPD15 – here’s an updated chart, showing the 398 NMW rogues named & shamed by BIS to date, by sector.

NMW Nov 15

Busy day at work: the next Minister for #ukemplaw should not be a part-timer

The polls still suggest a close result but, with the Tory campaign in disarray and their supportive press barons suffering a collective nervous breakdown, I’ve started to feel vaguely optimistic that the next BIS employment relations minister will be a talented Labour MP such as Gloria De Piero, Stella Creasy or – if he survives the SNP tsunami – the excellent Ian Murray. And the reported remarks of Labour’s Lord Falconer, that the shadow cabinet has “very, very few” machinery of government changes in mind, has set me thinking about just how long a ‘to do’ list the new BIS minister would find waiting for them on their desk at 1 Victoria Street.

Because, as easy as it is to criticise the Labour manifesto for its lack of ambition on employment law-related reform, and the woolliness (ET fees) and/or daftness (zero-hours contracts) of some of its specific policy pledges, there’s actually quite a lot for a new Labour employment relations minister to be getting on with. In their first 12 months in the job, she or he will need to devote time and energy to some or all of the following work strands:

  • Working out how to translate the high-profile manifesto pledge to “ban the abuse of zero-hours contracts” into meaningful policy action;
  • Initiating the promised process, jointly led by the CBI and TUC, for agreeing reforms to the ET fees regime and – seemingly – the ET system more generally;
  • Working out how to implement a package of woolly pledges to enhance enforcement of the minimum wage (increased fines/penalties for non-compliance, a role for local authorities, a reformed/beefed up Low Pay Commission, and a possible new emphasis on criminal prosecutions);
  • Launching a consultation on “allowing grandparents who want to be more involved in caring for their grandchildren to share in parents’ unpaid parental leave”;
  • Developing a plan to “tackle exploitation in the care sector as a route to protecting staff and improving standards”;
  • Responding to the findings of the Equality & Human Rights Commission’s inquiry into pregnancy and maternity discrimination in the workplace (originally due out in March, but postponed until after the election);
  • Working out how to translate the pledges to “tackle undercutting by rogue employment agencies”, including by “taking action to crack down on rogue agencies that exploit workers illegally for profit”, and to “extend the Gangmasters’ Licensing Authority approach to cover sectors where there is evidence of high levels of migrant labour and exploitative working practices” into meaningful policy action; and
  • Preparing a Bill to legislate as necessary in relation to these and other strands of work.

That’s quite a ‘to do’ list for anyone to cram into five days a week, let alone someone who has a second job as a constituency MP. Yet the position of BIS employment relations minister has always been both a junior and a part-time role – the remit of the Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for Employment Relations and Consumer Affairs currently covers, in  addition to employment relations: Post Office and postal policy; consumer policy and consumer affairs; competition policy; corporate governance; company law; social enterprise; Insolvency Service, including company investigations; and BIS better regulation, efficiency and reform agenda.

So, if Labour are serious about “supporting firms to win the race to the top, not get dragged into a race to the bottom”, perhaps one minor ‘machinery of government’ change they should consider is separating employment relations and consumer affairs, and appointing a Minister of State for Employment Relations. Some of of the above work strands will involve tricky negotiations with HM Treasury, the Ministry of Injustice and other departments, and on ET reform the minister will no doubt need to bang heads together at the CBI and TUC, so it would be handy not to be at the very bottom of the ministerial food chain. And promoting the position to Minister of State level would widen the talent pool from which to select what should be a prominent voice in any Labour government formed after 7 May.

Postscript: As if I hadn’t made the case well enough above, today the following photograph emerged, showing that the current holder of the post is too exhausted from her ministerial duties to notice that her campaign team are holding her placards upside down.

Nosnims

 

NMW naming & shaming: frying the small fry?

On Tuesday, in what might well prove to be her last significant act as BIS employment relations minister, Jo Swinson named a further round of 48 employers found by HMRC to have breached the National Minimum Wage (NMW). The BIS press release notes:

Between them, the companies named owe workers over £162,000 in arrears, and span sectors including fashion, publishing, hospitality, health and fitness, automotive, care, and retail. This latest round brings the total number of companies named and shamed under the new regime to 210 employers, with total arrears of over £635,000 and total penalties of over £248,000.

With this sixth round of naming & shaming coming just four weeks after the last one (of 70 employers, on 24 February), and just two months after the one before that (of 37 employers, on 15 January), it’s clear that the rebooted regime that came into force in October 2013 has finally ground up through the gears to reach full speed. And, were there not a general election on 7 May, we could expect this pattern of monthly BIS press releases, each naming some 50 employers, to continue from now on. Accordingly, now seems a good time to take stock of what has been achieved to date, and what that tells us about HMRC’s enforcement of the NMW more generally. So I’ve been crunching the numbers.

Perhaps the most striking – and significant – aspect of my number crunching is that the numbers are pretty small. Although the 210 named & shamed employers between them owed a total of £638,100 to a total of 5,396 workers, some 72 per cent (3,863) of those workers were underpaid by the three worst-offending employers (in terms of number of workers underpaid, though not necessarily the total or average arrears owed). In 121 (58 per cent) of cases, the employer had underpaid just one worker, and only in 12 cases had the employer underpaid 20 or more workers.

Similarly, in 180 (86 per cent) of cases, the total arrears owed by the employer was less than £5,000, and only five employers owed total arrears of more than £20,000 (the current maximum penalty imposed by HMRC in addition to payment of the arrears owed, which is otherwise set at 100% of the total arrears owed). Even more strikingly, overall, the average arrears owed per worker was just £118.25, or just 0.6 per cent of the new maximum penalty of £20,000 per worker provided for in the Small Business, Enterprise & Employment Bill, on the verge of receiving Royal Assent.

Indeed, only 30 employers (14 per cent) owed arrears of more than £2,000 per worker, and only two employers owed arrears of more than £10,000 per worker (NB in both cases, there was only one underpaid worker). In most cases, the sum owed per worker was relatively small: 104 of the 210 employers owed arrears of less than £500 per worker.

The impression that HMRC’s enforcement net is catching mostly small fry is reinforced when we breakdown the 210 employers by sector. From the following chart (which shows only those sectors with two or more of the 210 employers), we can see that 41 – almost one in five – of the 210 employers are hairdressers or beauty salons, and 37 (18 per cent) are a pub, restaurant, cafe or hotel. Only three care homes or home care firms have been named & shamed to date, and in those three cases the arrears owed per worker were just £178.76, £162.81, and £87.68 respectively. Yet, as noted previously, there is broad agreement that at least 200,000 of the social care sector’s 1.5 million workers are unlawfully paid below the NMW.

Name&shame

Yes, there are a few household names among the 210, including (in this week’s round) French Connection UK, Foot Locker, 99p Stores, Pizza Hut, and Bounty (UK) Ltd, which produces the ‘Bounty Packs’ handed out to new mothers. But most such cases appear to involve what Jo Swinson calls “irresponsible mistakes”, rather than the employer “wilfully breaking the law”. French Connection, for example, owed an average of £44.78 to 367 workers, while fellow high street fashion retailer H&M owed an average of just £4.82 to 540 workers.

All in all, the detail behind the headline numbers suggests that whoever has Ms Swinson’s job after 7 May should do rather more than simply decide whether to continue with the monthly BIS naming & shaming press releases. It’s time that HMRC’s enforcement net started catching some of the bigger (and nastier) fish in Britain’s minimum wage rogue lake, as well as the small fry. And that may well require new priorities, new strategies, and (even more) new money.

 

 

 

 

Do BIS & HMRC care about the care sector?

There was much ministerial self-satisfaction in evidence yesterday, as BIS named & shamed a further 37 employers for breaches of the national minimum wage. This brings the total number of firms named since the scheme was rebooted in October 2013 to a less than impressive 92. Or just 90, if you allow for BIS wrongly naming, so not actually shaming, two of the 25 firms it named in June last year.

“Paying less than the minimum wage is illegal, immoral and completely unacceptable,” said BIS minister Jo Swinson. “If employers break this law they need to know that we will take tough action by naming, shaming and fining them as well as helping workers recover the hundreds of thousands of pounds in pay owed to them.”

Or the average of £4.82 in pay owed to them, in the case of the 540 workers to whom retailer H&M failed to pay a total of some £2,600. It was this case that – no doubt to the delight of press officers at BIS and the chagrin of those at H&M – most national media chose to focus on, presumably because H&M were unlucky enough to be the first (and so far only) household-name retailer to be shamed by BIS. Never has so little been owed to so many by “time-logging errors in some stores”.

Of course, household-name corporations like H&M – which, according to the Independent, made profits of “more than £600m in the last quarter alone” – could avoid the risk of such adverse publicity by paying their staff a living wage, rather than just the legal minimum.

However, it was another of the 37 shamed employers that caught my eye. Ultimate Care UK Ltd, in Ipswich, became the first of Britain’s 35,000 adult social care employers (i.e. both residential and domiciliary care providers) to be named & shamed by BIS, for failing to pay a total of £613.79 to seven workers. With just 15 care staff, and having won a National Home Care Employer of the Year (< 250 employees) award in 2011, Ultimate Care are probably feeling as aggrieved as the corporate fat cats at H&M at being shamed by BIS when there are clearly a great many bigger fish in Britain’s pool of minimum wage rogues.

Indeed, just two days before BIS dumped on Ultimate Care, Jo Swinson’s Liberal Democrat colleague Paul Burstow – a former health minister (2010-12), and chair of a Commission on Home Care – used a Westminster Hall debate to highlight a number of challenges in the adult social care sector, including “the low pay, low status culture that pervades the sector.” Noting that the National Audit Office estimated in early 2014 that as many as 220,000 (15 per cent) of the sector’s 1.5 million workers are illegally paid below the minimum wage, and that “the problem is getting worse, not better”, Mr Burstow called for action to ensure that “those who are exploiting their workers” are “properly and vigorously pursued.”

Mr Burstow is far from alone in contrasting the evidence of systemic flouting of the minimum wage in the sector, with the apparent lack of effective enforcement action against the employers in question. In March 2013, a number of MPs – including Simon Hughes, Liz Kendall, and Alison McGovern – expressed concern about the exploitation of their constituents during a Westminster Hall debate initiated by Labour MP Andrew Smith. And in August that year, a report by the Resolution Foundation think tank highlighted the “national scandal” of care workers being illegally paid as little as £5 per hour:

While headline pay rates for care workers who visit clients at home are set at or above the national minimum wage of £6.19 an hour, in practice those workers often lose at least £1 an hour because they are not paid separately for the time spent travelling between appointments and because providing decent care often takes longer than the time allocated by the employer for each visit. This would mean that over the course of a year, a care worker who spent an average of 35 hours a week at work for 48 weeks would lose out on more than £1600.

In November 2013, an evaluation by HMRC of its enforcement work in the social care sector in 2011/12 and 2012/13, including both complaints made via the Pay & Work Rights Helpline and targeted enforcement against 40 residential care providers and 40 domiciliary providers, concluded that inspectors had “identified higher and increasing levels of non-compliance with minimum wage legislation than has been previously found in the sector.” HMRC noted:

[We] are concerned that many employers had failed to keep sufficient records of working time to demonstrate that workers are being paid at least the national minimum wage, particularly given that non-payment of travelling time for workers in domiciliary care was commonplace [sic].

In May 2014, the Kingsmill Review – a report into working conditions in the sector by Baroness Denise Kingsmill, commissioned by Labour leader Ed Miliband – concluded that “the low status of care work and poor treatment of workers has led to a vicious downward spiral, with widespread exploitation.” Two months later – in response to the March 2014 NAO report cited by Paul Burstow – the Public Accounts Committee of MPs said they were “astonished that up to 220,000 care workers earn less than the minimum wage and little has been done to rectify this.”

In November 2014, Andrew Smith initiated a second Westminster Hall debate, during which Labour MPs queued up to express their concern at the lack of government action on the issue. And, last month, launching a campaign and petition calling on ministers to “end the scandal of illegally paid care workers”, the trade union Unison noted that:

In 2011 and 2013, HMRC investigated the care sector and found that only half of care providers were paying [at least] the minimum wage. Thanks to those investigations, several companies were forced to pay care workers the money that they were owed.

Now, because of the ongoing cuts to care budgets and a lack of follow-up action from HMRC, the situation has become worse. This is in part because most care workers are on zero-hours or temporary agency contracts, with the employers cutting out paid time wherever they can. A full day on the job can translate into only a handful of paid hours.

In short, pretty much everyone who has considered the issue has concluded that exploitation, including non-compliance with the minimum wage, is rife in the social care sector. So why were investigations completed in relation to just 70 residential care homes in the four-year period 1 April 2010 to 31 March 2014? Why has the overall number of investigations by HMRC (i.e. not just the care sector) fallen in each of the past three years, from 1,140 in 2010-11, to 680 in 2013-14? And why does the Government say, in its recent evidence to the Low Pay Commission, that “non-compliance as a result of gross exploitation is very low”? Something’s not right here.

In response to Paul Burstow’s Westminster Hall debate, BIS minister Jo Swinson said:

Proactive investigations happen. There was a particular period of targeted enforcement in the care sector, from 2011 to 2013. We recognise that the issue is important and are returning to the care sector for proactive work. That process is now under way, so more will happen. Currently, 94 employers in the care sector are being investigated for national minimum wage issues, and when those investigation conclude, we will see whether they have broken the law. If so, there are tough penalties, including naming and shaming, and we have taken steps to increase the resources available to HMRC for that vital work.

Presumably, one of those 94 care sector firms is the former employer of Debra Claridge, who made a complaint to HMRC about prolonged payment below the minimum wage (due to non-payment for travel time between appointments) as long ago as November 2012, but – astonishingly – has still not had her case resolved.

Ms Swinson has (laudably) made a habit of including the phone number of the Pay & Work Rights Helpline in her contributions to House of Commons debates and replies to written parliamentary questions, but it makes a mockery of the minimum wage enforcement system for those who follow the Minister’s advice and call the Helpline – as Mrs Claridge did – to then wait two years or more for HMRC to conclude its investigation and recover the arrears owed (or close the case and explain why).

All in all, there is a clear need for a step-change in enforcement of the minimum wage, not least to tackle the “commonplace” but unlawful practice in the domiciliary care sector of not counting travel from one work assignment to another as working time. In a letter to Jo Swinson co-signed by 36 other MPs, Andrew Smith has now requested an urgent meeting to “discuss how BIS, in tandem with HMRC, the Department of Health, and the Department for Communities and Local Government, can ensure that care providers operate within the law and that all care workers are legally paid.”

The £3 million increase in HMRC’s enforcement budget for 2015-16 that BIS announced alongside the naming & shaming of H&M, Ultimate Care and 35 others – an increase not to be sniffed at in these days of austerity and cuts – is clearly welcome, and will no doubt make a difference. But even £12.2 million per year is a piddling sum, given the (growing) size and nature of the challenge. The next government is going to have to do a lot more than name and shame a single social care employer.

 

 

 

 

BIS, you had one job!

Previously on this blog, I have noted how the revamped BIS scheme for naming & shaming employers found to have breached the National Minimum Wage has struggled to get beyond second gear since it came into force 15 months ago, with only 55 (mostly small) firms being named to date.

Now – after months of side-stepping questions by MPs Caroline Lucas and Stephen Timms – BIS has finally conceded that, in June last year, it somehow managed to wrongly name & shame two long-dissolved firms. Among the 25 firms named & shamed by BIS on 8 June, Michael at Zoom Ltd (company registration no: 08311831) was wrongly named as Zoom Ltd (04906202, dissolved in April 2010), and Masterpart Distribution Ltd (04153440) was wrongly named as Master Distribution Ltd (06878211, dissolved in November 2010).

Unfortunately, because NMW-flouting firms are named & shamed only by means of a BIS press release, with no central on-line register of those named, there is no way for BIS to publicly correct these elementary errors, other than to include the two right names in the next press release – whenever that might be. Until then, the number of ‘NMW rogues’ actually named & shamed stands at 53.

 

 

 

ET fees: BIS gives ad hoc succour to Ministry of Injustice

Sitting in Court 3 of the Royal Courts of Justice last week, I was surprised to hear Susan Chan, counsel for the Lord Chancellor in his defence of UNISON’s judicial review of the ET fees regime introduced in July 2013, calling in aid a new, specially-produced statistical analysis of ET claims by the Department for Business, Innovation & Skills (BIS). For I’d always got the impression – not least from a series of tweets by the BIS employment relations minister, Jo Swinson – that BIS ministers regard ET fees and their impact on access to justice as a matter not for them, that their own hands are squeaky clean. But here was BIS, proactively aiding and abetting the Ministry of Injustice in the High Court.

This BIS statistical analysis was so new that it hadn’t been included in Ms Chan’s detailed grounds of defence, let alone published. Indeed, Ms Chan wasn’t even able to produce a copy of it in court for the judges and UNISON’s counsel, Karon Monaghan, to examine. However, Ms Chan gave a solemn undertaking that BIS would publish the analysis at the same time she submitted a copy to the Court.

And so it was that, just before 6pm on Friday evening, BIS published its ad hoc statistical analysis.  Based on findings from the Survey of Employment Tribunal Applications (SETA) 2013, published in June, the eight-page document sets out “further analysis based on the [SETA] survey dataset on the characteristics of claimants who would have been required to pay a fee at the time of their claim, if the current fee regime had been in force.”

Most of the document’s eight-pages are taken up with guff demonstrating the reliability of its few findings. If you think it’s about time you learnt about 95% confidence interval lower and upper bounds, then the BIS document is as good a place to start as any other. The first of these findings is that 75 per cent of the single claims in the SETA sample group would have attracted the higher Type B fees (a £250 issue fee, and a £950 hearing fee), and only 25 per cent the lower Type A fees (a £160 issue fee and a£230 hearing fee).  And the document goes on to give the following breakdown of cases in the sample group, by fee-type and gender.

Women Men
All cases 43% 57%
Type A fees 36% 64%
Type B fees 45% 55%

It’s not entirely clear to me how or why Ms Chan thinks these figures support her defence against UNISON’s case that the fees regime is indirectly discriminatory to a protected characteristic group such as women (one of the two grounds of UNISON’s claim for judicial review, the other being that the fees regime breaches the principle of ‘effectiveness’), but the overall 25/75 breakdown by fee-type is certainly a very interesting finding. Because it’s pretty much the exact opposite of the breakdown of cases by fee-type that the Ministry of Injustice projected in May 2012, in its final regulatory impact assessment of the fees regime. (Please note that my term ‘pretty much’ is not the same as ‘within a 95 per cent confidence interval’).

That Ministry of Injustice projection – set out in paragraph 4.10 of the RIA, and based on the allocation of cases by HMCTS into short, standard and open tracks – was that 64 per cent of cases (i.e. single claims + the relatively small number of multiple claimant cases) would attract the lower Type A fees, and 36 per cent the higher Type B fees.

So who is right? If the Ministry was right with its 64/36 projection, then the BIS ad hoc statistical analysis, and its breakdown of claims by fee-type and gender, is quite possibly nowhere near as reliable as BIS claims. Indeed, it could well be a pile of pants. But if BIS is right with its 25/75 breakdown, then the Ministry misled Parliament (and everyone else) with its projection. Ms Chan’s job is now done, at least until the judicial review progresses to the Court of Appeal, but maybe now that BIS has made ET fees its issue too the previously elusive Ms Swinson can give us a few answers. At the very least, BIS should now offer an explanation of why it chose to overlook this glaring discrepancy when handing its findings over to the Ministry, and when publishing them in such unseemly haste on Friday evening.

And when she’s about it, perhaps Ms Swinson can also tell us when Autumn ends. In her detailed grounds of defence, Ms Chan informed Lord Justice Elias and Justice Foskett that the greatly anticipated review of the ET fees regime by the Ministry of Injustice (perhaps now with the help of BIS) will “take place this Autumn”. Maybe they operate to a different seasonal structure in government, but there are only 58 shopping days left until Christmas. Which in my house is not an autumnal event. And they haven’t even started the review yet.

Perhaps they are secretly hoping that Lord Justice Elias and Justice Foskett will save them the trouble.

 

New parlour game: hunt the ET fees review

For much of this year, whenever the justice-denying impact of the employment tribunal fees introduced by the Ministry of Justice in July 2013 has been raised in public with business secretary Vince Cable or BIS employment relations minister Jenny Willott (covering Jo Swinson’s maternity leave), they have shielded themselves from any criticism by suggesting that the fees regime is under review.

For example, at a conference of employment lawyers in April, just weeks after the release of the first full set of quarterly figures showing a dramatic fall in the number of cases, Jenny Willott reportedly deflected questions from the floor by stating that “the level of fees” will be one of several issues considered under a review of the fees regime.

And, in the House of Commons in mid-July, just two weeks before the first anniversary of the fees regime coming into force, Vince Cable responded to an intervention by Labour MP Debbie Abrahams, drawing attention to the drop-off in the number of cases in the months up to 31 March, by stating:

“Yes, I am aware of a substantial fall in numbers. There are several reasons, which we are currently investigating, one of which could be connected with fees. Another reason is that earlier legislation sought to introduce an arbitration mechanism through ACAS as a first port of call.” (Hansard, House of Commons, 16 July 2014, col. 909)

Let’s leave aside the fact that the system of early conciliation by Acas to which Dr Cable was referring did not come into force until 6 April, so played no part in the dramatic fall in tribunal cases in the six months up to 31 March, and focus on that phrase “we are currently investigating”. Not ‘we will consider as part of a review at some point in the future’, but “we are currently investigating”.

The MPs who listened to Dr Cable that day in July, and anyone who subsequently read the Hansard record of the debate, could be forgiven for concluding from this that the government (or, at least, that part of the government in which Dr Cable includes himself) has been ‘investigating’ the tribunal fees regime for at least the last three months.

Except that … it hasn’t. At least, not according to Jo Swinson, who returned from maternity leave to her role as BIS employment relations minister over the summer.

Asked on Twitter last Thursday to confirm whether she agrees with Liberal Democrat Policy Paper 120 – adopted at the party’s conference in Glasgow earlier in the week – when it states that the “high level of tribunal fees presents too much of a barrier” to justice, Ms Swinson dodged the question but volunteered that the “lead department on this is [the Ministry of Justice] not BIS so they will be launching the review [of the fees regime]”.

Er, they will be launching the review?

Yes. Asked to clarify whether her earlier tweet meant that the government’s review of the fees regime is in progress or has yet to start, on Friday Ms Swinson tweeted confirmation that the review has “yet to start”. And, asked to say when it might start, Ms Swinson declined to answer but suggested the question be directed to the Ministry of Justice.

So, contrary to the statement made by Dr Cable to the House of Commons in mid-July, no one in government is yet investigating the “substantial” fall in tribunal cases since July 2013 (at least, not in any meaningful sense). And this despite just about everyone outside government – including the CBI and the Federation of Small Businesses – having concluded that the dramatic fall in the number of cases is entirely due to the fees being set far too high.

Ministers at the Ministry of Justice may start ‘investigating’ these matters at some point in the future, but if they have a timetable for doing so they don’t appear to have shared it with the BIS employment relations minister.

Which begs the question: what the **** are they waiting for? It’s not as if there is that much to ‘investigate’. Fees came in, and the number of cases dropped off a cliff that no one in government saw coming. End of.

It’s perhaps worth adding that, according to the answer to a written question in the House of Lords given by justice minister Lord Faulks, the Ministry was “currently finalising arrangements for the timing and scope of the review” as long ago as 24 June. Almost four months have passed since then. What are they doing? It’s not as if they are being asked to rerun the Hutton Inquiry.