British Steel: Negotiations

Jane Hunt Excerpts

Thursday 2nd February 2023 Commons Chamber

[Jane Hunt (Loughborough) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that “little pots of money” seems a somewhat odd description, considering the £800 million since 2013 and lots of other support being available? Does she agree that holding the residents of Scunthorpe to ransom is a funny way of doing business? Does she also agree that my hon. Friend the Member for Scunthorpe (Holly Mumby-Croft) has worked relentlessly and fought tirelessly to help her residents and is doing so again today?

[Ms Ghani]

“Ransom” is not my word, but it is an interesting way to explain what is going on. Of course, my hon. Friend the Member for Scunthorpe is the leading champion of steel across the industry. I was at a Westminster Hall debate last week, and I pointed out that I cannot turn around any corridor without her cornering me on steel. That is why the sector is so well represented in the UK and why we have put together support that has been valued at over £1.5 billion of grants to help it decarbonise, with £800 million to cover energy costs.

Negotiations are ongoing. My officials will be speaking to British Steel and Jingye today. It was interesting to hear what meetings took place yesterday. When we are talking about hundreds of millions of pounds of support for a firm, while it is in negotiations with Government, for it to have this sort of conversation is not the way that we tend to do business in the UK.

Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Bill (First sitting)

Jane Hunt Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 25th October 2022 Public Bill Committees

[Seema Malhotra]

Q Do you know if there are cases where it has used those powers?

Andy Gould: I do not know. They only came in earlier this year, so I would be surprised if the FCA has got to the stage where it is able to exercise them in terms of investigation.

[Jane Hunt (Loughborough) (Con)]

Q Mr Gould, to follow on from that important point, I understand that the Bill removes the need for powers of arrest before you can do search and seizure. Can you explain the impact of that? Will it be useful for reducing the number of victims once you have spotted an issue happening?

Andy Gould: Yes, definitely. That is a huge benefit of the Bill; it is one of the provisions that we have been asking for. Imagine a scenario where you execute a search warrant on criminal premises: you go in and you can see stolen property, but at the moment, if they are not there, they are not under arrest and there is no existing investigation. You then have no power to take that crypto under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002. So yes, that is a big step forward for us.

[Stephen Kinnock]

Q Thank you for giving me another go. I have two quick questions. If you had a blank sheet of paper and you were able to amend the Bill in the cryptoassets space, what would be your No. 1 amendment to improve it? Secondly, Mr Gould, do you also look at counter-terrorism within your brief?

Andy Gould: No.

Carer’s Leave Bill

Jane Hunt Excerpts

Friday 21st October 2022 Commons Chamber

[Jane Hunt (Loughborough) (Con)]

I would like to thank the hon. Member for North East Fife (Wendy Chamberlain) for introducing and driving through this important Bill. It goes a long way in helping hard-working carers juggle their caring responsibilities with their employment. I will say only a few words, because we may otherwise run out of time, and that would be completely wrong for this Bill.

The approximately 4.2 million people across the UK providing unpaid care, over half of whom do so alongside their jobs, are playing a vital role in supporting some of the most vulnerable people, often at a cost to their own lives. I know from conversations with my constituents of the toll that providing care, often unexpectedly, can take—not just on the mental and physical wellbeing of the carer, but also on their household finances and other responsibilities, including their jobs. I would like to take this opportunity to thank every single person in this country who conducts any form of caring. It is a hidden cost to society. They maintain and look after it, and they do fantastic work. I thank them very much indeed.

Juggling caring responsibilities and work can be particularly challenging and can limit the participation of unpaid carers in the labour market. We know that women, who are often still the primary carers within families, tend to be disproportionately impacted. Carers must receive the right support to help them carry out their caring roles, and I welcome that the Government enshrined improved rights for carers in the Care Act 2014 and have been working hard to implement this ever since.

I was proud to stand on a manifesto that committed to extending the entitlement to leave for unpaid carers to one week, and I was pleased when the Government launched a consultation with their proposals for entitlement to carer’s leave. In their response to this consultation, the wide-ranging support for such a policy was highlighted, and it was evident that flexibility is the key to meeting the needs of carers.

The Bill draws on all this work and would ensure that flexibility is built into workplaces, so that from the first day of employment, carers can request leave to provide or arrange care for a dependant with a long-term care need. That is very important, because it means carers can move from job to job, improving their career, and yet still have help from day one. It is especially important that this additional rise is not dependent on length of service, and that it can be divided up as needed, because we must ensure that legislation accurately reflects the realities of caring, which is often unpredictable in nature. I welcome the Bill’s support from key stakeholders, who arguably have the greatest understanding of the needs of carers, including Carers UK. I support and welcome the Bill, and I thank the hon. Member for North East Fife for bringing it forward.

Protection from Redundancy (Pregnancy and Family Leave) Bill

Jane Hunt Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 21st October 2022 Commons Chamber

[Dan Jarvis (Barnsley Central) (Lab)]

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

I begin by acknowledging that the House was originally due consider the Bill on Friday 9 September. I was looking over my speech the day before when I learned, with the greatest sadness, that Her late Majesty Queen Elizabeth II had passed away. I am grateful that we can proceed with Second Reading today.

I welcome the new Minister to his post. I also thank the previous Ministers—the hon. Member for Loughborough (Jane Hunt), who is in her place, and the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Paul Scully)—for their support for the Bill at an early stage. They were both incredibly helpful and supportive and I am grateful to them.

I pay tribute to the officials at the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy for their excellent work in supporting the Bill. I also say a big “thank you” to the Clerks of the House, who have done excellent work, as they always do, to ensure that we can proceed with Second Reading today. I put on record my sincere gratitude to the Equality and Human Rights Commission, the TUC, the Royal College of Midwives, my union Unison, Maternity Action, Pregnant Then Screwed, The Fawcett Society and the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development, all of which have offered invaluable support to the process over the last few months.

There is no more important or gratifying experience than raising a family. Children provide hope for the future and bring joy to our lives, although I can say as a parent, as I am sure other hon. Members will, that on occasion that has been tested to the full in my household—but that is teenagers. Despite its importance, however, raising a family has never been more challenging. The scarcity of affordable housing, sky-high childcare costs and now soaring inflation make the decision to start or grow a family simply unaffordable for many. This Bill seeks to alleviate some of that hardship by increasing security in the workplace for pregnant women and new parents by extending redundancy protections. I am proud to be bringing forward the Bill in the House today.

The current safeguards afforded under the Equality Act 2010 and the Maternity and Parental Leave etc. Regulations 1999—the MAPLE regulations—are not being applied correctly, and are sometimes not being observed at all. As it stands under the law, a woman on maternity leave is entitled to be offered a suitable alternative vacancy if her role is at risk, but a lack of clarity coupled with poor compliance means that new mums are often first rather than last to be shown the door. The sheer scale of the problem makes the case for reform irrefutable.

Each year, there are somewhere in the region of half a million pregnant women in the workplace. A Human Rights Commission survey, commissioned by the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy and published in 2016, found that a majority—three in four—experience pregnancy and maternity discrimination, while some 54,000 women a year lose their job just for getting pregnant. A few months on from that survey, the Women and Equalities Committee, then chaired by the right hon. Member for Basingstoke (Dame Maria Miller), advocated for a comprehensive ban on redundancies. In response to her inquiry’s report, the Government stated that the situation was “clearly unacceptable”.

Two years on, the Government launched a consultation, and in reply they pledged to extend existing protections to pregnancy and a period of six months following a return to work. The 2019 Queen’s Speech was set to deliver these commitments through an employment Bill, but that was not brought forward, and then the pandemic hit. As with everything, covid exposed and amplified every pre-existing inequality and prejudice, and expectant and new parents in the workplace were not an exception.

Analysis by the Institute for Fiscal Studies found that mothers were more likely than fathers to have lost their job or to have quit during lockdown. The Office for National Statistics reported that parents were twice as likely to have been furloughed compared with workers without children. A TUC survey revealed a significant number of pregnant women and new mums had experienced unfair treatment or discrimination at work—findings backed up by two damning reports published by the Petitions Committee.

Behind those numbers are scores of soon-to-be mums and new parents fighting to keep their jobs, struggling to support a young family and now doing so against the backdrop of a cost of living crisis. This debate is therefore not over the level of injustice—we know what that is—but about how we can correct it.

Let me explain to the House what the Bill will do. Clause 1 provides a new power to enable provision to be made by regulations about protection from redundancy during and after pregnancy. Clause 2 amends existing powers to make regulations to enable protection from redundancy on return to work from maternity, adoption or shared parental leave.

[Jane Hunt (Loughborough) (Con)]

The hon. Member is making an excellent speech on his excellent Bill. Yes, this is about pregnant women, but it is also about family leave, which is superb news. Could he elaborate a little more on that, please?

[Dan Jarvis]

I am very grateful to the hon. Member for her question. As I said earlier, she was incredibly helpful at the early stages of the Bill, and she is absolutely right to make that point. The benefit of the Bill will be felt across hundreds of thousands of households and families right across the country. Although the focus of my remarks to date has been on the impact it will have on women who are pregnant and new mums, the reality is that the benefits of the Bill extend right across the family unit. We know the official numbers are that 54,000 women lose their jobs every single year just because they are pregnant. As we can all imagine, that has a devastating impact on them, but also of course on the wider family unit. The hon. Member raises a very important question, and I completely agree with what she said.

I know there are some right hon. and hon. Members here today, and certainly a number of people and campaigners watching the debate, who would like—and this policy was previously advocated by the right hon. Member for Basingstoke—an outright ban on redundancies, as we have seen implemented in Germany. Not everybody will necessarily be familiar with the German model, so let me briefly explain it.

There are five pillars of the Maternity Protection Act that underwrite the ban in Germany. First, protection from redundancy begins the moment the employer knows that the employee is pregnant. Secondly, if an employer makes a pregnant worker redundant not knowing they are pregnant but then this information is disclosed, they must be reinstated and the protections apply. Thirdly, the local health authority must review each request from an employer to make a pregnant worker or a new mother redundant. This usually takes about three weeks in practice, and while this review takes place the pregnant woman will remain in employment. Fourthly, an employer cannot dismiss a pregnant worker or a new mother without permission from the health authority. Lastly, protections for mothers on maternity and parental leave extend to four months after it has been taken. That also extends to women who, very sadly, have experienced a miscarriage.

Although it may not be wholly translatable to the British system, there is little doubt over confusion and compliance under those rules. The Government have decided that, for the moment, they do not want to apply similar regulations here.

--- Later in debate ---

[Tulip Siddiq]

The hon. Member is absolutely right. The cost of living in my constituency of Hampstead and Kilburn is extremely high, and those families were very worried about what would impact them financially. Moreover, parents are meant to enjoy the time after they have a baby, but instead, these four women were fighting court cases and going to their employers. What really shocked me, as I was helping them and supporting them through it, was that it felt like the onus was on the women to prove maternity discrimination, whereas the employer did not seem to have much of an obligation to prove genuine redundancy. That worried me. I felt that there was more and more pressure on new mothers to say, “Actually, this is maternity discrimination. This is what happened when I left, and then when I came back, my job wasn’t there. You are not offering me another job.” That is why I feel so passionate about this Bill. If it shifts the onus on to employers to prove that they are not indulging in maternity discrimination, that would be a huge win for the country.

I wish to mention briefly the godmother of my children. She had a child and took only four months off—she had shared parental leave because she loved her job so much. Four days after going back to work, she was told that she was fired. Members of this House sit on the board of the organisation in which she worked. I went with the godmother of my child to her hearing. I felt frustrated that I could not stand up for her and prove maternity discrimination, because I did not have the law on my side. I felt like I failed her. The case was swept under the carpet. When I spoke to her later, she told me that when she eventually found a new job, she discovered that she was pregnant with her second child—this goes back to the point made by the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster. She said that her first feeling when she found out was “total panic”—those were the words she used. She thought, “What’s going to happen? Am I going to be fired again? Should I tell my employer that I am having another child?” She said that she was so traumatised by what had gone before—dealing with lawyers, having to go back to her employer and fighting with her friends in the workplace—that she would not even take a lunch break in her new job, because she felt like they might discriminate against her when she told them she was pregnant.

[Jane Hunt]

Does the hon. Member agree that it is so short-sighted of that business to have done that? These women are hard-working, and they will be on maternity leave for a short period in comparison with the rest of their career. That business will lose skills and knowledge because of what happened.

[Tulip Siddiq]

I thank the hon. Member for her point. I do not just say this because she is the godmother to my children, but I have never met someone as hard-working and dedicated to her job as Anne. Her employer fired her mostly because she had taken the time off—they essentially penalised her for having a child—and that is why I am so passionate about the Bill. Penalising women for having children is not what our country should be focused on.

I will not speak for much longer, because I know there is a lot of interest in the Bill, but I want to touch briefly on covid. As my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley Central said, covid exacerbated every inequality. The TUC brought out a report about what had happened to expectant mothers and pregnant women during the covid pandemic, which found that 25% of new mothers and pregnant women said they had faced some sort of discrimination during covid, whether that was being made redundant, being forced to go on furlough or being told they should take sick leave because they were pregnant. Being pregnant does not mean someone is ill, but these women were being forced to take sick leave.

That report from the TUC is really important, as is all the analysis that has been done by Pregnant Then Screwed, which shows how we as a country have failed new mothers and pregnant women. By passing this legislation, we are signalling to the employers that we will not put up with this any more and that things have to change. In a situation where there is soaring inflation, childcare costs are rocketing and there is a cost of living crisis, we owe it as a House to new mothers to give them job security.

[Shaun Bailey (West Bromwich West) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to follow the powerful speech by the hon. Member for Hampstead and Kilburn (Tulip Siddiq), who gave examples of lived experiences. The experience she highlighted of her children’s godmother is horrendous. These experiences are brushed under the carpet, and that is disgraceful. I hope that, through the Bill, we will ensure that that does not happen again, because it cannot. I commend the hon. and gallant Member for Barnsley Central (Dan Jarvis) for bringing in the Bill. It should not be necessary to do so, but clearly it is. We have to do this, and it is the right thing to do. What has struck me today is the way in which we have come together as a House to support the Bill and its aims.

The background to this area astonishes me, and we have heard about it in contributions from Members across the House. In 2022, it should not be an impediment to someone to want to have a family, so that they cannot at the same time pursue a career—that is crazy. The hon. and gallant Member for Barnsley Central touched on the report of the Equality and Human Rights Commission, and some of the figures in that were horrendous. When scaled up, the figures show that something like 54,000 women could experience discrimination as a result of either being pregnant or having had children. That astounds me.

[Jane Hunt]

I absolutely agree with what my hon. Friend is saying. We see headlines these days about the lack of labour in the market and needing people to fill jobs, yet 54,000 people are either being made redundant or feeling the need to leave their jobs. That is a disgrace, is it not?

[Shaun Bailey]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right: it is a disgrace. I think about my own experiences. Before I entered this place, I was a lawyer; that is what I trained to do. I was fortunate to work in some great firms and meet some fantastic, intelligent people. I know that people sometimes typecast lawyers as all sorts and do not trust us, but the people I worked with were fantastic, intelligent, hard-working and inspirational. However, let us look at the figures in the sector, and I am thinking in particular about the gender pay gap and how the issues we are debating contribute to that.

A London School of Economics study found that even though today 62% of new entrants into law firms are women, by the time we get to partner level only 28% of women are partners. That is absolutely crazy, given the proportion of women at entry level. What we are seeing is that women want to go and have a family and a personal life, which we are all entitled to, but they are being impeded. That might not all be down to the discrimination we have been talking about, but what I hope the Bill achieves is a cultural change. That is what we have to drive forward. It amazes me that we actually have to say this today, but a woman can have a career and a family at the same time, and an employer that enables that to happen.

Thinking of my own office, 80% of my staff are women. I have no problem if they need to take time out because they have to go and look after their family or collect their kids. To me, that is just basic decency as an employer. Surely it is a two-way street as an employer: what we do is get the talent and ability of the people we employ, and in turn we give something back.

[Jane Hunt]

Does my hon. Friend agree that this Bill is very helpful because it also includes shared parental leave? Those partners, both male and female, who are impacted by shared parental leave will also be able to take advantage of the redundancy scheme.

[Shaun Bailey]

My hon. Friend articulates it so well. She is absolutely right; shared parental leave is now such a key part of the broader landscape of family and employment rights—I do not want to just say maternity rights. We now know that the idea that mum goes off for a year and looks after the baby while dad works is ridiculous—it is rubbish. Both parents need to be playing an active role. We say that both parents need to be playing an active role in the life of their child, but if we have an employment structure that does not allow us to do that, then it is all good words but absolutely no action. My hon. Friend is right to draw out with her intervention the point about shared parental leave. What I am encouraged by is the recognition that shared parental leave needs to become the norm. From what I have seen at the moment, we are seeing that transition; we are seeing that more organisations are getting that. But there is still more to do.

The other point I will touch on is the societal impact. I talk about this from my personal experience. What we do not want to do is frame this in the context of mum, dad and 2.4 children, because actually families do not operate like that; there are many shades of grey. If someone is a single mother, or a single woman who is pregnant, and runs the risk of redundancy as a result of that, where does that leave them?

[Shaun Bailey]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and the academic studies have shown that. We have the data showing the mental health impact on women who are having to worry about the risk of redundancy in their job. Of course it is not right—I am framing this in the context of a mother who is giving care to a child—that they should have to worry about their employment and everything that interconnects with that, and at the same time have to raise a child.

I have not had children, but for those who have—I am probably going to get interventions from hon. Friends across the House now—that initial period of time, and I will not say how long it is because I am sure it might vary, is probably one of the most stressful points in a mother’s life. They are getting to grips with realising that there is no handbook, and that everything they were told was going to go this way or that way actually does not—children do not work like that and there is no button to push. They are balancing that—a new person they have brought into the world and have to care for—and at the same time having to worry about how they are going to put food on the table, and go back into a career that they love, are passionate about and have maybe trained for years to do but now are at risk of losing because their organisation has potentially decided, “No, goodbye, see you later.” It seriously blows my mind that we even have to be here having this conversation.

[Jane Hunt]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the six-month window at the end of this part of the Bill is also very important? I hate to use this phrase, but it is almost an “out of sight, out of mind” situation. When a woman is on maternity leave or a person is on shared parental leave, they are no longer in the workplace. They need that window of opportunity to get back into the workplace and into the swing of things, so they can show their value to the business.

[Shaun Bailey]

My hon. Friend raises a good point, and I was hoping to touch on the transitional period later. We know how important it is to have the opportunity to transition back into the workplace and get back into the flow of things. Going through a life-changing event such as having a child changes the whole dynamic in someone’s life. I think that window is a really important opportunity for them. I hope I have not misunderstood my hon. Friend, but I agree that having that period of time means the individual is able to contribute in the way they know they can.

It all comes back to realising people’s potential. That is another part of this issue. It is not about saying to someone, “Okay, you’ve had a child; you’re done.” It is not like that at all. I have been very fortunate in the organisations I have worked in, out in what we call the real world—certainly more real at times than this place has been, particularly over the last week. I have seen organisations that get this issue, already have processes in place and are developing a culture that understands that it is not just about, for instance, the amount someone bills every month, but the contribution they make as a person.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough (Jane Hunt) just described, the provision for that period of time is a crucial part of this legislation. We are on Second Reading today, but the Bill represents part of a broader landscape, and what my hon. Friend is saying on its provisions is vital. It comes back to a point that right hon. and hon. Members across the House have raised—including the hon. and gallant Member for Barnsley Central, my hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough, and a few hon. Members from a sedentary position—which is that we are currently losing skillsets from the workforce as a result of this issue. How daunting must it be for someone who has taken an extended period of time to go and have a child to come back and worry about not having the protections they should be afforded?

[Shaun Bailey]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Why would someone want to join such an organisation, having seen how it operates and what its practices are? Talented individuals who know they have something to bring to the table, and know their worth, particularly in the climate we are in, are going to vote with their feet, are they not? And they should. They will be empowered to know that they can now go to organisations that will treat them as individuals who deserve respect. These organisations will understand that people are allowed to have a family life and balance. People should be able to have an employer who contributes toward that balance and is part of a partnership with them.

As I understand it, the whole point of the employer-employee relationship is that it is a contract and partnership—an understanding between two people in an organisation. The balance of power has at times gone completely off.

[Jane Hunt]

My hon. Friend is being generous with his time; I promise that this is my last intervention. Just to balance it out, he is absolutely right in what he just said, but this Bill is absolutely brilliant in bringing up one segment of the business sector. Many businesses already meet these and further requirements, but we need everybody to do the same, because that 54,000 figure should not exist.

[Shaun Bailey]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. To reiterate her point, I certainly do not want to give the impression that I am typecasting every business in that regard. As I have said, many businesses are getting this right and are going above and beyond—but that should not be above and beyond; it should be the standard.

I return to the idea that not every family is black and white, with 2.4 children and a mum and dad—I apologise to hon. Members for segueing away from that point. I speak as someone who was brought up in a single-parent family with a sole breadwinner who at times was working three jobs in order to put food on the table, and doing a part-time university degree. My mum went back to work six weeks after she had me, because she needed to, and it was similar with my sister. If someone is a sole parent on their own income and is pregnant with another child, or if there has been a family breakdown, the last thing they need is to have that threat of, “If I have a child, or if there’s anything connected to that child, I’m going to lose my job.” It does not bear thinking about—it blows my mind.

The societal impact of what we are talking about goes much further than the scope of the Bill’s provisions, and that is why it is so important. When we pass legislation in this House, particularly legislation such as this, it is not just about the Bill or the laws that we implement; it is about the message we send about society. We have seen that throughout history, particularly with legislation that has passed as a result of private Members’ Bills, such as women’s rights legislation. Lord Steel was a big advocate of women’s rights and the work of those organisations when he was on the Liberal Benches. We are sending a broader message that we need a society that understands that balancing work and family life is key.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jane Hunt (Loughborough) (Con)]

Gosh—follow that! That was extremely moving from my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich West (Shaun Bailey). I am grateful to him for his articulation of his experience, which was superb.

I very much thank the hon. and gallant Member for Barnsley Central (Dan Jarvis) for introducing this important Bill, which will ensure better protections for women and families with new babies. It was a pleasure to work with him, albeit briefly, to help drive this Bill forward in my former role as the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, and I would like to emphasise my continued full support for it.

The hon. Member talked about being proud of this Bill, and I feel sure he is quite right to be so. I certainly feel proud to have been involved. The current Minister has done a huge amount of work to support it, as indeed did the previous Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Paul Scully). He did a great deal of work on this, and also on many other Bills, which I will refer to a bit later. What we are looking at in the Bill is part of a matrix of workers’ rights, and it is right, good and proper that we are doing so.

It is shocking that, in 2022, new parents—mothers in particular—are still being forced out of their jobs through either dismissal or compulsory redundancy when others in the workplace do not face that, or are being treated so poorly that they feel they have no choice but to leave. A 2020 survey by Pregnant Then Screwed found that 11.2% of women on maternity leave had been made redundant, or expected to be made redundant, and 60.7% of them believed that their maternity leave was a factor in the decision. A more recent 2021 survey found that 20% of mothers have experienced discrimination from an employer.

I turn to the background to the Bill. Research published in 2016 commissioned by the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills and the Equality and Human Rights Commission found that about one in nine mothers—11%—reported that they were either dismissed, made redundant or treated poorly and therefore had to leave their job. The publication of that research was followed by a Women and Equalities Committee inquiry and report on pregnancy and maternity discrimination in August 2016. One of its key findings was that mothers returning from maternity leave still faced discrimination. It therefore recommended that the Government should take steps to provide

“additional protection from redundancy for new and expectant mothers”.

It recommended that enhanced protections should apply throughout pregnancy and for six months after a woman’s return to work.

The Government published their response to the report in 2017. They acknowledged the scale of pregnancy and maternity discrimination experienced by new and expectant mothers and committed to

“consider further and bring forward proposals to ensure that the protections in place for those who are pregnant or returning from maternity leave are sufficient.”

The Committee said:

“We are persuaded that additional protection from redundancy for new and expectant mothers is required. The Government should implement a system similar to that used in Germany—

that was referred to earlier—

“under which such women can be made redundant only in specified circumstances. This protection should apply throughout pregnancy and maternity leave and for six months afterwards. The Government should implement this change within the next two years.”

In January 2019, the Government published a consultation seeking views on extending current redundancy protections for pregnant women and new parents. It recommended that the Government extend the current redundancy protection afforded to women during maternity leave under the Maternity and Paternity Leave etc. Regulations 1999 to cover a woman’s pregnancy and a period of up to six months after returning to work. The consultation also acknowledged that those returning from forms of leave comparable to maternity leave may have been away from work for long periods and therefore might similarly face discrimination or be prone to less favourable treatment.

The Government response, published in July 2019, made two commitments: to extend the redundancy protection period to include pregnancy and six months after a new mother has returned to work; and to provide the same enhanced protections to those returning from adoption leave and, crucially, shared parental leave.

It is unacceptable that anyone should be penalised for deciding to have a family. I welcome the fact that the Government have acknowledged the scale of pregnancy and maternity discrimination experienced by new and expectant mothers. Given the scale of the problem, it is clear that current legislation does not go far enough to protect new parents. We have talked about that in earlier speeches and interventions. The Bill caters for pregnant women working in all types of employment. There are women throughout the whole of the workplace, and all such people will benefit from the Bill.

I am particularly grateful that the Bill covers those on adoption leave and shared parental leave. The Bill dovetails wonderfully with the Neonatal Care (Leave and Pay) Bill introduced in July by the Scottish National party hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East (Stuart C. McDonald), working closely with the Government and BEIS, as well as with the Fertility Treatment (Employment Rights) Bill from my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Nickie Aiken), which has yet to have its Second Reading, and the shared parental leave Bill that we have discussed. There is a matrix being formed of support and business guidance to ensure that businesses are helped to do the right thing to support their employees, women and parents. There should be no barrier to any parent having the opportunity to get to know their child and bond with them at the earliest opportunity.

I welcome the fact that in 2019 the Government consulted on the proposals to extend redundancy protections for pregnant women and new parents. The majority of responses showed support for measures to extend the redundancy protection period once a new mother had returned to work, and to extend protections to adoption and shared parental leave. That consultation was undertaken in January 2019 and BEIS reported

“that 6 months would be an adequate period of ‘return to work’ for redundancy protection purposes”,

and

“that protection should be extended to parents who have taken adoption leave and shared parental leave”,

which I think is crucial.

The Government responded to the consultation on 22 July 2019, including a series of commitments to increasing redundancy protections in this area, first to

“ensure the redundancy protection period applies from the point the employee informs the employer that she is pregnant, whether orally or in writing;”

secondly, to

“extend the redundancy protection period for six months once a new mother has returned to work. We expect that this period will start immediately once maternity leave is finished;”

thirdly, to

“extend redundancy protection into a period of return to work for those taking adoption leave following the same approach as the extended protection being provided for those returning from maternity leave—it will be for six months;”,

and fourthly, to

“extend redundancy protection into a period of return to work for those taking shared parental leave, taking account of the following key principles and issues: the key objective of this policy is to help protect pregnant women and new mothers from discrimination; the practical and legal differences between shared parental leave and maternity leave mean that it will require a different approach; the period of extended protection should be proportionate to the amount of leave and the threat of discrimination; a mother should be no worse off if she curtails her maternity leave and then takes a period of Shared Parental Leave; the solution should not create any disincentives to take Shared Parental Leave”.

The Bill before us would enact those crucial changes and clearly has the backing of many. I recognise the cross-party agreement we have seen across the House; in my opinion, we are at our best when we have that. The Bill is a welcome extension of the framework of workers’ rights in general and crucially allows family leave to be included in legislation. The German model is a good one, but I believe we must reach a compromise between the needs of businesses and the needs of families and pregnant mothers.

[Shaun Bailey]

Looking at other models and the broader matrix my hon. Friend talks about, does she also believe that the legislative framework we are trying to bring in needs to be an evolving one? The likelihood is that we will need secondary legislation or even further primary legislation, but as part of that we must ensure that the framework continues to evolve and adapt as the workplace landscape changes.

[Jane Hunt]

I could not agree more with my hon. Friend. This Bill provides a framework that the Secretary of State can adapt to meet future needs for both pregnant women and those on adoption or shared parental leave. It sets up a matrix that can be filled as required.

In conclusion, I welcome this Bill. I truly believe it is something we should do and are able to do. I feel that the Minister will do a wonderful job in bringing this all together and I wholeheartedly thank the hon. Member for Barnsley Central for bringing the Bill forward.

Neonatal Care (Leave and Pay) Bill

Jane Hunt Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 7th September 2022 Public Bill Committees

[David Linden]

As ever, it is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Bardell. Your position as Chair makes you unable to comment on the Bill, although I am sure that you would be keen to put your support for it on the record if you could—so I will do that for you. I pay particular tribute to your work with your constituent Coady Dorman and her son Matthew, who was born prematurely. Coady will be incredibly appreciative of the fact that you are chairing the proceedings on the Bill as we expedite it through the House.

Like the hon. Member for Thornbury and Yate, I thank everybody for the cross-party way in which we are piloting the Bill through the House. As I walked into work this morning, I reflected that I had perhaps been a little unfair to the Minister yesterday during a debate on the devolution of employment rights. Actually, this place probably works at its best when folk work on a cross-party basis; a good example would be the work done by the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland on her One Punch assaults campaign. Part of the reason why I was so keen for the Committee to progress quickly was that I suspect some Government Members will not be in their positions by the end of the week as they move, perhaps, into junior ministerial office. It is important that we work on a cross-party basis when we agree on issues. All that is a veiled way of saying sorry to the Minister for giving her such a hard time yesterday.

Like the hon. Member for Thornbury and Yate, I want to put on the record my support for amendments 1 to 4, the last of which is quite substantial. I share some of his concerns about implementation. One thing that reassured me during my past conversations with the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Paul Scully), the former Minister, was learning that BEIS officials had done quite a lot of work on this. Given that we had been led to believe—completely fairly, perhaps—that Government officials had done the groundwork, it strikes me that the 18-month delay for implementation is a little out of kilter. If something needs to be ironed out between BEIS and HMRC, I am sure the Minister will see to that.

Those are the main points that I wanted to put on the record. I do not see a need for the Committee to spend huge amounts of time on the Bill, which is not controversial and already has a budget line of £15 million from a previous Budget. On that basis, I look forward to its passing through this Committee, having its remaining stages on the Floor of the House and then going over to the other place.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Jane Hunt)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Bardell. Introducing neonatal care and leave through the Bill will mean that parents will not have to worry about work when they face the stress and anxiety of caring for a sick baby. It will at least relieve them of one concern at such a very difficult time.

On Second Reading, we heard from Members on both sides, some of whom are serving on the Committee today, about their personal experiences of having children in neonatal care. Again, I thank the hon. Member for Glasgow East and my hon. Friend the Member for Thornbury and Yate, among others, for sharing their personal experiences; that was very much appreciated and I am sure it made a difference on Second Reading. Both Members talked movingly about their personal experiences and explained how incredibly worried they felt when their children were in neonatal care. The Government are keen to offer families in such difficult circumstances our full support, and I am pleased to be here today to reiterate that the Government fully support the Bill.

I would like to touch on the two amendments proposed by the Bill’s promoter. The first would amend clause 2 to remove a power to amend primary legislation by secondary legislation, a so-called Henry VIII power, and replace it with a power to amend secondary legislation only. As the hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East—I have now managed to say his constituency name correctly—points out, the need for that Henry VIII power has passed. Issues with how the entitlement might interact with other legislation that might be forthcoming have been resolved. That being the case, I am in favour of the clause being amended to limit the effect of the power and agree that the amended clause should stand part of the Bill.

The second amendment proposed by the sponsor is to make changes to the relevant week used to calculate pay. Again, I support that change. I agree with the sponsor’s detailed explanation on the need for the amendment, which will ensure that parents who are already low earners do not miss out on the entitlement to statutory neonatal care pay. I therefore support the amended schedule, which should stand part of the Bill. I also agree that clauses 1 to 3 and schedule parts 1 to 3 should stand part of the Bill.

Employment Law: Devolution to Scotland

Jane Hunt Excerpts

Tuesday 6th September 2022 Westminster Hall

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Jane Hunt)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Edward.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Lanark and Hamilton East (Angela Crawley) on securing this important debate on the potential merits of devolving employment law to Scotland. As Members can well imagine, there is an awful lot for me to respond to, so I probably will not take interventions at this stage, because I do not think there will be time for me to do so.

As the hon. Member is aware, employment matters are reserved to the UK Parliament under the Scotland Act 1998, with a few exceptions, such as the subject matter of the Agricultural Wages (Scotland) Act 1949. The Government have no intention of devolving legislative competence for employment rights matters to the Scottish Government.

The Scotland Acts of 1998, 2012 and 2016 have created one of the most powerful devolved Governments in the world. The Scottish devolution settlement gives the Scottish Parliament power over numerous aspects of its governance and strikes a good balance. The current settlement was agreed between the Scottish Government and the UK Government after extensive cross-party consultation and discussion by the Smith Commission.

We strongly believe that in order for the labour market to work most effectively across Great Britain, the underlying legislative framework concerning rights and responsibilities in the workplace needs to be consistent and must not be devolved to the Scottish Parliament. Employers and employees benefit hugely from a single, simple system where employment rights are the same across Great Britain, whether someone is working in Dunstable or Dundee. Devolving employment rights to Scotland could create a two-tier employment rights framework, with Scotland adopting different policy and legislation to England and Wales. This would create a significant burden for businesses. It would be costly for employers who operate on both sides of the border, as they would need to understand the differences between the systems and potentially implement different sets of policies and procedures.

[David Linden]

In the 25 minutes left, will the Minister give way?

[Jane Hunt]

I have an awful lot to get through, but I will allow one intervention.

[David Linden]

The Minister makes a point about companies operating over borders and having different employment practices to adhere to. She is, of course, fully aware that employment law is devolved in Northern Ireland. She mentions Dunstable and Dundee. Notwith-standing the lovely big sea border that her Government have just put down in the Irish sea, which I know some in her party are vexed about, why is it good enough for people in Larne but not people in Livingston?

--- Later in debate ---

[Jane Hunt]

I will get to that in a short while.

Devolving employment rights to Scotland could also disadvantage workers by suppressing the free flow of labour between England and Scotland. Having this valuable free flow of labour is essential, as it increases the chances of workers finding the jobs that will make the most of their skills and employers finding the best employees for their businesses. Office for National Statistics data from 2019 estimates that around 68,000 people work in Scotland and live in England, or vice versa. Devolving employment rights could therefore be highly disruptive for workers who work across the border.

The UK Government remain strongly committed to working together with all the devolved Administrations to ensure the UK’s institutions are working collectively as one United Kingdom. We appreciate and value our ongoing, close working relationship with the Scottish Government, while also respecting their unique devolved nature. Through this close working, we are determined to build a highly skilled, highly productive high-wage economy that delivers on our ambition to make the UK the best place in the world to work and grow a business. Ministers and officials within my Department engage regularly with their counterparts in the Scottish Government, as well as the Welsh and Northern Irish Governments, to consider various employment-related issues. I look forward to discussing employment rights issues with my Scottish counterparts too.

I would like to highlight that the UK, including Scotland, has a very strong labour market. Its strength results from balancing labour market flexibility with worker protections. The figures speak for themselves. Early estimates for July 2022 indicate that there were 29.7 million payrolled employees—around 650,000 higher than pre-pandemic levels. The unemployment rate is 3.8%, which is close to record low rates. Making any changes to the current devolution settlement could jeopardise our labour market’s success. On employment rights, the hon. Member for Lanark and Hamilton East stated that workers’ rights are being disregarded in the UK. I disagree with that. She also said that Ministers are sleeping on the job. Chance would be a fine thing—since 8 July at least!

It is not only the labour market’s strength that is exemplary. The UK’s record on employment rights is one of the best in the world, giving vital protections to workers. We have one of the highest minimum wages in the world. In April, the national living wage was raised to £9.50. In the UK, people get a minimum of over five weeks of annual leave, whereas the EU requires only four weeks. People in the UK get a year of maternity leave. The EU minimum is just 14 weeks.

I am proud that we have implemented many important changes to the UK labour market, which are benefiting workers across England, Scotland and Wales. In recent years, this Government have brought forward a raft of legislation on employment rights issues. That legislation has closed a loophole that saw agency workers employed on cheaper rates than permanent workers, and quadrupled the maximum fine for employers who treat their workers badly. We have given all workers the right to receive a statement of their rights from day one. We have given parents a new legal right to two weeks’ paid bereavement leave for those who suffer the devastating loss of a child. The hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South (Mhairi Black) mentioned the Taylor review, and the Government are making progress on a number of the recommendations it set out.

The Government supported workers throughout the covid-19 pandemic, taking steps to protect the earnings of workers through the UK-wide coronavirus job retention scheme. We also ensured that furloughed employees who were made redundant received full redundancy payments. In Scotland, a total of 911,900 employees were on furlough during the course of the scheme, and we were able to offer this unprecedented package of support through our ability to act on a UK-wide basis. Our response to the covid-19 pandemic exemplifies that we are at our strongest when we come together as one United Kingdom.

We are going still further with employment rights reforms. Numerous private Members’ Bills have been introduced on the matter of employment rights, and we are working closely with these Members on their proposals. On 15 July, this Government supported two private Members’ Bills on Second Reading. The Employment (Allocation of Tips) Bill, introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Watford (Dean Russell), will ensure that all tips go to staff, and allow them to bring a claim to an employment tribunal if businesses do not fairly distribute workers’ well-earned tips. The Neonatal Care (Leave and Pay) Bill, introduced by an SNP Member, the hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East (Stuart C. McDonald), will allow parents whose new-born babies are admitted to neonatal care to take up to 12 weeks of paid leave, in addition to other leave entitlements, such as maternity leave. This will allow them to spend more time with their babies at what is a hugely stressful time. Our productive work with the SNP Member on this Bill goes to show just how far we can make progress on important employment rights issues by collaborating across parties, and between the UK Government and the devolved Administrations. My officials have also met their Scottish Government counterparts to discuss the private Members’ Bills, and will continue to engage closely with them throughout their passage.

As well as those private Members’ Bills, on 6 July, we laid legislation that extends the ban on exclusivity clauses in contracts where a worker’s guaranteed weekly income is below the lower earnings limit, which is currently £123 a week. That will ensure that an estimated 1.5 million people have the opportunity to pick up extra work to top up their income if they wish. Two further private Members’ Bills will be considered on Friday, including the Carer’s Leave Bill, which was mentioned earlier. Also mentioned was shared parental leave, which is exceeding the expectations in the targets set for it. The online tool is also proving successful in helping parents decide what to do for their family.

In July, we published guidance to clarify the existing employment status boundaries, making it easier for businesses to comply with existing regulations and for individuals to understand which employment protections apply to them. In April, we made sure that 2.5 million people across the UK received a pay rise by raising the minimum wage and the living wage. The largest ever cash increase to the national living wage will put over £1,000 a year extra into full-time workers’ pay packets, helping to ease cost of living pressures. We are helping younger people too by lifting the minimum wage for under-23-year-olds and apprentices. What is more, in December 2021, we named and shamed 208 UK employers who failed to pay the minimum wage, including 19 Scottish employers.

We take action where it is needed to tackle appalling business practices, such as P&O Ferries firing its employees without consultation. We reported P&O to the Insolvency Service and took an active role in ensuring it treated its workers fairly. In March this year, we announced that we will introduce a statutory code of practice on dismissal and re-engagement—so-called fire and rehire tactics. That will include practical steps that employers should follow if they are considering changes to workers’ terms and conditions and there is the prospect of dismissal and re-engagement. All that comes in addition to the UK Government’s £37 billion cost of living support package, which will benefit households across the UK, including those in Scotland. For these reasons, the Government do not support the devolution of employment rights to the Scottish Government.

Let me turn to some of the points raised during the debate. The hon. Member for Lanark and Hamilton East spoke about the Miscarriage Leave Bill. The Government recognise that losing a child at any stage is incredibly difficult, and we expect employers to respond with compassion and understanding. Because the death of a child is a particularly tragic event, we have legislated to give parents who lose a child under the age of 18, including cases where a baby is stillborn after 24 completed weeks of pregnancy, a right to take up to two weeks off work in the 56 weeks following the death of their child.

Although there is no statutory entitlement to leave for women who lose a baby before 24 completed weeks of pregnancy, those who are not able to return to work may be entitled to statutory sick pay while off work, subject to the eligibility conditions. If eligible for statutory sick pay, employees are able to self-certify incapacity for work for the first seven days of their absence, regardless of the cause. All employees are also entitled to 5.6 weeks of annual leave a year, and many employers also offer compassionate leave.

[Angela Crawley]

My ten-minute rule Bill is due for Second Reading on 16 September. Does the Minister acknowledge that it is simply unfair that a parent who loses a pregnancy or baby at 23 weeks and six days has no right whatsoever to any form of paid leave, while after 24 weeks a parent has the right to bereavement leave and pay? Should that legislation not be extended or provision not be made for parents who experience that loss before 24 weeks? Can she explain why the Government will not do so?

[Jane Hunt]

I will look at that point, because I understand the hon. Lady’s argument. However, a line has to be drawn somewhere.

The hon. Member for Glasgow East (David Linden) talked about the four-day working week. We appreciate that a four-day working week may work well for some workers and employers, but we do not believe in a one-size-fits-all approach to working arrangements. That is why rather than telling people and businesses how to work, we put individual agency and choice at the heart of our approach to flexible working.

The hon. Members for Paisley and Renfrewshire South, for East Dunbartonshire (Amy Callaghan), for Glasgow East and for Lanark and Hamilton East asked why no employment Bill was announced in the Queen’s Speech. While I know it is disappointing that it did not include one set out as a single Bill, there is an ambitious legislative programme that includes a comprehensive set of Bills that will enable us to deliver on priorities such as growing the economy. As I mentioned, numerous private Members’ Bills have been introduced on employment rights as a result of the PMB ballot in the Commons. We are working closely with those Members on their proposals, and are grateful to those from across the House who are helping us with that.

The hon. Member for Edinburgh South (Ian Murray) and others questioned why we are not banning fire and rehire. Imposing a ban would not be appropriate because in some situations fire and rehire can play a valid role, as businesses may need the flexibility to use this option to save as many jobs as possible. We are taking proportionate action to address firing and rehiring practices by bringing forward a statutory code of practice.

The hon. Member for East Lothian (Kenny MacAskill) talked about tribunals. The UK Government and Scottish Government continue to work closely on drafting the Order in Council. Once that is concluded, we will look to agree a timeline for the devolution of the first tranche of tribunals.

I thank the hon. Member for Lanark and Hamilton East for bringing this important topic to the House and enabling this debate. While the Government have no plans to devolve employment rights to the Scottish Government, I thank the hon. Members who contributed constructive arguments. We will continue to work with the Scottish Government and other devolved Administrations as we continue to build on the UK’s record on employment rights.

Draft Register of Overseas Entities (Delivery, Protection and Trust Services) Regulations 2022

Jane Hunt Excerpts

Tuesday 19th July 2022 General Committees

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Jane Hunt)]

I beg to move,

That the Committee has considered the draft Register of Overseas Entities (Delivery, Protection and Trust Services) Regulations 2022.

May I begin by saying what a pleasure it is to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Rees? The draft regulations are essential for the register of overseas entities to be implemented effectively. Before I talk specifically about the measures, it may be helpful if I speak briefly about the background to the instrument. The register of overseas entities, which I will refer to as the register, will be created under part 1 of the Economic Crime (Transparency and Enforcement) Act 2022, which gained Royal Assent earlier this year. The register will be a key tool in helping to crack down on dirty Russian money in the UK, and it will be crucial in the fight against other foreign corrupt elites abusing our open economy. The register will require overseas entities owning or buying property in the UK to give information about their beneficial owners and all managing officers to Companies House. The register will provide more information to help law enforcement track down those using UK property as a money-laundering vehicle.

The draft instrument forms part of a first tranche of secondary legislation that is needed to ensure that the register is ready to operate. Two other instruments from the first tranche were laid before the House on 30 June, and are subject to the negative resolution procedure. The subject of today’s debate is the only instrument subject to the affirmative resolution procedure. Subject to Parliament’s approval of the instruments, it is the Government’s intention that the register go live on 1 August. Overseas entities in scope that currently hold land in England, Wales and Scotland will have six months from that date to register their beneficial owners. That six-month transitional period was established under the Act. It strikes a balance: allowing for the free enjoyment of property and maintaining the UK’s reputation as a stable investment environment, while ensuring that property owners register their beneficial owners. If an overseas entity does not comply with the new obligations, or submits false filings, the overseas entity and every officer in default may face tough criminal or civil penalties, and it will not be possible to sell the property in question. Further instruments necessary to underpin the register’s operation will be made in the autumn.

What does the statutory instrument do? I turn now to the detail. The regulations are laid under powers in the Economic Crime (Transparency and Enforcement) Act, which I will refer to as the Act, and two powers in the Companies Act 2006. The instrument is made up of three measures. First, it requires certain documents to be delivered to Companies House by electronic means. Secondly, it sets up a protection regime, which will allow individuals to apply to have their information made unavailable for public inspection. To apply, individuals must provide evidence that they are at serious risk of violence or intimidation if their link to the overseas entity is publicly disclosed. Thirdly, it sets out the fact that legal entities governed by the law of a country or territory outside the United Kingdom that provide trust services regulated by a supervisory authority, and that are subject to their own disclosure requirements, are classed as registerable beneficial owners—I will have to get a job with fewer words.

I shall now turn to the details of the electronic delivery measure. Part 2 of the instrument sets out the fact that certain documents are to be delivered to Companies House by electronic means. Regulation 3 specifically sets out a duty on overseas entities to deliver certain information to the register by electronic means. The regulations state that the following information must be delivered to the registrar by electronic means: an application for registration; the statements, information and any other thing required for the updating duty; an application for removal; the replacement of or additional documents delivered to the registrar for the purpose of resolving inconsistencies in the register; and an application to rectify the register.

Regulation 4 sets out an exception to that duty to deliver documents by electronic means. Mandating electronic delivery for certain documents enables the registration process to be streamlined and efficient, and will help to avoid delays in processing valuable property transactions. It is therefore important that electronic delivery to the registrar can be mandated in most cases through the regulations. The duty to deliver a document by electronic means will not apply where the document relates to an application that contains information about individuals who have applied for their details to be protected. The aim of that limited exception is to provide for those who may be at risk of serious harm so that they can apply for a protection from having their details made publicly available on the register. Their details would need to be handled in a sensitive manner, so electronic communication might not be appropriate.

Part 3 of the instrument sets out details of the protection regime. It allows beneficial owners and managing officers, or the relevant overseas entity on their behalf, to apply to have their details protected from disclosure and from inclusion in the public register if they or someone who lives with them is at serious risk of violence or intimidation because of their link to the overseas entity. Evidence must be provided to the registrar to support the application, and the registrar may direct that additional information or evidence should be delivered to determine an application.

The registrar may refer any question relating to an assessment of the nature or extent of any risk of violence or intimidation to any person, such as a law enforcement agency, the registrar considers may be able to assist in making that assessment. That approach is similar to the one applied in the equivalent regime for people with significant control—PSC—of UK companies. It is important to note that an application for information to be protected from public disclosure will not exempt the overseas entity from the requirements of the Act in general. The required information must still be supplied to Companies House, and will be available to law enforcement agencies.

Finally, I turn to the measure on corporate trustees. Part 4 of the instrument provides a description of legal entities subject to their own disclosure requirements. Schedule 2 to the Act provides that beneficial owners that are legal entities must be subject to their own reporting requirements in order to be registrable beneficial owners. The aim of the measure is to ensure that corporate trustees fall within the definition of a registrable beneficial owner. If that definition is satisfied, overseas entities must take the responsible steps to obtain, and provide to the registrar, the required information about those trusts. That reflects the requirements already imposed where trustees are individuals. That will provide greater transparency about the true owners and beneficiaries of the land, and addresses concerns raised during the passage of the Act that the use of such structures could be a loophole.

I emphasise that the measures in the regulations are crucial for the effective operation of the register of overseas entities. I hope that the Committee will support the measures and their objectives. I commend the draft regulations to the Committee.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jane Hunt]

I am grateful to Committee members for their contributions. The Government are committed to ensuring the register of overseas entities strikes the right balance between improving transparency and minimising burdens on legitimate commercial activity. The measures contained in the instrument will play a key part in the effectiveness of the register from its launch, which is expected on 1 August.

That begins to answer some of the questions from the hon. Member for Sefton Central, who talked about protections and ensuring that the system is not abused, with 163 of 436 applications being made on the existing register. There will be a process in place with clear guidelines, which will be coming out shortly and be ready for 1 August. That will help to provide support, and ensure that protections are in place and robustly followed. The hon. Member for Caerphilly—I think it is Caerphilly, but I might be wrong.

[Wayne David]

Absolutely. Just think of the cheese and you will be all right.

[Jane Hunt]

The hon. Member for Caerphilly talked about England and Wales, and referred to Scotland being separate. The reason for that is that Land Registry information was gathered at different times. We will start with England and Wales being retrospective to January 1999, but with Scotland only as far back as December 2014, because that is when the processes were in place. That covers what the hon. Member was talking about.

These regulations are essential for the register of overseas entities to operate effectively from the outset. Mandating digital delivery for certain documents ensures that the registrar is able to receive and process information in a timely manner. An effective protection regime will protect those at real risk of serious harm, because of their link with an overseas entity, from the public disclosure of their details. That information must still be provided, and it will be available to law enforcement.

The measures on trustees allow for a consistent approach to dealing with corporate and individual trustees. Corporate trustees will be brought within scope, making it harder for corporate structures to be altered to avoid reporting requirements. The register of overseas entities provides a novel approach, setting a new global standard for transparency, and levels the playing field with property owned by UK companies, which must already disclose their beneficial owners to Companies House.

The register is a crucial part of the Government’s fight against illicit finance. The forthcoming economic crime and corporate transparency Bill is being finalised at pace, and it is expected to be introduced to Parliament shortly after the summer recess. The Bill will feature substantial changes to UK company and partnership law, and will be complementary to the Economic Crime (Transparency and Enforcement) Act 2022. I hope the Committee will approve the instrument.

Question put and agreed to.

Statutory Review of the Groceries Code Adjudicator

Jane Hunt Excerpts

Tuesday 19th July 2022 Written Statements

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Jane Hunt)]

As part of the third statutory review of the Groceries Code Adjudicator (GCA), the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS) will today publish a consultation seeking the views of stakeholders on the performance of the GCA.

The GCA was established by the Groceries Code Adjudicator Act 2013 (“the Act”). Its role is to monitor and enforce the Groceries Supply Code of Practice (“the Code”), which the UK’s designated large grocery retailers must comply with when dealing with their direct suppliers.

Section 15 of the Act requires the Government to review periodically the performance of the GCA. The first review covered the period from the creation of the GCA—in June 2013—to 31 March 2016 and the second review covered the period from 1 April 2016 to 31 March 2019.

The statutory review is not a review of the Code nor the remit of the GCA. The Code is a competition measure owned by the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) as the UK’s independent competition authority.

The third review will look back over the period 1 April 2019 to 31 March 2022 and seek views and evidence which will allow the Secretary of State to make an assessment of the performance of the GCA against the measures set out in the Act. These measures are explained in the terms of reference.

The first statutory review also considered whether the functions of the GCA should be transferred to another public body or be abolished and the Government is again seeking views on these questions as part of the third review, in particular whether the GCA should be transferred to the CMA.

The Act requires us to consult with the following:

the GCA;

the Competition and Markets Authority;

the retailers subject to the Code;

one or more persons representing the interests of suppliers;

one or more persons representing the interests of consumers; and

any other appropriate person—we have not identified any specific person or persons here and welcome contributions from any interested person.

The invitation to submit comments and evidence can be accessed through gov.uk at: https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/groceries-code-adjudicator-statutory-review-2019-to-2022 and stakeholders have until 11 October 2022 to respond. Following this, BEIS will analyse the responses. A report on our findings will then be published and laid before Parliament.

The terms of reference for the GCA review have today been placed in the Libraries of both Houses of Parliament.

[HCWS217]

Companies House: Public Targets 2022-23

Jane Hunt Excerpts

Tuesday 19th July 2022 Written Statements

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Jane Hunt)]

My noble Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Corporate Responsibility (Lord Callanan) has today made the following statement:

I have set Companies House the following targets for the year 2022-23:

Register of Overseas Entities

Introduce a Register of Overseas Entities: contributing towards the fight against economic crime.

Complete and up to date data

The 97% of companies on the register have filed a confirmation statement: high levels of compliance are essential to ensure the register holds timely and accurate data.

Digital service availability

Digital services are available for a minimum of 99.9% of the time: Very high service availability enables our customers to use our services when they need to, inspiring customer confidence and supporting high satisfaction levels.

Customer satisfaction

We will be in the top 20% of public sector organisations for customer satisfaction: high levels of customer satisfaction will demonstrate we are meeting customer expectations and will further build reputation as a centre of excellence.

Diversity

We will increase the number of staff recruited to Companies House from under-represented groups by 10%: increased diversity will help Companies House be more representative of its customer base and help it to be a more interesting and desirable employer, thus increasing the talent pools to which we have access.

Delivering value

We will manage expenditure set out within budgetary limits: delivering the priorities defined in corporate targets whilst keeping expenditure within delegated limits ensures public value is maintained.

[HCWS219]

Employment (Allocation of Tips) Bill

Jane Hunt Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 15th July 2022 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Jane Hunt)]

Thank you very much indeed, Mr Deputy Speaker.

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Watford (Dean Russell) for bringing this important Bill forward. He is well known for his hard work both for his Watford constituents and in supporting his colleagues, but now he will possibly be able to transform the whole country, based on this work.

I am pleased to confirm that the Government will support this Bill. Bringing these new rules into force will give new protections to millions of workers in industries where tipping is common, such as hospitality. This is especially crucial now as we continue to recover from the pandemic.

Hon. Members were given quite detailed information about their own constituencies to help them during the pandemic, and I was surprised to find that there are 3,000 people employed in the hospitality sector in Loughborough alone. That equates to exactly the same number as my biggest employer, so that was quite a surprise and very interesting.

It is good to hear support for the Bill in this House. I will take some time to address some of the points hon. Members have raised today, but first I will speak a bit more about why the Government are supporting it. Many were appalled to hear the stories a few years ago of bosses wrongfully pocketing tips intended for their workers—money left by customers who wanted to recognise the hard work and excellent service they had received from the staff.

That is why my Department took action to understand the scale of the problem. We launched a consultation to determine whether previous voluntary guidance in this area was sufficient. We have continued to develop policy positions based on evidence and conversations with stakeholders. The Government believe that tips should go to the workers who earn them and that businesses that withhold tips from staff are wrongfully benefiting from money intended for hard-working staff. While many businesses already pass tips on to staff in full, our evidence shows that nefarious practices persist, with businesses deducting up to 10% in some cases.

Some people have raised concerns with us that bad practice has increased since the pandemic. The Government are therefore pleased to support the changes in the Bill, and I will reiterate some of the key details about what the new rules will and will not do. As my hon. Friend mentioned, upon passage of the Bill the rules will prevent employers from making any deductions when distributing tips, apart from those required or permitted by existing legislation such as tax law.

We are not making any changes to tax law under the new rules. How tips are treated for purposes of taxes and national insurance contributions depends on whether they are made in cash or by card and whether they are made directly to the worker or processed by the business or by independent tronc. That will remain the case.

Under this Bill, anyone who is a worker will benefit from new rights, but it does not cover those who are self-employed. The rules will apply across all sectors, and that is the right thing to do. However, to be clear, businesses that do not normally deal with tips will not be significantly affected by the Bill. This is also a good opportunity to remind the House that tips already cannot be used to count towards national minimum wage pay. That has been the case since 2009.

[Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)]

I am grateful to the Minister for re-emphasising that point. Will she confirm that it is still the Government’s intention to pursue rigorously employers who are still trying to make tips part of the national minimum wage and that those companies should be named and shamed, as is currently the case?

[Jane Hunt]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question, and I can tell him that, yes, that is absolutely the case.

I will now talk about the proposed code. A voluntary code of practice on this topic was published in 2009. Our evidence shows that voluntary guidance alone has not been enough to stamp out bad practice. This Bill will therefore require employers to have regard to a statutory code of practice. The code will continue to be developed in partnership with key stakeholders, and will be subject to a full consultation period before the final version is brought to the House for approval. The code will outline a fair and transparent allocation of tips, as set out in different example scenarios. It is very important that the code continues to be developed with stakeholder input, so that we do not inadvertently disallow certain arrangements that are considered fair in some workplaces for the benefit of both businesses and workers. It is important that the code can be updated in the future with the approval of Parliament but without any primary legislation, in order to keep up with changing practices.

I will now address some of the specific points made by colleagues in the debate. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Watford again for all he has done. He raised a matter where I almost have to declare an interest, in that my husband interrogates the waiters whenever we go out to make sure that they are going to get the tip—it is surprising how many say that they will not get it. My hon. Friend the Member for Kensington (Felicity Buchan) clearly showed a good understanding of her local businesses and her constituency. She talked about burgers, and I quite agree that it is the service we pay for in the tip, not the burger itself. As she said, each establishment will create its own fair system available to everyone working there, so that the kitchen staff and cleaners can be included. They can decide what they want to do and that will then be followed. She also referred to consumers, and the Bill is fair to them as well. They are within my brief too, so I would like to be fair to them. I commend her for what she did while working in the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy until recently.

My hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Darren Henry) talked about his experience and examples from restaurants in Broxtowe, and I can speak from experience when I say that the restaurants there are very good indeed. My hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool (Jill Mortimer) talked about the great variety of restaurants on the Hartlepool riviera, which provide such great service to the people of Hartlepool—again, she is to be commended. My hon. Friend the Member for Charnwood (Edward Argar) talked about statutory protections that are currently lacking in the system and about rewarding the service given. He referred to the need to be timely and fair, and the word “fair” comes through again and again in this Bill. He is absolutely spot on.

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Saqib Bhatti) for his kind words and I thoroughly enjoyed working with him on the all-party group for small and micro businesses. He talked about a shortage of workers because of the pandemic, and indeed previous to that. I hope that this Bill will attract workers to the sector and help it to become one where people can form a career and get on in life. I am happy to meet him to discuss the hospitality sector, as he requested.

The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy), referred to her surprise about some of the well-known businesses that have been taking tips. I absolutely agreed with her on that, as I was surprised as well. Conservatives always support hard work, and I think that is the vein in which we have been talking more than anything else.

The hon. Member for West Ham (Ms Brown), and my hon. Friends the Members for Watford, for Cheadle (Mary Robinson) and for Meriden raised concerns about employers using tips to top up low-paid workers. The law is clear: tips, gratuities and service charges cannot count towards the minimum wage. The Bill does not alter that position, and under these proposals employers cannot use tips to make up national minimum wage pay. My hon. Friend the Member for Meriden rightly said that we need more workers to get the pay and tips they have earned, to help promote employment in the sector, as I mentioned. Actually, there is no need to wait for this Bill to be passed; the sector should put its plans in place well in advance.

My hon. Friend the Member for Watford referred to deductions from tips for card payments and admin fees. To be clear, under this policy, employers must pass on all tips to workers without any deductions, other than those required or permitted by existing legislation—for example, normal tax rules will apply. They cannot make any deductions to cover the costs of running a business, including the cost of processing card transactions or other administrative costs.

My hon. Friends the Members for Watford and for Meriden referred to clarity around the code of practice. As I mentioned, the statutory code of practice will be published and consulted on before being laid before both Houses of Parliament for approval. The code will be developed through consultation in partnership with stakeholders. We hope to start informal discussions on the draft code later this year. There will be more formal consultation on a draft after the Bill has received Royal Assent. The code will provide details on when the Bill applies, how many employers should distribute tips fairly, tronc arrangements, employers’ tipping policies and record keeping. It will also include illustrative scenarios, such as sharing out tips between front of house staff and kitchen staff.

In conclusion, bringing forward these new rules will protect more than 2 million workers from bosses who do not currently do the right thing, and give them an avenue for seeking remedies. Businesses will be assured that they are not being undercut by companies where bosses are keeping tips for themselves, and consumers will have increased confidence that their tips are going to the workers they intended them for. The new rules are backed by previous Government evidence and analysis. The Government are therefore pleased to support this private Member’s Bill.

[Chris Stephens]

I thank the Minister and I congratulate the hon. Member for Watford (Dean Russell) on bringing forward this important Bill. I make a similar plea to hon. Members about the previous Bill: will she discuss with the Leader of the House how we can get the legislation through quickly? I would like to take part in Committee if possible.

[Jane Hunt]

Yes, of course I will ask about that. There are reasons, related to HMRC and that kind of thing, why it might still be delayed, but I will do exactly as the hon. Gentleman requests.

It is good to see the support for the Bill in the House today. If we take away—takeaway is the operative word, given what we are talking about—one thing, it is fairness. I look forward to continuing to work with the Member in charge of the Bill, my hon. Friend the Member for Watford, who is a dear friend and works tirelessly for the people of Watford, and with stakeholders to support the passage of the measures.