Draft Weights and Measures Act 1985 (Definitions of @0082Metre@0083 and @0082Kilogram@0083) (Amendment) Order 2020

Paul Scully Excerpts

Tuesday 2nd June 2020 General Committees

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

I beg to move,

That the Committee has considered the draft Weights and Measures Act 1985 (Definitions of “Metre” and “Kilogram”) (Amendment) Order 2020.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone. The purpose of the draft order, which was laid before the House on 16 March 2020, is to update the Weights and Measures Act 1985 with new definitions for metre and kilogram. It does not represent any change in policy; it simply updates the definitions of those units of measurement in UK law to agree with those agreed internationally. It will ensure that UK legislation is kept up to date and in step with the rest of the world. At the same time, it will implement the definitions on the required implementation date in European Union law.

The values of the units of measurement themselves are not changing: a kilogram will weigh the same as it did before, and a metre will still be the same length. In fact, there will be no direct impact on any businesses or consumers. Consumers will not need to be made aware of the changes, and businesses will need to do nothing as a result of this legislation. However, I will set out some of the background to the changes, to provide the Committee with some context for why the changes were proposed and how they have come about.

The new definitions have their origins in the need for ever more accurate measurements to support new technologies and science. The changes that we are concerned with today—the definitions of kilogram and metre—were part of an international agreement to amend the definitions for seven base units of measurement, made following a decade of discussion, scientific research and testing around the world.

The scientific work came to fruition when the new definitions were agreed and recognised by the International Bureau of Weights and Measures in November 2018. The bureau acts as the co-ordinator of the worldwide measurements system and ensures that the base units of the international system of units—also known as the SI base units—are uniformly accessible. Having consistent and accurate measures is vital for science, international trade and high-technology manufacturing, as well as for the health and safety of people and the protection of the environment.

The UK was a founder member of the bureau, together with France, India and the USA, back in 1875. The bureau now has more than 100 member or associate member countries, representing every part of the globe. The UK has retained its influence in metrology since the bureau was founded, and today it remains at the forefront of both legal and scientific metrology.

In fact, the redefinition of the kilogram was made possible using technology developed in the UK. The UK’s National Physical Laboratory, which is one of the leading national metrology institutes in the world, played a key part in the redefinition programme through its development of the Kibble balance, which balances gravitational force with an electromagnetic force, allowing the kilogram to be defined by reference to the fixed numerical value of the Planck constant—a constant that will not change over time.

Before that work made the redefinition possible, the kilogram was defined by reference to a piece of titanium and iridium kept in a vault in Paris, the mass of which fluctuated, for example due to dust. All other standards were measured against this international prototype. Now, instead, they can be determined accurately by science. The new definitions of the metre and the kilogram were deemed by the bureau to come into effect on 20 May 2019, along with changes to the definitions of the ampere, the second, the candela, the mole and the kelvin.

In accordance with the European Union withdrawal agreement, the definition changes, if approved, will be implemented on the same date as in EU member states, which is 13 June this year. In order for the UK to stay in step with the rest of the world and to meet our obligations under the withdrawal agreement, we have taken steps to amend our legislation.

In September 2019, the Weights and Measures Act 1985 (Amendment) and Units of Measurement Regulations 1986 (Amendment) Regulations 2019, S.I., 2019, No. 1211, amended the definitions of all seven of the SI base units in the Units of Measurement Regulations and made amendments to certain definitions in the 1985 Act. Those amendments were made following the negative procedure, using powers under section 2(2) of the European Communities Act 1972. They are also timed to come into force on 13 June 2020.

Amending the definitions of metre and kilogram in the Weights and Measures Act requires use of powers provided for under the Act itself. This new statutory instrument will make the amendments necessary to update the definitions in the Weights and Measures Act, to come into effect alongside the earlier statutory instrument on 13 June. This will ensure that the UK statute book is up to date and consistent, and that we are complying with the withdrawal agreement.

Although the new definition will have no impact on businesses or consumers, it is worth reminding ourselves why having an accurate and up-to-date definition really matters. This change ensures that units of measurement definitions are uniform, scientifically robust and will stand the test of time. We all depend on accurate measurement, whether to guarantee that the goods we trade are fairly priced by quantity or to ensure that the parts of manufactured items fit together correctly. The volume of goods sold on the basis of quantity is staggering. In the UK alone, over £342 billion-worth of goods are sold on the basis of the measurement of their quantity, equating to £6.23 billion every week. Additionally, a further £280 billion-worth of goods are traded between businesses by quantity each year.

To conclude, I repeat that there is no policy change here and there will be no impact on businesses or consumers. This is a technical change to update our laws to reflect definitions that have been agreed internationally. In doing so, we will also meet the requirements of the withdrawal agreement. This statutory instrument will ensure that our legal framework is clear, consistent, up to date and based on internationally agreed definitions.

--- Later in debate ---

[Paul Scully]

I thank the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central for her contribution, and I thank the Committee for its consideration of the draft order. As we heard in both contributions, it is important to emphasise that there is no change in policy, or to the actual weight of the kilogram or length of the metre, because there are people up and down the country—whether they are going to market or are in precision engineering—for whom weights and measures are important, as we have outlined. It is worth reiterating that this change has been made on an international basis and with due care and consideration. The fact that we may resign Le Grand K to a pub quiz question is a good thing, because we will have this constant definition that will move us forward.

The hon. Lady asked a couple of questions about why we are partially implementing the Commission directive. Back in September 2019, in order partially to implement the directive at that point, the UK updated the definitions of the seven SI base units in the Units of Measurement Regulations 1986 and certain definitions in the Weights and Measures Act 1985. The draft order will complete the implementation of the directive by updating the definitions of metre and kilogram. I do not want her to be concerned that we are not fulfilling our duty on that directive as part of the withdrawal agreement.

The hon. Lady also asked what we will now do with European definitions. Bear in mind that as we leave the EU and the need for the withdrawal agreement, as we move towards the next phase of our relationship, the definition of these weights and measures will be dealt with in totality as an international standard. In the same way as all EU member states will work with us and with all those countries across the globe to maintain those standards, it is important—in order to be competitive around the world, and obviously within the EU—that we have that international collaboration, and that it is not limited only to the EU.

We are moving towards the metre no longer being defined by two notches on a physical bar, as it is at the moment, and we can be certain that there will be no degrading of Le Grand K or any dust on any of those physical structures, so people can rest assured that if they buy a kilogram of fruit or vegetables, or if they need precision engineering, that measurement will be consistent here and across the world. This is simply a technical change to update how those measures are defined, maintaining our pace with international developments and ensuring that we meet our obligations under the withdrawal agreement. I therefore hope that the Committee will agree to the draft order.

Question put and agreed to.

Draft Weights and Measures Act 1985 (Definitions of 'Metre' and 'Kilogram') (Amendment) Order 2020

Paul Scully Excerpts

Tuesday 2nd June 2020 General Committees

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

I beg to move,

That the Committee has considered the draft Weights and Measures Act 1985 (Definitions of “Metre” and “Kilogram”) (Amendment) Order 2020.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone. The purpose of the draft order, which was laid before the House on 16 March 2020, is to update the Weights and Measures Act 1985 with new definitions for metre and kilogram. It does not represent any change in policy; it simply updates the definitions of those units of measurement in UK law to agree with those agreed internationally. It will ensure that UK legislation is kept up to date and in step with the rest of the world. At the same time, it will implement the definitions on the required implementation date in European Union law.

The values of the units of measurement themselves are not changing: a kilogram will weigh the same as it did before, and a metre will still be the same length. In fact, there will be no direct impact on any businesses or consumers. Consumers will not need to be made aware of the changes, and businesses will need to do nothing as a result of this legislation. However, I will set out some of the background to the changes, to provide the Committee with some context for why the changes were proposed and how they have come about.

The new definitions have their origins in the need for ever more accurate measurements to support new technologies and science. The changes that we are concerned with today—the definitions of kilogram and metre—were part of an international agreement to amend the definitions for seven base units of measurement, made following a decade of discussion, scientific research and testing around the world.

The scientific work came to fruition when the new definitions were agreed and recognised by the International Bureau of Weights and Measures in November 2018. The bureau acts as the co-ordinator of the worldwide measurements system and ensures that the base units of the international system of units—also known as the SI base units—are uniformly accessible. Having consistent and accurate measures is vital for science, international trade and high-technology manufacturing, as well as for the health and safety of people and the protection of the environment.

The UK was a founder member of the bureau, together with France, India and the USA, back in 1875. The bureau now has more than 100 member or associate member countries, representing every part of the globe. The UK has retained its influence in metrology since the bureau was founded, and today it remains at the forefront of both legal and scientific metrology.

In fact, the redefinition of the kilogram was made possible using technology developed in the UK. The UK’s National Physical Laboratory, which is one of the leading national metrology institutes in the world, played a key part in the redefinition programme through its development of the Kibble balance, which balances gravitational force with an electromagnetic force, allowing the kilogram to be defined by reference to the fixed numerical value of the Planck constant—a constant that will not change over time.

Before that work made the redefinition possible, the kilogram was defined by reference to a piece of titanium and iridium kept in a vault in Paris, the mass of which fluctuated, for example due to dust. All other standards were measured against this international prototype. Now, instead, they can be determined accurately by science. The new definitions of the metre and the kilogram were deemed by the bureau to come into effect on 20 May 2019, along with changes to the definitions of the ampere, the second, the candela, the mole and the kelvin.

In accordance with the European Union withdrawal agreement, the definition changes, if approved, will be implemented on the same date as in EU member states, which is 13 June this year. In order for the UK to stay in step with the rest of the world and to meet our obligations under the withdrawal agreement, we have taken steps to amend our legislation.

In September 2019, the Weights and Measures Act 1985 (Amendment) and Units of Measurement Regulations 1986 (Amendment) Regulations 2019, S.I., 2019, No. 1211, amended the definitions of all seven of the SI base units in the Units of Measurement Regulations and made amendments to certain definitions in the 1985 Act. Those amendments were made following the negative procedure, using powers under section 2(2) of the European Communities Act 1972. They are also timed to come into force on 13 June 2020.

Amending the definitions of metre and kilogram in the Weights and Measures Act requires use of powers provided for under the Act itself. This new statutory instrument will make the amendments necessary to update the definitions in the Weights and Measures Act, to come into effect alongside the earlier statutory instrument on 13 June. This will ensure that the UK statute book is up to date and consistent, and that we are complying with the withdrawal agreement.

Although the new definition will have no impact on businesses or consumers, it is worth reminding ourselves why having an accurate and up-to-date definition really matters. This change ensures that units of measurement definitions are uniform, scientifically robust and will stand the test of time. We all depend on accurate measurement, whether to guarantee that the goods we trade are fairly priced by quantity or to ensure that the parts of manufactured items fit together correctly. The volume of goods sold on the basis of quantity is staggering. In the UK alone, over £342 billion-worth of goods are sold on the basis of the measurement of their quantity, equating to £6.23 billion every week. Additionally, a further £280 billion-worth of goods are traded between businesses by quantity each year.

To conclude, I repeat that there is no policy change here and there will be no impact on businesses or consumers. This is a technical change to update our laws to reflect definitions that have been agreed internationally. In doing so, we will also meet the requirements of the withdrawal agreement. This statutory instrument will ensure that our legal framework is clear, consistent, up to date and based on internationally agreed definitions.

--- Later in debate ---

[Paul Scully]

I thank the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central for her contribution, and I thank the Committee for its consideration of the draft order. As we heard in both contributions, it is important to emphasise that there is no change in policy, or to the actual weight of the kilogram or length of the metre, because there are people up and down the country—whether they are going to market or are in precision engineering—for whom weights and measures are important, as we have outlined. It is worth reiterating that this change has been made on an international basis and with due care and consideration. The fact that we may resign Le Grand K to a pub quiz question is a good thing, because we will have this constant definition that will move us forward.

The hon. Lady asked a couple of questions about why we are partially implementing the Commission directive. Back in September 2019, in order partially to implement the directive at that point, the UK updated the definitions of the seven SI base units in the Units of Measurement Regulations 1986 and certain definitions in the Weights and Measures Act 1985. The draft order will complete the implementation of the directive by updating the definitions of metre and kilogram. I do not want her to be concerned that we are not fulfilling our duty on that directive as part of the withdrawal agreement.

The hon. Lady also asked what we will now do with European definitions. Bear in mind that as we leave the EU and the need for the withdrawal agreement, as we move towards the next phase of our relationship, the definition of these weights and measures will be dealt with in totality as an international standard. In the same way as all EU member states will work with us and with all those countries across the globe to maintain those standards, it is important—in order to be competitive around the world, and obviously within the EU—that we have that international collaboration, and that it is not limited only to the EU.

We are moving towards the metre no longer being defined by two notches on a physical bar, as it is at the moment, and we can be certain that there will be no degrading of Le Grand K or any dust on any of those physical structures, so people can rest assured that if they buy a kilogram of fruit or vegetables, or if they need precision engineering, that measurement will be consistent here and across the world. This is simply a technical change to update how those measures are defined, maintaining our pace with international developments and ensuring that we meet our obligations under the withdrawal agreement. I therefore hope that the Committee will agree to the draft order.

Question put and agreed to.

Draft Weights and Measures Act 1985 (Definitions of “Metre” and “Kilogram”) (Amendment) Order 2020

Paul Scully Excerpts

Tuesday 2nd June 2020 General Committees

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

I beg to move,

That the Committee has considered the draft Weights and Measures Act 1985 (Definitions of “Metre” and “Kilogram”) (Amendment) Order 2020.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone. The purpose of the draft order, which was laid before the House on 16 March 2020, is to update the Weights and Measures Act 1985 with new definitions for metre and kilogram. It does not represent any change in policy; it simply updates the definitions of those units of measurement in UK law to agree with those agreed internationally. It will ensure that UK legislation is kept up to date and in step with the rest of the world. At the same time, it will implement the definitions on the required implementation date in European Union law.

The values of the units of measurement themselves are not changing: a kilogram will weigh the same as it did before, and a metre will still be the same length. In fact, there will be no direct impact on any businesses or consumers. Consumers will not need to be made aware of the changes, and businesses will need to do nothing as a result of this legislation. However, I will set out some of the background to the changes, to provide the Committee with some context for why the changes were proposed and how they have come about.

The new definitions have their origins in the need for ever more accurate measurements to support new technologies and science. The changes that we are concerned with today—the definitions of kilogram and metre—were part of an international agreement to amend the definitions for seven base units of measurement, made following a decade of discussion, scientific research and testing around the world.

The scientific work came to fruition when the new definitions were agreed and recognised by the International Bureau of Weights and Measures in November 2018. The bureau acts as the co-ordinator of the worldwide measurements system and ensures that the base units of the international system of units—also known as the SI base units—are uniformly accessible. Having consistent and accurate measures is vital for science, international trade and high-technology manufacturing, as well as for the health and safety of people and the protection of the environment.

The UK was a founder member of the bureau, together with France, India and the USA, back in 1875. The bureau now has more than 100 member or associate member countries, representing every part of the globe. The UK has retained its influence in metrology since the bureau was founded, and today it remains at the forefront of both legal and scientific metrology.

In fact, the redefinition of the kilogram was made possible using technology developed in the UK. The UK’s National Physical Laboratory, which is one of the leading national metrology institutes in the world, played a key part in the redefinition programme through its development of the Kibble balance, which balances gravitational force with an electromagnetic force, allowing the kilogram to be defined by reference to the fixed numerical value of the Planck constant—a constant that will not change over time.

Before that work made the redefinition possible, the kilogram was defined by reference to a piece of titanium and iridium kept in a vault in Paris, the mass of which fluctuated, for example due to dust. All other standards were measured against this international prototype. Now, instead, they can be determined accurately by science. The new definitions of the metre and the kilogram were deemed by the bureau to come into effect on 20 May 2019, along with changes to the definitions of the ampere, the second, the candela, the mole and the kelvin.

In accordance with the European Union withdrawal agreement, the definition changes, if approved, will be implemented on the same date as in EU member states, which is 13 June this year. In order for the UK to stay in step with the rest of the world and to meet our obligations under the withdrawal agreement, we have taken steps to amend our legislation.

In September 2019, the Weights and Measures Act 1985 (Amendment) and Units of Measurement Regulations 1986 (Amendment) Regulations 2019, S.I., 2019, No. 1211, amended the definitions of all seven of the SI base units in the Units of Measurement Regulations and made amendments to certain definitions in the 1985 Act. Those amendments were made following the negative procedure, using powers under section 2(2) of the European Communities Act 1972. They are also timed to come into force on 13 June 2020.

Amending the definitions of metre and kilogram in the Weights and Measures Act requires use of powers provided for under the Act itself. This new statutory instrument will make the amendments necessary to update the definitions in the Weights and Measures Act, to come into effect alongside the earlier statutory instrument on 13 June. This will ensure that the UK statute book is up to date and consistent, and that we are complying with the withdrawal agreement.

Although the new definition will have no impact on businesses or consumers, it is worth reminding ourselves why having an accurate and up-to-date definition really matters. This change ensures that units of measurement definitions are uniform, scientifically robust and will stand the test of time. We all depend on accurate measurement, whether to guarantee that the goods we trade are fairly priced by quantity or to ensure that the parts of manufactured items fit together correctly. The volume of goods sold on the basis of quantity is staggering. In the UK alone, over £342 billion-worth of goods are sold on the basis of the measurement of their quantity, equating to £6.23 billion every week. Additionally, a further £280 billion-worth of goods are traded between businesses by quantity each year.

To conclude, I repeat that there is no policy change here and there will be no impact on businesses or consumers. This is a technical change to update our laws to reflect definitions that have been agreed internationally. In doing so, we will also meet the requirements of the withdrawal agreement. This statutory instrument will ensure that our legal framework is clear, consistent, up to date and based on internationally agreed definitions.

--- Later in debate ---

[Paul Scully]

I thank the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central for her contribution, and I thank the Committee for its consideration of the draft order. As we heard in both contributions, it is important to emphasise that there is no change in policy, or to the actual weight of the kilogram or length of the metre, because there are people up and down the country—whether they are going to market or are in precision engineering—for whom weights and measures are important, as we have outlined. It is worth reiterating that this change has been made on an international basis and with due care and consideration. The fact that we may resign Le Grand K to a pub quiz question is a good thing, because we will have this constant definition that will move us forward.

The hon. Lady asked a couple of questions about why we are partially implementing the Commission directive. Back in September 2019, in order partially to implement the directive at that point, the UK updated the definitions of the seven SI base units in the Units of Measurement Regulations 1986 and certain definitions in the Weights and Measures Act 1985. The draft order will complete the implementation of the directive by updating the definitions of metre and kilogram. I do not want her to be concerned that we are not fulfilling our duty on that directive as part of the withdrawal agreement.

The hon. Lady also asked what we will now do with European definitions. Bear in mind that as we leave the EU and the need for the withdrawal agreement, as we move towards the next phase of our relationship, the definition of these weights and measures will be dealt with in totality as an international standard. In the same way as all EU member states will work with us and with all those countries across the globe to maintain those standards, it is important—in order to be competitive around the world, and obviously within the EU—that we have that international collaboration, and that it is not limited only to the EU.

We are moving towards the metre no longer being defined by two notches on a physical bar, as it is at the moment, and we can be certain that there will be no degrading of Le Grand K or any dust on any of those physical structures, so people can rest assured that if they buy a kilogram of fruit or vegetables, or if they need precision engineering, that measurement will be consistent here and across the world. This is simply a technical change to update how those measures are defined, maintaining our pace with international developments and ensuring that we meet our obligations under the withdrawal agreement. I therefore hope that the Committee will agree to the draft order.

Question put and agreed to.

Lifting the Lockdown: Workplace Safety

Paul Scully Excerpts

Wednesday 6th May 2020 Commons Chamber

[Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough) (Lab) [V]]

(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy to make a statement on guidelines for workplace safety after the lifting of lockdown.

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

We have made clear that there are five tests that the Government will need to be satisfied of before we will consider it safe to adjust the current measures. As hon. Members will be aware, the Government are in the process of consulting with businesses, business representative organisations and trade unions on the issue of safer working in a covid-19 context. We want workers in our country to feel confident that they are returning to a safe workplace, so we are working with Public Health England, the Health and Safety Executive and 525 stakeholders in total in detail, the vast majority of which are represented across all parts of the United Kingdom. That includes nine unions and over 400 businesses.

We are grateful for all the feedback and the constructive way in which it has been provided. Our guidelines will be published in due course.

[Andy McDonald]

Last Sunday, the Government sent trade unions and businesses seven consultation documents outlining proposals for a return to workplaces. We all share a common objective of a safe return to work at the appropriate time that protects public health. However, when the Government’s plans fall short, it is our duty to say so. Trade unions were given just 12 hours to respond. The documents were not shared with the Opposition and the proposals themselves are wholly inadequate.

No worker should have their life or the lives of their loved ones risked simply by going to work. This is a legal right, which held true before this crisis and, crucially, must not be cast aside now. The documents present measures to maintain safe workplaces, such as hand washing and social distancing, as being at the discretion of employers, when in fact they are requirements of the law. The Government must make this clear and inform workers and businesses of their respective rights and duties. I share the surprise of trade unions that the documents provide no recommendations on personal protective equipment, without which it is impossible to make judgments on safe working practices.

Critically, the proposals exclude workers. A safe return to work is a significant challenge that can be met only if Government and business work with staff. My ask of the Minister is that the Government now bring forward guidelines requiring specific covid-19 risk assessments for most businesses, and that assessments are made public and registered with the Health and Safety Executive. Given the lack of capacity for inspections, these assessments must be agreed with staff. In workplaces with trade unions, this can be done by health and safety reps. In those without them, the Government should enable trade unions to assist workforces in their sectors to elect or appoint a rep to be consulted and involved in the settling, implementation and enforcement of assessments.

Finally, workers need to have confidence and trust that the Government have got their back, so will the Minister confirm that employees will not be prejudiced in any way for drawing attention to safety failings in the workplace? This time, we are truly all in this together. I trust that my comments are received in the constructive spirit in which they are offered.

[Paul Scully]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for the constructive way in which we began our relationship as our opposite numbers in a call we had last week. We have plenty of opportunity to work together to ensure the confidence that employers, employees and customers need as we begin to open up the economy. The guidelines that he was talking about are an early draft. There will continue to be plenty of opportunity for him to feed in, as there has been for those 400 businesses and nine trade unions, because this is not a finished process. We need to get into the technical detail to ensure that everybody has confidence.

In the same way that employees need that confidence, they should be able to discuss with their employers the steps they might take to make their workplaces safer, especially when we start to lift restrictions. Where workers still feel unsafe, they can contact the Health and Safety Executive or their local authority. Where employers are identified, action can be taken to ensure compliance with the relevant public health legislation and guidance.

[Andrea Leadsom (South Northamptonshire) (Con) [V]]

I know that my hon. Friend’s Department is undertaking a review of corporate governance and audit. Does he agree that, now more than ever, it is vital that the review puts the safety and financial security of employees at the heart of all businesses’ obligations to their stakeholders?

[Paul Scully]

I am grateful for that question. As my right hon. Friend knows, we have had three independent reviews of various aspects of audit by John Kingman, the Competition and Markets Authority and Sir Donald Brydon. We are committed to acting on their recommendations, including by legislating to create a tougher, stronger regulator, as soon as parliamentary time allows. We are working on that and will publish our proposals in due course.

[Mr Speaker]

I now call Drew Hendry, who is asked to speak for no more than one minute.

[Drew Hendry (Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey) (SNP) [V]]

While the social and economic impact of this crisis cannot be overestimated, it is vital that all workplaces are reopened only when it is safe to do so. After all, they will only work if they have the confidence of workers. On 25 March, the Scottish Government and the STUC issued a joint statement making clear their shared fair work expectations. That naturally followed the Scottish Government’s fair work approach, which has been developed in partnership with the unions over years. They are now looking forward to putting that into law, once Holyrood has the power to do so. Reports that the TUC cannot support the draft UK policies are therefore of great concern. In a spirit of collegiality, what consideration has the Minister given to following the Scottish Government’s approach of ensuring that the guidance is consistent with fair work, including that workplace rules be developed for specific environments, and not only by employers but by trade unions as well?

[Paul Scully]

I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s comments. I agree with him that our message and our processes need to be as consistent as possible, not least for people across the UK, but also for the companies operating in each nation of the UK. That is why colleagues from my Department have regular conversations with the devolved Administrations, including the Scottish Parliament. We must continue to work to get into the detail to give employees that confidence. We will continue to work through that with businesses, unions and others who are feeding in day to day, so that we can provide a consistent, robust line and give confidence, with examples of best practice from businesses that have remained open and from which we can learn.

[Lucy Allan (Telford) (Con) [V]]

Enabling people to go back to work safely is key to getting through this crisis. Safe working will inevitably be different for different businesses in different settings. Will the Minister do all he can to ensure that Government guidance focuses on general principles of social distancing and hygiene, and avoids being overly prescriptive, so that as many businesses as possible can reopen safely?

[Paul Scully]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that question. She is absolutely right, and that is why we have consulted as widely as possible. We will continue to do so, because we need to ensure that all these guidelines give confidence to people in every type of workplace, in every part of the UK. It is also important to reiterate that many companies are still operating. We need to ensure that our economy stays open and working, so that we can bounce back as quickly possible, and those companies are already offering best practice for that.

[Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD) [V]]

I have been speaking to lots of businesses over the past few days and they are all obviously very keen to get back to work as soon as possible, but their big concern is not only the safety of their staff but what liability the business would have to bear if one of those members of staff got sick despite their best efforts to ensure their safety. I would really like to hear what the Minister has to say to give businesses reassurance on that point.

[Paul Scully]

In the first instance, what I would say to the hon. Lady is that as well as employers working on that guidance and ensuring that they are offering a safe place, employees and workers need to know that they have the right and the opportunity to approach the Health and Safety Executive and local authorities to make sure that existing legislation and guidance are being followed.

[Andrew Selous (South West Bedfordshire) (Con) [V]]

If we want businesses to come back, they need to survive. Small businesses that pay themselves through dividends are not pariahs; they operate entirely legally. Will my hon. Friend speak to the Treasury to make sure that these businesses survive, and can we look again at the dividend issue, because many small businesses will not survive to allow their workers to come back next week if we do not?

[Paul Scully]

I am grateful for that comment. Clearly, the Government’s first priority in all of this is saving lives, but livelihoods and making sure that businesses and jobs are retained and that we can bounce back is very important. I will certainly take that away. I know that the Treasury has always been keen to look at each step of the situation to ensure that we can come up with economic support as well as the health support that we have been discussing in this urgent question.

[Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP) [V]]

Welcome to North Antrim, Mr Speaker. Can the Minister tell us what guidelines he and the Government will put in place to assist necessary workers and passengers travelling on airlines from Northern Ireland to London? What assistance will he put in place for air operators that are taking and making necessary flights to ensure that there are the necessary guidelines and protections in place for those workers?

[Paul Scully]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. Part of giving people the confidence to return to work is giving them the confidence to be able to travel to and from various parts of the UK to work, which is why this process will also look at transport, at opening schools and at those kind of things when the health guidance is appropriate.

[Jane Stevenson (Wolverhampton North East) (Con) [V]]

We owe a huge debt of gratitude to all the people who have been working throughout the pandemic to allow us to stay at home. Many people in Wolverhampton are now nervous of returning to the workplace, especially those who share their home with a medically vulnerable person. Will special advice be given to employers on extra measures to be put in place so that these people can be confident that they continue to protect and shield vulnerable people?

[Paul Scully]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising the important issue of those people who are most vulnerable in this situation. The guidance already sets out the steps that individuals living with shielded and vulnerable people should take to keep them safe. Where the Health and Safety Executive identifies employers who are not taking appropriate action to ensure that workers in the shielded category can follow the NHS advice to self-isolate for the period specified, it will consider taking a range of actions to improve the control of risks in the workplace.

[Maria Eagle (Garston and Halewood) (Lab) [V]]

Does the Minister agree that to prevent a second wave of covid-19, employees will have to be as safe as possible when they return to the workplace, that employers have a statutory obligation to achieve this and that they owe their employees a duty of care? How can asking employers merely to consider non-binding guidance possibly help them to achieve these legal obligations? Is he really saying that workplaces should continue to operate where safe working practices cannot be achieved? That is what his guidance seems to be saying.

--- Later in debate ---

[Paul Scully]

By consulting as many businesses, unions and representative organisations as we can, we have been able to work through the guidelines in our own times. Whereas at the beginning we were having to react to the closure of the economy, this timeline is for us so that we can be well prepared and give as few surprises to businesses as possible so they can plan. That is why we want to have a flexible situation so that they can prepare and operate a safe environment for their employees, but, as I mentioned before, employees can approach the Health and Safety Executive or their local authorities if they feel that they are not operating in a safe workplace.

[Mike Wood (Dudley South) (Con) [V]]

[Inaudible.]

[Mrs Sharon Hodgson (Washington and Sunderland West) (Lab) [V]]

Does the Minister agree that a public information campaign is required before and during the easing of lockdown, to inform employees and employers of their respective rights and duties, and to give the public confidence in returning to work?

[Paul Scully]

Communication is so important in this. We have seen how effective the message about staying home and saving lives has been so far. What we must now do is work with businesses to ensure that they have fully communicated the message on safe guidelines for their workplaces. Similarly, we need to make it clear to employees, as we are now doing, that those who cannot work from home, unless they are in a business that has specifically been asked to close, can travel to work, but they need to be considerate about that and ensure that they work within the social distancing rules. Yes, communication is everything, and I think we all have a responsibility to get those messages across.

[Scott Benton (Blackpool South) (Con) [V]]

Does my hon. Friend agree that it is vital that people are protected when they return to work? As we now move to this second phase, will the Government commit to providing clear and concise guidance to employers on how they can best protect their staff?

[Paul Scully]

The Government remain committed to supporting business during this unprecedented change. We are preparing for the next phase of tackling covid-19 in the ways I have outlined, and how we can lift the social distancing measures in a phased way, at the right time and guided by the science. We are involving Public Health England and the Health and Safety Executive to ensure that we have the latest guidance on which to base our planning.

[Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP) [V]]

During the first two weeks of lockdown, I was contacted by many constituents who were fearful of speaking out against irresponsible employers in case doing so would get them the sack. Does the Minister understand why Frances O’Grady of the TUC has raised concerns that unless the Government shift their position and put this into law, bad bosses will continue to expose their workers to infection without fear of consequences? Will he work with the TUC to put these concerns into law so that workers have their rights respected and their safety assured?

[Paul Scully]

I work with and speak to the trade unions on a regular basis—indeed, I will be speaking to TUC representatives later this afternoon—which is why we wanted to keep them involved in forming the guidelines, to represent their employees, because by working together we will give employees that confidence and get the message across to employers that social distancing within the workplace, where possible, is absolutely crucial if we are to open up the economy and return to whatever the new normal is.

[Ms Nusrat Ghani (Wealden) (Con) [V]]

The vast majority of businesses in my constituency and across the country want to do the right thing, and the right thing is to get back to business. Does my hon. Friend agree that we should encourage a return to work, of course safely? Small and medium-sized enterprises are the backbone of our country, and they deserve even more support now.

[Paul Scully]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right to stand up for small businesses. This is why we have said that unless businesses are among those that were required to close, they can continue to operate so that they are in the best place to survive, bounce back and contribute to the UK’s recovery from this situation. We need to ensure that we do that safely and that employers are acting responsibly, and that will be dealt with by involving as many people as we can in getting specific guidelines for each different workplace in each part of the UK and getting those messages across.

[Peter Kyle (Hove) (Lab) [V]]

Supplies of PPE are still extremely tightly constrained. What are the Government doing to ensure that when employers start to buy face masks and other equipment to keep their employees safe, the price and supply of PPE will not be extremely distorted?

[Paul Scully]

We are working with supply chains in the UK and across the world to ensure that, with the huge demand for PPE in a number of different countries that are all suffering and working through the same situation together, we can be at the forefront of this. With the work being done by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care and my colleagues in the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, along with Lord Deighton, we will be able to ensure that the supply chains remain readily available, and in that way we can also work on fair pricing.

[Dean Russell (Watford) (Con) [V]]

As my hon. Friend works with the Prime Minister on the comprehensive plan for the next phase of the response to coronavirus, can he assure me that we will continue to work with both Public Health England and the Health and Safety Executive to ensure that workplaces are safe, with a particular focus on complex workplaces such as construction sites? Our incredibly hard-working construction workers are having to go into work, and I want to ensure that they are safe on site.

[Paul Scully]

My hon. Friend is right to take the specific example of construction sites. Clearly, there are different types of site. Battersea power station, which I visited just before the restrictions were introduced, is a 40-acre site, so social distancing is easier there than on a far smaller, constrained site. That is why we are bringing together industry expertise, union expertise and business representatives to ensure we have guidance that fits as many different workplaces as possible, backed up by Public Health England and the Health and Safety Executive.

[Dan Jarvis (Barnsley Central) (Lab) [V]]

Analysis from the TUC shows that workplace inspections have fallen by 70% and prosecutions by 82% over the past 10 years. We all want to get Britain back to work, so what guarantees can the Minister give that local government and the Health and Safety Executive will have the resources they need to ensure safe working practices?

[Paul Scully]

We will continue to talk to the Health and Safety Executive about the resources it needs. Local authorities have been working incredibly hard on local health issues and, in my experience—I have spoken to many of them—on providing financial support. That is why the Chancellor has been giving financial support, with a second round of £1.6 billion to support their functions. We will continue to review any support that we need to give.

[Peter Aldous (Waveney) (Con) [V]]

Does my hon. Friend agree that holiday parks, campsites and self-catering holiday accommodation are well suited to adhering to workplace safety arrangements and should be considered for phased and gradual reopening, to boost coastal and rural economies and provide people with the opportunity of a holiday in the UK?

[Paul Scully]

I am glad that my hon. Friend is standing up for coastal areas, which have been particularly badly affected. I get a lot of feedback from an economic point of view from the hospitality, leisure and retail sectors. We work closely with them and will continue to do so. I will ensure that we pay due attention to that advice, so that all coastal areas are as well looked after as possible.

[Afzal Khan (Manchester, Gorton) (Lab) [V]]

We know that it is vital to get the economy moving again, but this will be possible only when people have the confidence to return to work in the knowledge that their workplace is safe. Why did the Government propose non-binding guidance with zero enforcement mechanism? Does the Minister think that is sufficient to make people feel safe and confident enough to return to work?

[Paul Scully]

We are working on the guidance with a number of business representative organisations and with the trade unions, and when we complete that work, we will publish it at the appropriate moment. The Health and Safety Executive will be right at the core of that work, in checking and in enforcing, and, as I have said, workers will be able to approach both the Health and Safety Executive and local authorities if they do not feel that the organisation within which they are working is adhering to that guidance.

[Laura Trott (Sevenoaks) (Con) [V]]

Many of our essential workers are, of course, already in the workplace, for which we are hugely grateful. The Minister confirmed that we will learn from them, but can he also assure the House that we will manage any disruption to them as a result of other sectors going back to work, for instance in PPE and transport requirements?

[Paul Scully]

I can assure my hon. Friend that we will indeed look at all of this in the round to ensure that we can work out the different scenarios as people return to work. What we have at the moment is a very different situation from what we will have when restrictions start to be lifted, and that will be a very different situation from what it might be when the economy is fully open. We must understand that, and we will work with the people who are already working and with the business representative organisations that I mentioned earlier.

[Mr Speaker]

We will try to reconnect with Mike Wood down in Dudley. Mike Wood, I hope you are connected.

[Mike Wood [V]]

Second time lucky, Mr Speaker, although some would prefer me on mute, I am sure.

As the Minister will know, many of our workers have been working throughout this outbreak. As well as thanking them for all their efforts, will the Minister assure us that the Government are making sure that employers are aware of their responsibilities and are keeping their workers safe?

[Paul Scully]

I thank my hon. Friend for his question and for giving me the opportunity to thank those people who have kept our economy going through this difficult time. We rightly say a massive thank you to our key workers—our emergency workers, and especially those in the NHS, but we must also thank those who have been feeding the country and supplying the shops, the delivery drivers, the construction workers, the warehouse operatives and the retailers who have been out there doing that crucial work. We must make sure, as I said earlier, that we can give employees coming back to the workplace the confidence that they are working in a safe environment. We will certainly be able to do that if we can continue to work with as many businesses, unions and organisations as possible. We need to get this right and get our message right that the economy can be opened and that we can get back to work.

Draft Parental Bereavement Leave and Pay (Consequential Amendments to Subordinate Legislation) Regulations 2020

Paul Scully Excerpts

Monday 23rd March 2020 General Committees

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

I beg to move,

That the Committee has considered the draft Parental Bereavement Leave and Pay (Consequential Amendments to Subordinate Legislation) Regulations 2020.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir David. The regulations, which were laid before the House on Tuesday 10 March 2020, support the implementation of a new entitlement to paid leave for employees who lose a child under the age of 18 or whose baby is stillborn. I am pleased that the main regulations, which contain provisions to implement the new entitlement to parental bereavement leave and pay, and which will apply to child deaths and stillbirths on or after 6 April 2020, were approved by a resolution of both Houses on 5 March.

The parental bereavement leave and pay policy will ensure that there is a statutory minimum provision in place on which all working parents can rely in the event of the death or stillbirth of a child. The policy will also establish a clear baseline of support for employers managing bereavement in the workplace.

Fortunately, the number of child deaths is relatively small: every year in Great Britain, there are around 7,500 child deaths, including stillbirths. Obviously, behind every one of those deaths, a family is hurting and needs space and time to grieve, so it is right that we are doing this. I am grateful to many the hon. Members from both sides of the House who have raised the issue in really constructive debate, both on the Floor of the House and in Committee.

The Parental Bereavement Leave Regulations 2020 give all employees the right to a minimum of two weeks off work in the event of their child’s death or stillbirth, regardless of how long they have worked for their employer. The Statutory Parental Bereavement Pay (General) Regulations 2020 implement new statutory payments for parents taking time away from work following their bereavement, subject to the same eligibility criteria as all other statutory family need payments. An impact assessment was published alongside the Parental Bereavement (Leave and Pay) Act 2018, setting out that the impact on business is small, at approximately £1.2 million a year. That is unchanged by the contents of the regulations, including the statutory instrument for which I seek approval today.

The SI we are considering amends other pieces of secondary legislation to reflect the introduction of parental bereavement leave and pay. The Government’s intention is that parental bereavement leave and pay are treated consistently with other family-related statutory leave and pay entitlements when calculating entitlements to certain other rights or benefits. The SI essentially makes it clear how those other rights or benefits are calculated when an individual takes parental bereavement leave or statutory parental bereavement pay. That is also beneficial to employers, who expect the new entitlement to align with the existing framework of family-related leave and pay entitlements.

In addition, the amendments made by the SI will ensure that parental bereavement leave and statutory parental bereavement pay are afforded the same status and importance in the eyes of an employer as other family-related leave and pay entitlements, which are usually associated with the birth or adoption of a child. That sends the right message to employers about the importance and value of recognising bereavement and of providing adequate support for parents in those circumstances.

As I have said in other debates, although the purpose of the parental bereavement leave and pay policy is to set a statutory minimum, that should in no way prevent employers from going further if they can. The Government encourage all employers to support their employees in whatever way they can. It is my hope that the new provisions will act as a catalyst for improving workplace bereavement support across the board.

I reiterate my thanks to the many Members of the House who supported the passage of this legislative package. Special thanks go to my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake), who sponsored the Parental Bereavement (Leave and Pay) Bill, and to my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester (Will Quince) for his work to raise the profile of this issue in Parliament. I also thank many former Members of Parliament.

This SI will play an important part in providing bereaved parents with the space to grieve following the death or stillbirth of their child and in sending the right signal to employers and colleagues about the value of compassion and support at such a tragic time. I commend the regulations to the Committee.

--- Later in debate ---

[Paul Scully]

I thank all hon. Members, and especially the right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) and the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North for their words in support of what we seek to achieve—[Interruption.] I am so sorry, I meant to refer to the hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood. For some reason I went from south London to west London. The hon. Lady, who comes from south London, as I do, brought a valuable contribution to the debate.

I echo the tribute paid to Lucy Herd. Jack’s law was such an important law to bring to this place. I am sorry for the slight delay caused through the need to come back with these regulations, when we had done the majority of the work in the Chamber.

I hope the Committee agrees that the regulations are essential to completing the implementation of parental bereavement leave and pay and to support the objectives of the policy when it comes into effect—finally—on 6 April. Without them, we would be calling into question the status of the new entitlement, compared with existing entitlements, which would be confusing for employers and employees and undermine the policy’s objective to send that clear signal to employers on the importance of recognising bereavement in the workplace.

The Government are committed to supporting working parents and making this country the best place to work and grow a business. The regulations will ensure consistency between parental bereavement leave and pay and other entitlements, with regard to calculations of other rights and benefits, which is a fair and helpful outcome for employees and their employers. I therefore hope that the Committee will approve the regulations.

Question put and agreed to.

Horizon Settlement: Future Governance of Post Office Ltd

Paul Scully Excerpts

Thursday 19th March 2020 Commons Chamber

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

First of all, I congratulate the right hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) and my hon. Friend the Member for North West Leicestershire (Andrew Bridgen), who cannot be here today, for securing today’s important debate. I thank all Members for their contributions to this excellent and heartfelt debate.

We know that the Government recognise the role of post offices, and that was articulated by my hon. Friend the Member for North Norfolk (Duncan Baker). It is so important that we make sure that we build on the network. There is no programme of closures—there have actually been 400 new post offices in the past few years, and I want to make sure that we can develop on that, although individual post offices may open or close at various points. I want to make sure that I spend the rest of my time covering as many as possible of the questions that have been raised in this interesting debate.

It is impossible to ignore the impact that the litigation process has had on the affected postmasters and their families. We have heard about Tom Brown, Janet Skinner, Alan Bates, Kamran Ashraf, Siobhan Sayer, Elizabeth Barnes and Jacqueline El Kasaby, among others. As my hon. Friend the Member for Broadland (Jerome Mayhew) said, they are all real people, not just people on a spreadsheet or a list. They are individuals whose families have been affected, so I will not hide and I will not wash my hands of it. It is so important that we get as much done as possible, even if we cannot achieve everything that has been asked.

I am glad that the Post Office has accepted that it got it wrong in the past on the Horizon accounting system and in its dealings with a number of postmasters, and that it has apologised. I am glad that we got a comprehensive resolution to the litigation following several days of respectful, challenging and ultimately successful mediation, although several hon. Members have raised issues about where we go from here.

Beyond the financial settlement, the Post Office committed to directly address past events for affected postmasters, so it will shortly announce a scheme to address the historical shortfalls for postmasters who were not part of the group litigation. That scheme has been designed to offer a fair, fast and transparent means for postmasters’ historical issues to be resolved.

The terms of the settlement put the onus on the Post Office to implement the necessary cultural and organisational changes highlighted by the litigation, which means that the company should foster a genuine commercial partnership with postmasters. Clearly, it has to settle its past relationship with postmasters to look forward and ensure that postmasters can have confidence in their future relationship with it.

It is important that the necessary support for postmasters to operate branches successfully is available. That includes newly established area managers to deliver support on the ground, an improved branch support centre to support teams throughout the UK, an overhaul of postmaster training and, above all, a further increase to postmaster remuneration, as we heard earlier.

In terms of the management of the Post Office, there is a new chief executive officer and two new non-executive directors, so its leadership has changed significantly in the last few months as a result of the situation. I recognise the strength of feeling surrounding the case, which is why the Government and I are determined to take the necessary steps to ensure that lessons are learned from the Horizon litigation and that past issues will not be repeated.

We have talked about the independent review, which the Prime Minister mentioned a couple of weeks ago. We are looking at the best way to do it. There will be a further announcement as soon as possible in the very near future. I know that hon. Members want progress, but I want to ensure that we get it right, rather than rushing into the terms of reference and other details. I want to make sure, as I said, without hiding and without washing my hands of it, that we actually get something that means something to the affected postmasters.

[Lucy Allan]

Does the Minister agree that the most important thing is for the wrongful convictions to be overturned? We cannot learn lessons and move forward if that is not addressed. Will he please address that point?

--- Later in debate ---

[Paul Scully]

That is why the CCRC is looking at those cases and will therefore be able to refer them to the Court of Appeal accordingly. That option is now available, which would not normally be available without the CCRC looking at those cases.

I look forward to speaking at the Select Committee hearing that is due to be held on 24 March, covid-19 notwithstanding. The Government continue to proactively challenge the Post Office to restore and strengthen its relationship with postmasters and to deliver the terms of the settlement. On Monday, I met the Post Office’s chair and CEO to seek assurance on the steps being taken. Alongside my officials, I will work to make sure that we hold them and their governance to account.

In terms of future governance, the Post Office is a large, complex and diverse business, so it is important that it is allowed the commercial freedom to compete in the challenging markets it operates in. It must, however, be accountable to the Government for its decisions, as we have heard. Following the litigation and the subsequent settlement, the Government will monitor the Post Office closely to ensure that it delivers on its commitments to improving the organisational relationship with postmasters.

[Karl Turner]

Will the Minister give way?

[Paul Scully]

I will not, because I am running out of time. I stress that the Government have robust mechanisms in place to maintain oversight of the Post Office, and they are regularly reviewed. I have regular meetings with its chief executive officer and chair, and the Government have increased the frequency of wider shareholder meetings to make sure that, among other things, the actions arising out of the litigation can be tracked. UK Government Investments, as the shareholder representative for the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, challenges the Post Office on its corporate governance and strategy, and on its stewardship of financial and other resources on behalf of shareholders, as well as holding a non-executive seat on Post Office Ltd’s board.

The Department also recently expanded the BEIS Post Office policy team, which works closely with UKGI to hold the Post Office to account at official level. We have a new framework document that makes sure that the responsibilities and accountabilities of the Post Office, BEIS and UKGI are clearly defined. We will publish that soon. It includes an open and transparent information-sharing agreement between the Government and the Post Office.

I will meet the Communication Workers Union, which has been referred to, at the end of the month to understand the views of postmasters—I look forward to that—and will be tracking progress at the highest levels of the Post Office in quarterly ministerial meetings with the CEO, Nick Read. Governance arrangements between the Government and all its arm’s length bodies are kept under regular review. In the light of developments in the Post Office, the Government have considered and addressed all those arrangements.

The right hon. Member for North Durham talked about the Post Office’s right to prosecute. This was a private prosecution; individuals and companies can bring such prosecutions—they are not limited to the Post Office. There is, however, a continuing duty to disclose material information that comes to light that might relate to the safety of any conviction, so the CCRC and those convicted will be able to take up that information.

I will write to the right hon. Member for North Durham with more detail about the Post Office serious case review team to which he referred. BEIS has pressed management on the issues around past prosecutions of postmasters, instigated a review of the Post Office’s handling of that in 2015, and supported the Second Sight mediation scheme. The chair committed to the review in 2015, but it took all the litigation for all the facts to come to light. The suspense account was referred to; Nick Read wrote to Lord Arbuthnot recently on the subject, and we will monitor it closely. On the CCRC and the convictions that the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central (Chi Onwurah) talked about, there is a meeting on 24 March to consider those cases further.

To conclude, I reassure the House that the Government are working hand in hand with post offices, the Post Office, postmasters and other stakeholders to ensure that there is follow-through on the lessons learned from the litigation and the steps to be taken following the settlement. I look forward to sharing with Members as soon as possible further details of the review on the issue promised by the Prime Minister. I will leave a minute for the right hon. Member for North Durham, but I thank all postmasters—those impacted by the litigation and those not—for the value that they add in providing an exceptional service to communities, people and businesses across the UK, and for their contribution to this case. I thank hon. Members once again for their contributions to this excellent debate, and for their interest in the Post Office.

Draft National Minimum Wage (Amendment) Regulations 2020 Draft National Minimum Wage (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 2020

Paul Scully Excerpts

Tuesday 17th March 2020 General Committees

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

I beg to move,

That the Committee has considered the draft National Minimum Wage (Amendment) Regulations 2020.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to consider the draft National Minimum Wage (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 2020.

The Minister will speak to both instruments. At the end of the debate, I will ask him to move the second motion formally.

[Paul Scully]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Paisley. One of the Government’s proudest achievements is creating millions more jobs since 2010. We are determined to make the UK the best place in the world to work. As announced in the Queen’s Speech, we will bring forward an employment Bill to deliver the greatest reform of workers’ rights in more than 20 years. Our approach is to balance the needs of workers and employers. These regulations, concerning the national minimum wage and the national living wage, are crucial to that approach.

We are helping to protect low-paid workers while supporting employers to comply with the legislation. We have a labour market to be proud of. Our employment rate is at 76.5%, a record high, and unemployment is 3.8%, which is lower than this time last year. Since 2010, the national minimum wage has increased faster than average wages and inflation, meaning more money for the lowest paid workers. The regulations will increase the rates of the national minimum wage and the national living wage from 1 April, which we estimate will lead to a pay rise for about 2.4 million workers.

I am delighted to say that we have accepted all the recommendations made by the Low Pay Commission. That independent expert body brings together the views of businesses and workers and, informed by research and analysis, reaches a consensus on that advice. I place on record my gratitude for its work.

The regulations will increase the national living wage for those aged 25 and over by 51p to £8.72 an hour. That increase of 6.2% means that the national living wage is projected to meet the Government’s target of reaching 60% of median earnings in 2020. A full-time worker on that rate will be more than £930 better off over the course of the year.

The regulations also increase the rates for younger workers and apprentices. Those aged between 21 and 24 will be entitled to a minimum hourly rate of £8.20, a 50p increase. Workers aged between 18 and 20 will receive an extra 30p an hour, taking their rate to £6.45. Under-18s will earn at least £4.55 an hour—a 20p increase. Apprentices aged under 19 or in the first year of their apprenticeship will receive an increase of 6.5%, meaning an hourly rate of £4.15.

The regulations also change the amount that employers can charge workers for accommodation without it affecting their pay for national minimum wage purposes. From April, that will increase to £8.20 a day.

Looking ahead, the Government have pledged to raise minimum wages further. In our manifesto, we set a new target for the national living wage of two thirds of median earnings by 2024. The Low Pay Commission will continue to have a central role in taking economic conditions into account and advising the Government on this ambitious target, ensuring that the lowest paid benefit from the increases. To improve fairness for younger workers, we will apply the national living wage to workers aged 23 and over by 2021, and to those aged 21 and over by 2024.

The first step was changing the law. We need to ensure that all workers know they are entitled to the minimum wage and that all employers know that they must pay it. The Government run an annual campaign to increase awareness. Last year, we spent £1.1 million reaching workers and employers through posters and billboards, as well as digital and online channels.

We know that most businesses pay at least the statutory minimum wage, but we take tough action against the minority of employers who underpay their workers. Since 2015, we have more than doubled our investment in minimum wage compliance and enforcement activities to £27.4 million. Such an increase in the budget allows Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs to focus on tackling the most serious cases of non-compliance while educating employers to comply. HMRC follows up every worker complaint it receives, even those that are anonymous. It conducts proactive enforcement in sectors or areas where there is a higher risk of workers not being paid the legal minimum wage. In 2018-19, HMRC identified a record £24.4 million in pay arrears for more than 220,000 workers, and issued more than £17 million in penalties for non-compliant employers.

In February, we announced the recommencement of the national minimum wage naming scheme. Publicly naming employers who do not adhere to the rules remains an important part of our enforcement and compliance toolkit for the minimum wage. From now on, any firm that owes minimum wage arrears of more than £500 to its workforce can be named. To help educate employers, future naming rounds will be supported by a quarterly educational bulletin to highlight details of common compliance issues.

We are also acutely aware of the burden that regulations, including the minimum wage, place on business. As the level of the national living wage enters new territory, we want to make sure that the rules are as straightforward as possible. So long as workers are getting the wages they are entitled to, we want to make it easier for businesses to comply with the law. That is why I am also presenting regulations that will aid business compliance.

We have worked closely with stakeholders to identify areas of the national minimum wage rules that add complexity for employers, without providing clear protections or benefits to workers. Employers, particularly in the retail sector, told us that some aspects of the rules can be particularly and unnecessarily difficult to comply with. We have listened to those views. Following a review of evidence from the consultation on salaried workers and salary sacrifice schemes, the changes to the regulations will support businesses who employ salaried hours workers. Changes have been considered only where they maintain or enhance protections or benefits to workers.

Currently, low-paid salaried workers cannot be paid in fortnightly or four-weekly cycles without their employer risking a breach of regulations. Similarly, if companies were to pay such salaried staff extra for working a bank holiday shift, there is a risk of breaching regulations. The amended regulations widen the range of pay arrangements that are compatible with workers being treated as salaried hours workers from 6 April 2020. That will help preserve certain pay arrangements that are valued by many workers.

The regulations also make a small change to the rules on workers making purchases from their employer—for example, where a clothing retail worker buys a uniform from their employer. The change ensures that employers get credit for reimbursing the worker as they currently do when the purchase is from a third party.

As well as making changes to the regulations, the Government have announced further support for businesses to comply with the minimum wage rules. For instance, we are offering tailored support to new, small businesses. HMRC is proactively visiting selected employers to educate them on the national minimum wage and to help them get their practices right from the start.

To further improve understanding of the rules, we will soon be publishing an improved guidance offer through gov.uk. Our new offer will include thematic guides on topics where breaches are common, such as pay deductions, apprentices and unpaid work. We have convened a guidance readership panel of employer groups, unions and relevant experts, to make sure that we get these products right.

The regulations ensure that the lowest paid workers are fairly rewarded for their valuable contribution to the economy. They also provide greater flexibility to employers to help them comply with the rules, while maintaining our world-leading employment rights. Our commitment to raising the national living wage to two thirds of median earnings makes the UK the first major economy to set such an ambition. I commend the regulations to the House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Paul Scully]

I thank hon. Members for their valuable contributions to the debate. The national minimum wage and the national living wage make a real difference to the lives of millions of workers in the country. I am glad that there is agreement—notwithstanding some questions, which I will try to answer to the best of my ability—that the lowest paid workers deserve an inflation-busting pay rise, which the regulations will provide.

The regulations mean that, from 1 April, workers on the national living wage will be over £3,700 better off over the year compared with 2015, when the policy was announced. That marks a 21% increase in the national living wage since 2015. Younger workers will also get more money through the increases to the national minimum wage rates. We know that most businesses support increases to the minimum wage rates. Through the regulations, we are reducing burdens on employers in meeting minimum wage obligations while maintaining worker protections.

The hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston mentioned the technical changes to the second set of regulations. He is right to say that we will continue to review the situation. Part of the reason for the changes to the regulations is that there were some unintended consequences when the national minimum wage and national living wage were introduced—for example, the four-weekly cycles and the fortnightly cycles. Regardless of how extensive they are, smoothing out those problems is a sensible measure. Of course, we will continue to see how that works in practice, as we will with all those sorts of things.

In no particular order—I have papers strewn absolutely everywhere—I will try to cover some of the points raised. The hon. Member for Glasgow South West talked about Government contractors paying a real living wage. The national minimum wage is a minimum wage, as is the national living wage. Good employers should always seek to go beyond that. The Department ensures that all contractor staff receive a minimum wage equivalent to the annual survey of hours and earnings median rate for their occupation or to the Living Wage Foundation rate, whichever is higher. It means that from April 2020 contractor staff will receive no less than £10.75 in London, or £9.30 outside London.

The hon. Member for Glasgow South West also asked why the national living wage is not higher. Right from the conception of the national living wage and the national minimum wage, we have been trying to work with businesses to ensure that employers and workers get the right balance. That goes to the question from the hon. Members for Glasgow South West and for Ellesmere Port and Neston about younger people. Again, we hope to rectify the situation so that, by 2024, 21-year-olds will be able to benefit from the higher amount. The Government took the decision to ensure that we get the right balance for younger people in the employment market. Our 16 to 21-year-olds’ unemployment rate is four times higher than that of people aged 25 and over. It is about having a balance between ensuring that they are paid a fair wage and that there are jobs and opportunities for them in the first place.

We are at the forefront on enforcement, and are significantly increasing the amount of money paid to HMRC for that purpose. HMRC will enforce in a proactive way, through education and visits to employers in the sectors that are most at risk. HMRC will have the financial resources to put where it considers best to tackle non-compliance. We have closed 770 investigations into employers between 2016-17 and 2018-19 that were opened with a potential apprenticeship risk. More than half those cases were closed with arrears found for the worker.

Several projects over the last few years have targeted apprentices and the sectors in which non-compliance is most prevalent, such as hairdressing and childcare. HMRC has undertaken many communication campaigns, including webinars and targeted projects, communicating rights and responsibilities to apprentices and their employers, to ensure that people know their rights, so that they can call out non-compliance, and that employers adhere to the rules.

HMRC also send text messages to nearly 350,000 apprentices when the annual rate increase comes into effect. We ensure that we have that communications campaign as soon as the increase is approved because it is so important that those who are the most vulnerable and the lowest paid understand their rights and how to complain. As I said in my opening remarks, HMRC also investigates anonymous complaints.

Clearly, unpaid internships are a concern, in terms of their being a barrier to social mobility. The hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston is right to identify that they are often used in this place. In terms of tax and worker rights, the term “internship” does not mean anything. If someone is on work experience, just looking and learning, they are not working day to day and adding value to the company. If they are adding value to the company, and doing what could be seen as a worker’s job, the national minimum wage and national living wage legislation applies to them. Employers should look at that, and we will come down heavily on those who fail to adhere to it.

HMRC has contacted more than 2,000 employers found to be advertising unpaid internships online to ensure that they are compliant with the law. We have sent 35,690 letters to employers in those sectors that tend to use interns: publishing, media, the arts, marketing and fashion, as the hon. Gentleman said.

[Justin Madders]

I appreciate what the Minister says about how the nature of the work determines whether someone should be paid the minimum wage, but is it not a slightly artificial situation to expect someone at the very bottom of the ladder, in a very precarious situation in an internship, to report their employer to the national minimum wage helpline?

[Paul Scully]

By contacting 2,000 employers, we are reminding them of their legal responsibilities. I understand the hon. Gentleman’s concern about vulnerability and whistleblowing in those situations, but that is why it is important that we give HMRC the resource that it needs to have proactive oversight, and to go to those companies that are most likely to offer and advertise unpaid internships, so that we can nip it in the bud. To build our understanding, so that HMRC can follow the matter up properly, we have incorporated a question into the Department for Education’s employer skills survey, asking 90,000 UK employers whether they have used unpaid interns. Results are expected in late spring 2020, and we will follow up on that.

On the protection of the low-paid self-employed, we will introduce the Employment Bill, which covers a couple of the questions that were raised. That is a result of the good work plan published by Matthew Taylor and his colleagues. We hope to tackle a number of the issues raised in that report and will publish the Bill as soon as we can to ensure that it gets scrutiny from, and involvement of, all parties in its development. I look forward to introducing the Bill and having debates on it so that we continue to lead on workers’ rights.

[Gareth Thomas (Harrow West) (Lab/Co-op)]

I apologise for missing the Minister’s opening remarks. He will understand the particular concern among the low-paid and self-employed about their situation during the coronavirus crisis, as my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston mentioned. Can the Minister give us a hint about Government announcements in that area, as part of the process of reassuring constituents who are in that employment bracket?

[Paul Scully]

Unfortunately, I am not the Chancellor, but I look forward to the statement this evening. At this time, it is important that we continue to speak out daily for businesses and, as the hon. Gentleman rightly points out, for the self-employed, for workers and for people who are worried not just about their jobs and the viability of the business, but about shifts in those areas. Make no mistake, we have all seen in our inboxes the amount of concern out there, so it is so important that we continue to address the concerns of self-employed workers, employees and businesses. The Chancellor introduced a timely and targeted package last week in his Budget, but things are clearly moving at pace, and we will see what he says during his statement at 7 o’clock.

On the future of the national living wage, although we are increasing it and getting through the technicalities now, it is really important to reiterate the point about younger workers. We are planning to extend the reach of the national living wage to workers aged 23 and over from April 2021, and to workers aged 21 and over by 2024. Unfortunately, I suspect that the children of the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston will have already reached that higher level by that time.

A UK-wide minimum wage, recommended by the independent expert Low Pay Commission, ensures that the pay of the lowest paid in society is protected, and means that businesses compete on a level playing field. In 2016, the Government committed to raising the national living wage to 60% of median earnings, and we have stayed true to that commitment. We have the highest employment rate since comparable records began. The strength of our labour market shows that a higher minimum wage can go hand in hand with strong employment growth.

[Chris Stephens]

Before the Minister continues, he did not answer my question about employers using tips to reach the national living wage. That is a form of cheating that happens in the hospitality sector in particular. Will he respond to that specific point?

[Paul Scully]

Forgive me, I missed that one. The current rules are clear that tips do not count towards pay for national living wage purposes. That is part of the education that we need to ensure that the hospitality sector adheres to and does not fall foul of those rules, whether or not employers know about them. That is an area of possible exploitation and can be an area of ignorance, which is no excuse. We will shortly introduce legislation to ensure that 100% of tips go to workers, which I am sure will be welcomed in the hospitality industry.

Our pledge to raise the national living wage to two thirds of median earnings by 2024, taking economic conditions into account, makes the UK the first major economy in the world to set such an ambition. We will soon publish the remit for the Low Pay Commission, which will include recommending the national living wage rate to apply from April 2021—that is the first step on the path to two thirds of median earnings. We will continue to come down hard on employers who fail to pay the minimum wage.

The regulations and accompanying non-legislative measures show that we are committed to helping employers get the rules right at the first time of asking and without the need for enforcement. I commend the regulations to the Committee.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That the Committee has considered the draft National Minimum Wage (Amendment) Regulations 2020.

draft national minimum wage (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 2020

Resolved,

That the Committee has considered the draft National Minimum Wage (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 2020.—(Paul Scully.)

Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy

Paul Scully Excerpts

Friday 13th March 2020 Ministerial Corrections

The following is an extract from Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy questions on 3 March 2020.

[Paul Scully]

The Post Office, under its new chief executive officer, has since accepted that it got things wrong. He has apologised and said that it aims to re-establish a positive relationship with postmasters. The Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy is working actively with the Post Office on this matter and will hold it to account on its progress. We are also looking into what more needs to be done.

[Official Report, 3 March 2020, Vol. 672, c. 739.]

Letter of correction from the Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Paul Scully):

An error has been identified in my response to my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Robbie Moore).

The correct response should have been:

[Paul Scully]

The Post Office, under its new chief executive officer, has since accepted that it got things wrong, apologised and said that it aims to re-establish a positive relationship with postmasters. The Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy is working actively with the Post Office on this matter and will hold it to account on its progress. We are also looking into what more needs to be done.

Post Office and Horizon Software

Paul Scully Excerpts

Thursday 5th March 2020 Westminster Hall

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr McCabe.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Telford (Lucy Allan) on securing this important debate about the Criminal Cases Review Commission’s review of the convictions. As we heard, there has been a lot of human cost to what has happened over the past few years, and as the new Post Office Minister, I will dedicate my time to ensuring that we can see this through, keeping the Post Office on its toes, so that we come to a proper conclusion that means something to the postmasters who have suffered in the past. We also want to give confidence to the postmasters of the future about their ability to work in the network.

I am responding to the debate, rather than a Justice Minister, because, as I suspected, the debate has widened beyond the CCRC part of the situation. I hope to respond more fully to those wider points.

The hon. Member for Gower (Tonia Antoniazzi) asked what hope we can give to the victims about timescales. That will obviously depend on the complexity of each case so, yes, although we want to get this dealt with as soon as possible—it has without doubt been going on a long time—just having a tick-box approach would not be fair on those postmasters or give the answers that we need to move forward.

[Lucy Allan]

Does the Minister agree that the convictions should be treated as a group? They should be overturned as a group, with a common theme, rather than individually, case by case, which would make it a much longer process.

[Paul Scully]

I will come back to my hon. Friend’s point in a little more detail, but the way in which our legal system works means that, at the moment, we cannot do that. The CCRC can analyse the cases that come before it as a group, and it still needs to do a lot of forensic accounting, but the Court of Appeal can only deal with each case individually. The legal structures that we have at the moment prevent just one single hearing with a view to taking on board all the people who have gone through this process.

[Maria Eagle]

Will the Minister give way?

[Paul Scully]

I will give way briefly—the hon. Lady must be quick, or I will not cover things.

[Maria Eagle]

Will the Minister undertake that the Government will take steps to ensure that those who pleaded guilty will have a chance to have their convictions overturned, because that normally would not be the case?

[Paul Scully]

I thank the hon. Lady for making that point. I was going to cover it because, as she said, ordinarily those who had pleaded guilty would not be able to do that in the system. The whole point about the CCRC system is that we can allow those people who were found guilty to have their cases reviewed—among the cases that went through, 46 people did indeed plead guilty. I can assure her about that.

Clearly, a lot of the speech I have in front of me talks about the post office network and how important it is for this country and our communities but, begging the House’s forbearance, we do not need me to cover that. We all know what a great job that post offices do for our communities and, therefore, what a great job postmasters do for our communities, so I will stick to the questions that have been asked and where we will go.

The Post Office has accepted that it got things wrong—it clearly did, and we have heard that in stark measure today. I am pleased that on 11 December we had a comprehensive resolution to the litigation, following several days of challenging and ultimately successful mediation, but there is an ongoing process. Some Members talked about the settlement, and clearly a number of people who had shortfalls in the past were not part of that group litigation, so there will be an ongoing process that the Post Office will announce shortly. I hope that some of the other cases will be able to be raised in that.

We heard about the financial and emotional suffering that impacted postmasters over so many years. Settling the long-running litigation, therefore, is so important. The Government will challenge the Post Office and its new chief executive proactively. I will ensure that happens.

[Andrew Bridgen]

Will the Minister give way?

[Paul Scully]

I will not just at the minute, because I want to make some progress.

I spoke to Nick Read, the new CEO, and what I found refreshing about that conversation was that this guy had been chief executive of Nisa, the association of independent supermarkets, so he already gets the relationship, the fact that he is working with people who own individual independent shops. They were self-employed people, so that relationship is similar in some ways to the Post Office relationship with sub-postmasters. Rather than treating them as de facto employees, he understands the nature of their micro-businesses within the wider network.

[Karl Turner]

Given that the Minister had an opportunity to speak to the new chief executive, I wonder whether the Minister and indeed the new chief executive of Post Office Ltd support an independent, judge-led inquiry. The Government need to support that, as does the Post Office.

[Paul Scully]

We will certainly look at how we can keep the Post Office on its toes in future and at how to look back to learn the lessons—

[Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)]

Will the Minister give way?

[Paul Scully]

I will not for now, because I must give my hon. Friend the Member for Telford a minute at the end.

I do not want to step on the toes of the CCRC’s investigation or of the things that are happening at the moment. Clearly, however, we need to ensure that lessons are learned. Over the coming days, we will look to see what more we can do.

I want to cover the CCRC cases specifically. The litigation that concluded with a judgment on 16 December last year only resolved the civil case—it cannot deal with criminal matters. Claimants with convictions are therefore seeking to have those convictions overturned by going through a process with the CCRC, which has the power to refer cases to the Court of Appeal. The independent CCRC plays a vital and valuable role in maintaining confidence in the criminal justice system. It is important to pay tribute to it for its process. The key role of the commission is to investigate cases in which people have been convicted and have unsuccessfully appealed, but believe that they have been wrongly convicted or incorrectly sentenced.

The CCRC received 57 applications, all of which are being reviewed—the first 20 in 2015 and the most recent 22 following the settlement in the civil case in December 2019. A small number of those applicants pleaded guilty at the magistrates court and, normally, they would have no ordinary route of appeal, but the CCRC provides a way to ensure that we can go through those cases. The CCRC has a team of three case review managers working on the cases, supported by a group leader, a commissioner and other advisory staff. They have obtained and are reviewing thousands of pages of material from the Post Office and other public bodies, and expert forensic accountants have been instructed, with the substantial task of examining transaction data from a sample branch.

[Gill Furniss]

I fear that the Minister does not get it. He is still parroting exactly what has been said by previous Ministers to me. If this had happened to him, and he had lost everything and had his reputation done, he would want an independent judge-led inquiry. In this Chamber, we have all made it very clear that that must be the outcome.

[Paul Scully]

I am grateful for the hon. Lady’s intervention, but she used up a lot of my time. Specifically, we are talking about the CCRC. I want to ensure that I leave my hon. Friend the Member for Telford some seconds at the end. I will continue to look at that. We will continue to ensure that sub-postmasters can feel that they will have justice, recompense and the confidence to move forward.

Terms and Conditions of Employment

Paul Scully Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd March 2020 Commons Chamber

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

I beg to move,

That the draft Statutory Parental Bereavement Pay (General) Regulations 2020, which were laid before this House on 23 January, be approved.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

With this it will be convenient to consider the draft Parental Bereavement Leave Regulations 2020.

[Paul Scully]

The statutory instruments implement a new entitlement to paid leave for employees who lose a child under the age of 18, or whose baby is stillborn. There is currently no specific statutory right to take time off work to grieve following the loss of a child, and although there are many excellent and supportive employers, some sadly do not extend the same compassion to their employees when these tragic circumstances occur. The SIs will ensure a statutory minimum provision on which all working parents can rely in the event of a child death or stillbirth. They will also establish a clear baseline of support for employers when managing bereavement in the workplace. Fortunately, the number of child deaths is relatively small—every year, there are around 7,500 child deaths in Great Britain, including stillbirths—but behind each individual death of a baby or child, there are parents, and a wider family, for whom the sadness and pain of that loss are unquantifiable.

[Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)]

It is right that the provisions address the death of a child who has been placed for adoption, meaning that the adult who intended to adopt that child will be covered by them. Why have adults in such a situation been excluded if an objection to the adoption has been raised? Surely the grief will be no less whether or not the adoption is unopposed, yet the regulations specifically exclude an adult from receiving the provision if there had been an objection to the proposed adoption.

[Paul Scully]

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his question. A lot of consideration went into how to define bereaved parents, and we have extended the provisions, after a discussion following the introduction of the private Member’s Bill of my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake). Hopefully I will be able to develop that point as we continue our debate, and perhaps answer my right hon. Friend’s question.

I am conscious that many Members have personal experience of the issue, or stories of constituents who have been through this. I admire the bravery and honesty that they have displayed when speaking about the issue in the Chamber, and I hope that they will be proud of their contribution to effecting this change in the law. I extend special thanks to my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton for promoting the original Parental Bereavement (Leave and Pay) Bill, and to my hon. Friend the hon. Member for Colchester (Will Quince) for his work to raise the profile of the issue in Parliament.

The draft Parental Bereavement Leave Regulations 2020 will give all employees a right to a minimum of two weeks off work in the event of their child’s death or stillbirth, regardless of how long they have worked for their employer. The draft Statutory Parental Bereavement Pay (General) Regulations 2020 implement a new statutory payment for parents who are taking time away from work following their bereavement, subject to the same eligibility criteria as all other statutory family leave payments.

The impact assessment that was published alongside the Parental Bereavement (Leave and Pay) Act 2018 set out that the impact on business is small, at approximately £1.2 million per year. That is unchanged by the content of the draft SIs. The policy has undergone thorough consultation with the public, and stakeholders representing bereaved parents and employers. The views expressed by Members during the passage of the 2018 Act have also been taken into account. I will now set out how the Government have decided to exercise the powers given to them through that Act.

[Sir Desmond Swayne]

Before the Minister continues, may I withdraw the awkward question that I put to him earlier, as I find that it is adequately answered in part 3 of the relevant regulations?

[Paul Scully]

I thank my right hon. Friend for his diligent examination of the papers before him. I am glad he is informed.

The regulations define a “bereaved parent” in broad terms by reference to the employee’s relationship to the child. That reflects the diversity of existing family structures, taking account of biological and adoptive parents, as well as certain foster carers and kinship carers. As far as possible, we have sought to base the definition on facts that are easily identifiable to the employee and their employer.

Bereaved parents will be able to take two weeks’ leave from their job, and they will have the choice of whether to take those weeks consecutively or non-consecutively. The regulations provide a window of 56 weeks, beginning with the date of death, in which the entitlement can be exercised. Bereaved parents will therefore be able to take time off in the immediate aftermath of the death, at a later point—for example around the first anniversary of the death—or on both occasions, as they see fit.

Consistent with other rights to family-related leave, the employee will be required to give notice to their employer before taking parental bereavement leave, and such notice can be given orally. The notice required for leave will vary depending on when leave is taken in relation to the date of death or stillbirth. A very short notice period is required for leave taken soon after the death, whereas one week’s notice is required for leave taken later in the 56-week window. In both cases, the notice required for leave is designed to be minimal and to place as little burden on the employee as possible.

To claim statutory parental bereavement pay, the employee must provide notice to their employer in writing. Notice for pay can be given after the leave has been taken, meaning that that requirement will not create a barrier to a bereaved parent taking time off. In no circumstances will an employee be required to produce their child’s death or stillbirth certificate in order to access that entitlement. The regulations mean that no evidence is required for a parent to exercise their right to take leave, but to be eligible for pay, an employee will be required to provide minimal evidence. Such evidence will be a written self-declaration that they meet eligibility conditions regarding their relationship with the child, together with confirmation of their name, and the date of the child’s death or stillbirth.

Throughout my remarks I have referred to employees, and that is because parental bereavement leave and pay are employment rights, meaning that individuals who have a different employment status will not qualify. That is consistent with all other statutory parental leave and pay entitlements.

The provisions in the statutory instruments will provide bereaved parents with an important space to grieve following the death or stillbirth of their child. The change in the law will also send a signal to employers about the importance and value of recognising bereavement, and of providing adequate support for parents in such circumstances. I commend the regulations to the House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Paul Scully]

I thank all hon. Members for their consideration of these SIs and for their valuable contributions to the debate. I hope that Members on both sides of the House can agree that they are essential to ensure that no employed parent faces the prospect of returning to work too soon after the tragic loss of a child, should they need time away to grieve.

We are giving parents an important choice through the SIs, allowing them to decide what is best for their needs. They might otherwise have been reliant on the good will of their employer—as we have heard, it has not always been the case that employers have shown that goodwill. The provisions in the SIs strike the right balance between the needs of bereaved parents and those of their employers, who will administer the new entitlement.

My right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest West (Sir Desmond Swayne), who is no longer in his seat, withdrew his question, but it is important that people listening understand what we are doing for adoptive parents. He asked why someone who had applied for an adoption order but had their application rejected would not qualify. The grief experienced by an individual in such circumstances would affect them greatly, and an adoptive parent would qualify from the point at which the child was placed with them for adoption, irrespective of whether the application was rejected, if the child had been living with them for four weeks or more and had been cared for by them during that time. The four weeks is important because it covers other definitions as well so as to be as inclusive as possible.

The hon. Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell) asked about inequalities between different types of worker. The Government understand the challenges that the self-employed and other non-employees face following bereavement. These challenges are different from those faced by employed parents but clearly no less demanding. The parental leave and pay policy focuses on support for employed parents, as they have less autonomy and flexibility over the time they can take off work, but we continue to keep the differences in treatment between self-employed and employed people under review with respect to parental leave and pay. As she also mentioned, with the employment Bill coming up, we will soon be talking about wider issues relating to the different statuses of employment and working.

The hon. Lady asked about day one provisions for pay. The regulations seek to mirror the existing regime of parental statutory pay entitlements to ensure that the new entitlement is familiar to both employees and employers from day one. The provision is a statutory minimum, as we have heard; we would expect employers to go further whenever they can.

[Rachael Maskell]

Does the Minister agree that the bereavement measures relate to circumstances very different from those relating to other measures and that the regulations do not reflect the true nature of grief and the support people need, particularly if they have been employed for less than six months? Will he go back and review this please?

[Paul Scully]

We will keep all these matters under review and see how they are working. The hon. Member is right to say that bereavement is an incredibly difficult issue. We want to ensure a safety net, a bare minimum—employers should not see this as the benchmark; it is the bare minimum they should offer. Any reasonable employer should seek always to do what is best and to value their employees as human beings at every level in terms of pay and benefits.

The hon. Lady asked about extending these provisions in the upcoming employment Bill to cover the loss of a parent. As I say, the Government have been clear that this is a statutory minimum, but we hope it will trigger improvements in workplace support for all kinds of bereavement. I would encourage all employers to engage with the ACAS guidance that supports employers in these circumstances.

The hon. Lady asked about a systematic approach to ensuring parents are informed of their new rights, including by briefing NHS staff. I agree that it is important that any benefits are clearly signposted. The last thing parents will be thinking about at such a time will be their rights and responsibilities, so the easier it is to do the right thing the better. We have worked closely with stakeholders to make them aware of the new entitlement, including Sands, the charity, which already works closely with hospitals to provide support to parents following a stillbirth or neonatal death, and we will publish guidance on the new entitlement once the legislation is passed.

I pay tribute to the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Patricia Gibson) for bringing her personal experience to bear and for seeking changes. I congratulate her on getting her amendment through to extend the provisions to include stillbirth. I hope she can take comfort from knowing that her experience has brought about real change to the lives of grieving parents and to our ability to address these matters further in years to come. She asked about extending the provisions to children over the age of 18. Clearly, bereavement is the same no matter the age—losing a child at any age is devastating—and the question of where to draw the line for the purposes of the parental bereavement leave and pay policy has been a difficult consideration. We have consulted with stakeholders representing bereaved parents and employers, and they recognised that the measure needed to be deliverable and affordable. It was accepted that 18 was the most natural threshold for the new entitlement. Moreover, grief affects all family members, not just parents, and so with ACAS and Cruse we will continue to explore the best way to encourage employers to act sympathetically to requests for leave in relation to any bereavement.

The Government are committed to supporting working parents, and to making this country the best place in the world in which to work and grow a business. These statutory instruments will ensure that bereaved parents have a minimum statutory provision on which to rely if they ever have to go through the unimaginable tragedy of losing a child or baby, and I hope that the House will approve them.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That the draft Statutory Parental Bereavement Pay (General) Regulations 2020, which were laid before this House on 23 January, be approved.

Resolved,

That the draft Parental Bereavement Leave Regulations 2020, which were laid before this House on 23 January, be approved.—(Paul Scully.)