Parental Bereavement (Leave and Pay) Bill (First sitting)

Andrew Griffiths Excerpts

Wednesday 31st January 2018 Public Bill Committees

[Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)]

I want to echo some of what has been said. I most sincerely and profoundly thank the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton for introducing this very important Bill and for all the work he has done to ensure that we reach this point, building on the work of the hon. Member for Colchester and the former Member for Glasgow South.

The anomaly of bereaved parents and the injustice they face of not having any protection in employment law is finally being addressed. This is a good day for Parliament. The Bill is warmly welcomed by every one of my Scottish National party colleagues and has support across the House, as we would expect. As has been said, most employers are perfectly decent, but we all understand —perhaps this is where the Bill arises from—that such an important matter cannot be left to the good will of individual employers.

Many of us have had the tragic and life-changing experience of having to bury our own child, but the Bill is not for us. It is for all those men and women who will have to undergo that agony in future. We in public life, especially those of us who have gone through that traumatic experience, have a duty—a desire by which we are often driven—to improve the situation for those who in the coming years will suffer the same terrible fate of losing a child.

It is important that we all approach the Bill in a non-partisan manner, which is always a pleasure because it happens so infrequently in this House. Some things are just too important to be considered party political and go well beyond the realms of party affiliation, which is why I am hugely encouraged by the tone of hon. Members’ opening remarks. My regret is that in the run-up to the Bill, I was not insightful or prepared enough to work with other hon. Members to table cross-party amendments. That would have given the important signal that this is not a party political issue. I hold my hands up to that.

Many people who have not undergone the experience of losing their child will not understand that there is no protection—they have never had any reason to make inquiries into that. It has taken us so long to get to this point because it is so difficult to even broach the subject of the death of a child. It has been taboo for too long, and thankfully, that is changing.

For too long, parents have had no formal protection under employment law. Together, today, we can seek to put that right. By passing some of the amendments, I hope we can put it right in a way of which we can be truly proud.

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

Like the hon. Member for North West Durham, this is my first appearance in a Bill Committee. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Gray.

[The Chair]

You are doing well so far.

[Andrew Griffiths]

I know you have a reputation for being a hard taskmaster, and that you do not suffer fools gladly, but I hope you will be at least a little gentle with the Front-Bench Members as we proceed in this important debate.

As a Minister with the vast experience of some two weeks in the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, it is actually very humbling to be here and to take part in this important debate. We come into public life and into politics to help people and to make a difference. As a child of the ’80s, I am reminded of the M People song:

“What have you done today to make you feel proud?”

My hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton and everybody involved with the Bill can feel proud that we have reached this point. The Bill will change the lives of those affected by the death of a child. It really will make a massive contribution, and I congratulate my hon. Friend on making such significant progress with this important Bill. I also congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester on the work that he has done.

I have been in the House since 2010, and Bills and debates have come and gone. Sometimes they stick in our minds, sometimes they pass us by and the amount of time and energy given to them in our thoughts is fleeting. One thing that I remember incredibly vividly in this place was listening to the Adjournment debate led by my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester, I think back in November 2015—and, of course, the contribution from my hon. Friend the Member for Eddisbury. The raw emotion in the Chamber during those speeches was incredible. I do not think a single Member was not moved almost to the point of tears, and beyond that in some cases, by the devastating human story that we heard play out and the desire that no other parent should have to go through that. It is an old adage that no parent should ever bury their child.

The hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran spoke about this being almost a taboo subject—something that we do not wish to talk about. That reminded me of my own experience. I am delighted to say that Mrs Griffiths is with child. When I became a Business Minister, the first thing they told me on the day I walked through the door of the Department was that the next day I would be answering Women and Equalities questions, and that the first question would be on flexible paternity. I had to declare an interest, as I intend to take my full paternity leave.

I therefore look at this through the lens of a dad-to-be. I am reminded of the other evening. We were sat at home in Burton, and my wife, who is now getting bigger by the day, was on the sofa. She was enthralled by “Dancing on Ice” and I was deep in my red box, doing my ministerial work. She shouted out because she had her mobile phone resting on her belly and the baby—we do not know yet whether it is a boy or a girl—had kicked the mobile phone off her belly. We are just going through those emotions of realising that there is a little person in there; there is a little Andrew or a little Kate growing inside my wife, and it is hugely exciting and emotional. To think that the unthinkable could happen, that all the potential of that little child inside my wife might come to nothing, that it might all be wasted, is something that none of us want to talk about.

From my perspective, I am very proud of what I do as a Member of Parliament, but my wife is even prouder. Normally, whatever I am doing in the Chamber or in the House, I will text her, particularly if it is something that might be visible and that she can see on TV. She loves to sit at home in Burton and turn on the Parliament channel and watch my wonderful oration. It just dawned on me that I had not told her about this debate, and it was a deliberate thing. I deliberately chose not to tell her that I was taking part in this debate, because I did not want her to have to think about it. I did not want to plant that seed in her mind at a time when she is excited, nervous, apprehensive—all those things. I did not want to plant the seed that something could go wrong.

--- Later in debate ---

[Laura Pidcock]

I agree strongly with the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran. When we think of any of the provisions in the Bill, it is quite easy to think about who is entitled, but much harder to think about who is not. Morally, the disqualification of people who have been through such a horrendous experience does not sit well with any of us.

There are 4.5 million self-employed people in the UK. As the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton rightly said, working practices in this nation are becoming less secure. I do not say that in a judgmental sense, but there is more fracture, there are more self-employed people and nearly 9,000 people in the UK are on zero-hours contracts. The Bill will be meaningless for them unless the extensions are included.

Let us be honest: most people across the nation do not have the option of not working. People take whatever work is available in their area, whether it is secure or not. Many people cannot choose their hours or their income, but when bereaved, they face exactly the same pain and grief. We have discussed how the Bill mirrors other entitlements, but I think the whole Committee would agree that it deals with exceptionally painful circumstances, so it is right that exceptional provision should be made.

I agree that a saving for the Treasury in one place could mean a cost in another. As has been mentioned, the TUC is gravely concerned about zero-hours contracts and self-employed people. Until greater rights and freedoms are established in law to allow precarious workers to organise, it is up to the Government to extend entitlements to them. Thankfully, we are not talking about a huge pool of people nationally, so including agency workers and people on zero-hours contracts would be a small extension to the Bill. Unfortunately, the number of childhood deaths per year has stayed the same on average.

I do not think that it is beyond the Government to make this commitment. I support the new clause.

[Andrew Griffiths]

I thank the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran for tabling the new clause and for focusing on the social cost, which is very important. We can get caught up in the amount of money involved or the cost to the Exchequer, which I will come back to, but this is fundamentally about the cost to human lives, relationships and happiness. As she rightly says, the grief that ensues after the loss of a child can easily cause family breakdown or divorce.

One issue that I have tried to tackle in my time as a Member of Parliament is drug and alcohol addiction. I do a great deal of work with a rehab organisation in my constituency, the Burton Addiction Centre. I regularly go there to talk to people in various stages of recovery. There is often a trigger in somebody’s life that can tip them into alcohol or drug abuse, domestic violence or any of a whole host of things that make their life spiral down. Putting those people back together again and dealing with the consequences of crime and antisocial behaviour brings about a cost to society that the Government are aware of and are working to address.

[Antoinette Sandbach (Eddisbury) (Con)]

The Government have made some important progress with the national bereavement care pathway. The lack of support given to parents at the point of loss often means that they turn to legal or illegal medication that may not be good for them. The 11 pilots being rolled out will mean that every parent, whatever loss they suffer, will get some kind of bereavement support. I hope that that support, going hand in hand with the Bill, will make a real difference to parents’ lives and minimise the risk of that path being followed.

[Andrew Griffiths]

There have been and there continue to be many occasions in this House when I listen to a debate and think, “Crikey! There are so many people who know so much more about this thing than I do.” The biggest example of that is the experience of some hon. Members in this Committee room today. I am in awe of and humbled by it. My hon. Friend has been a beacon in trying to change the Government’s approach to this issue. She speaks so powerfully, and with such emotion and passion, and it is understandable why she does so. She has been hugely successful in making the Government sit up and notice these things, and do something about them.

There has not been a lack of desire to tackle these issues on the part of the Government. It is just that within Government, in the daily work, pressures and all the other things come across Ministers’ desks, sometimes these things can get forgotten. What my hon. Friend has been brilliant in doing is making sure that we do not forget; she has been a voice for people affected in this way. She is absolutely right that the Government have done many things that we should be proud of and that will make a massive contribution, and I thank her for the role that she has played.

Fundamentally, new clause 2 deals with those people who are in irregular work—those people who are either on zero-hour contracts or in some way working in what is often called the gig economy. The Government have to be aware of the changes in the way that people are working.

I am sure, Mr Gray, that you are an avid user of Uber.

[The Chair]

I would lose that illusion, if I were you. Black cabs for me, thanks.

[Andrew Griffiths]

And you are always ordering your takeaway on the app on your mobile phone.

[The Chair]

Again, I think you should be cautious about what you predict.

[Andrew Griffiths]

But it is absolutely right that the way in which people work and are employed, and the way in which consumers engage with services and contractors, has changed dramatically because of technology and the way that our lives are developing. As my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton said, the Government have instigated the Taylor review. Matthew Taylor was commissioned to undertake an in-depth, detailed review last year of modern working practices. The question around the balance of rights and benefits between the employed and the self-employed has become much more relevant as we move away from conventional employment relationships, and there is a greater prevalence of new business models and employment practices.

I met Matthew Taylor just last night to talk about his review and his aspirations. It became clear from that discussion that his review is a stepping stone, and that these kinds of employment practices will continue to change and develop.

[Will Quince]

Many of us, me included, are broadly sympathetic to the points that the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran is making. The concern on the Government side—certainly it is my concern—is about overcomplicating the Bill, thereby putting it in jeopardy. My hon. Friend the Minister mentioned the Taylor review, which is particularly interesting. Could he give me comfort by confirming that this Bill, if it remained unamended in this regard, would fall under the scope of the Taylor review and its recommendations?

[Andrew Griffiths]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and I hope that I can give him the comfort he seeks. The Taylor review made a number of recommendations, including some relating specifically to the self-employed and those on zero-hours contracts, as has been said. It might be helpful for the Committee if I clarified the position on the employment status of people who are engaged on zero-hours contracts.

There is a perception that individuals who have flexible work contracts—or who work on zero-hours contracts, as they are termed—automatically have fewer employment rights. That is not the case and an individual’s employment status is established by the reality of their working relationship. An employer cannot and must not remove statutory rights for an individual simply by getting them to sign up to a contract with flexible hours of work. That means that individuals who are on zero-hours contracts, part-time contracts or any other type of flexible arrangement can still be eligible for the same statutory employment rights as any full-time employee doing the same work. An individual on a zero-hours contract might already qualify for parental bereavement leave under the terms of the Bill. It is important to ensure that that point is not lost in these important discussions.

The Government’s response to the Taylor review is long awaited. We hope we can publish that review very shortly. I cannot at this stage give a definitive time, but I think the term “imminent” is—

[Kevin Hollinrake]

Very ministerial.

[Andrew Griffiths]

Yes. There is a great expectation that in the very near future, the response to the review will come from the Government, and I think it will address such issues. The review included comments about the approach to tax, parental leave and pay entitlements for self-employed people. I suggest that this is not the time to include the new clause in the Bill. I think it is presumptive for us to talk unilaterally about this issue when in a short period of time, wider employment rights—

[Patricia Gibson]

I just want to be clear that I understand the Minister correctly. Is he assuring us that when the Taylor review reports, and the Government reflect on it, any concerns raised in new clause 2 will be addressed by the Government?

[Andrew Griffiths]

I can reassure the hon. Lady that the Government’s response to the Taylor review will, I am sure, specifically address the points made by Matthew Taylor in relation to flexible working, zero-hours contracts and parental benefits. I think I can give her some comfort that those are exactly the kind of things that Matthew Taylor is passionately promoting and that the Government are keen to respond to in the near future.

It would be easy for us to get caught up in the wider discussion about employment rights and what will happen in response to the Taylor review. It is worth remembering the drivers behind the Bill, and the previous Bill brought forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester. I understand his nervousness about over-complicating what is in effect a framework Bill.

My hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton, whose Bill this is, makes the clear point that the Bill has to be properly costed. All Members of the Committee will understand. We have among us an eminent colleague with ministerial experience at the Treasury who is looking at me. I understand what is going through his mind. He wants to ensure that there are rigorous numbers attached to this. Accepting the new clause would make the process much more complex and should be avoided.

The Bill and its predecessor have come about because, at a time of tragedy, time away from the workplace was either not allowed or extremely limited. That is the issue we are trying to address, and I do not want to lose sight of that as we debate these important issues.

[Laura Pidcock]

I just want to be absolutely sure about the Taylor review. The Minister mentioned that matters such as self-employment will be discussed. Would the Bill, if enacted, retrospectively cover those people? Would it be stated in detail that the Bill would be covered by the Taylor review? The same goes for precarious work. I just want a guarantee.

[Andrew Griffiths]

I can absolutely reassure the hon. Lady that the response to the Taylor review will consider the issue of flexible working, those on zero-hours contracts and their access to benefits. It will be covered; I can reassure the hon. Lady of that.

With those reassurances, I hope we can agree that it will be best to consider issues of rights and entitlements for the self-employed and those working on zero-hours contracts in the round, rather than in isolation as we would be doing with the new clause. Since those issues are being actively considered elsewhere, the Bill is not the right place to address them. On that basis and with those reassurances, I hope the hon. Lady will withdraw her new clause.

[Patricia Gibson]

In the light of the Minister’s assurances, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

Schedule

Parental bereavement leave and pay

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Griffiths]

The hon. Lady says that the Bill leaves lots of people out. It does not leave people out at all. The question is whom we put in. That is what we need to get right—not whom we leave out, but whom we put in, to ensure that they are covered.

[Laura Pidcock]

I understand that, but at the moment, for the purposes of this Bill, the argument is not for foster carers, self-employed people or people on zero-hours contracts. I understand the concerns, because it would be hard to convince the Treasury that what we propose could be financed at this time, but I would just like to ask, quite humbly, how hon. Members should proceed. If my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea East wanted to push this issue on Report, would she be pushing at an open door? Would we be able to include all those people? It has taken two years to get to this point, and this place can be quite frustrating. It would allay the fears and worries of people who might be bereaved in the future to know that they might be included in some provision. I would just like some assurances in that respect. Sometimes I am not that confident about guarantees, and I am very anxious to include as many people as possible and to hear that foster carers would be considered on Report.

[Andrew Griffiths]

My hon. Friend the Member for Banbury moved the amendment in her own inimitable style—the style that we would expect. She is, I think, a force of nature. Whatever she is doing in this place, whether she is campaigning on this issue or harrying us all to support Singing for Syrians, we either get with the programme or get out of the way, it appears to me. I am delighted that she has committed herself so totally to delivering this provision for bereaved parents. I understand exactly her intentions in tabling the amendment.

The hon. Member for Swansea East spoke about her amendment with great dignity and perfect intentions. We talk about bravery, and we see many different types of bravery—in our military, in our public servants, in the police and so on—but it takes great bravery to suffer a personal tragedy, something that is so private and raw as it was with the hon. Lady and her son, Martin, and to lay all that pain bare for everyone to see. That takes real bravery, but because we all understand that, it makes it so much more valuable; it has so much more force behind it. I have the utmost respect for what the hon. Lady has done, and continues to do, for people in such miserable and desperate positions and I congratulate her on it.

The hon. Member for North West Durham gets, I think, the level of sensitivity in this room today. There was laughter when she said what she did, but it was nervous laughter, because everyone wants to make sure that nothing goes wrong. Unintended consequences are something that a Government have to deal with all the time—if only we could plan for all unintended consequences. With the known unknowns, or the unknown unknowns, lots can go wrong. We need to ensure that nothing goes wrong with the Bill.

Bereaved parents, at an already heartbreaking time, should not be put in the difficult position of needing time away to grieve while being required to be at work because their employers will not agree to their taking leave. On Second Reading and at the evidence sessions, we heard about all the brilliant employers that offer fantastic, compassionate support for their employees at the worst of times. That is to be commended, but some employers do not do that—there are some that put profit ahead of people. It is those that we wish to address.

Supporting the Bill was therefore a natural decision to make. More needs to be done on such an important topic, and the Bill provides a minimum standard—this is not the benchmark or the gold standard, but the minimum standard, which will protect employees who do not have the security of the reasonable and compassionate employer we have discussed.

Defining exactly who is eligible as a “parent” is not as easy as I first thought. When I heard that I was dealing with this Bill, I thought that defining a parent would be the easiest thing—a parent is a parent; we all know what a parent is—but then I read the responses and about the different perspectives and points of view, from people who have the right intentions, the best of intentions. The hon. Lady asked why people should be left out, and I understand why she talked about that, but I honestly assure her that we want not to leave people out but to ensure that we do not leave anyone behind. We want to get this right first time.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton stated on Second Reading:

“As a society, we have clearly moved on from mum, dad and 2.4 children.”—[Official Report, 20 October 2017; Vol. 629, c. 1161.]

Family units are now hugely varied, and extending this provision to the biological parents alone would be too simplistic. People’s lives are different and more complicated. Society has changed and we all need to get with that and to support those new family units as they develop.

[Antoinette Sandbach]

Approximately 25% of all parents in the country are single parents, but the fact remains that they may have, or have had, a partner while still married to someone else, because they have not sorted out their divorce. Legally, the husband would automatically be assumed to be the parent, without actually being so. That is the kind of complication that the Minister is alluding to, and why there is a need for much greater investigation. We now live in a society of hugely extended families in which it is not uncommon for someone with one or two children to have a partner with another one or two children.

[Andrew Griffiths]

My hon. Friend is right. Facebook used to be a thing for young people—kids used to do Facebook—but now old people like me use it. Someone’s Facebook status may say “Married”, “Single” or even “It’s complicated”, and life is complicated. People’s personal arrangements are much more complicated than they have ever been before. If I tried to define some of my mates, my friends, and the complicated personal lives they lead, that would be a heck of a consultation. We have to be aware that there are a number of potential groups to extend this provision to beyond the biological parents. That is the point—more time and work is needed to identify which of those are the right groups to include.

Officials from my Department recently met their counterparts from the Department for Education, which has responsibility for adoption policy, for example. During that meeting, they discussed the different situations in which a person can have some form of parental responsibility for a child, and which of those groups of people should be considered parents for the purpose of this policy. It was clear from that meeting that there is a bewildering range of arrangements in which a person can be seen to be acting, to some extent, as a parent to a child. Thankfully, the majority of those arrangements, such as adoption, are legally recognised, and so considering such groups when thinking about eligible parents is straightforward.

However, there are arrangements in which a person is not legally responsible for the child but still has a connection with them and would benefit from time away from work if the unthinkable happened and the child died. It is important that such arrangements are properly considered when we define a bereaved parent. That is why officials from my Department are in the process of preparing a consultation—the hon. Member for Swansea East will be interested in this—to discuss how we will approach that definition. It will form part of a wider consultation on the other parts of the Bill covered by secondary legislation.

Amendments 16 and 17 require examples of groups that should be included within the definition of bereaved parents to be specified. Furthermore, amendments 21 and 22 propose specific examples that should be included, yet the examples proposed in those amendments are different from those proposed in amendments 16 and 17. That contradiction illustrates how complex defining a bereaved parent for the purpose of this Bill is. Although I understand why some of those amendments were tabled, I do not think it is right to specify types of parent at this point. My hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton set out a sensible and cogent argument for taking time to consider the definition of parenting through a consultation.

Amendments 22 and 24 follow from amendments 21 and 22, and provide a similar definition of a foster parent. I said that officials from my Department recently had discussions with the Department for Education about that subject. One type of parent they discussed was foster parents. Amendments 22 and 24 include private foster parents within the wider definition of foster parents. Concerns were raised in that meeting about private foster parents and about the fact that such arrangements are often not made known to local authorities. They are private arrangements, and it is therefore difficult to identify those foster parents. It is even possible that people acting as private foster parents do not realise that that is what they are. They are just looking after somebody, and they do not realise that they are defined as a foster parent.

As I said, we need to identify qualifying parents in a straightforward way, based on clear facts, and we must provide clarity and certainty to them and to employers. Further thought is required to correctly define bereaved parents. We should make a decision only once we have given this matter the right consideration, based on evidence and representations. I do not want to rush the decision and risk making a mistake. As I think everybody recognises, there are clear time pressures in relation to the passage of this private Member’s Bill, which makes it impossible to produce the right answer at the moment. We must not allow the Bill to be derailed.

With that in mind, I hope my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury and the hon. Member for Swansea East agree that now is not the right time to try to define a bereaved parent, and that it is sensible not to press their amendments. I give them both a guarantee that the consultation will take place during the passage of this Bill, so they will have plenty of opportunity to take part in it and see what it contains. I hope that that satisfies my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury, and that she will withdraw the amendment.

[Carolyn Harris]

In the interests of the Bill, I will not press my amendment to a vote.

[Victoria Prentis]

I will withdraw my amendment, but I ask the Minister to consider carefully the complicated lives that people now lead, and to consult the relevant agencies, such as Adoption UK and fostering organisations, about the proper wording that should be included in the Bill.

[Andrew Griffiths]

I am very happy to make that commitment.

[Victoria Prentis]

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Kevin Hollinrake.)

Oral Answers to Questions

Andrew Griffiths Excerpts

Tuesday 30th January 2018 Commons Chamber

[James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)]

2. What steps he is taking to ensure that low-paid workers are remunerated appropriately.

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

The national minimum wage and national living wage rates are recommended to the Government by the independent Low Pay Commission. To ensure that workers are paid fairly and that non-compliant employers are caught, the Government provide £25.3 million to Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs for minimum wage enforcement —that is an increase from £13 million in 2015-16. Last year, HMRC secured arrears of wages for 98,000 workers, totalling £10.9 million.

[James Cartlidge]

I thank my hon. Friend for that answer and welcome him to his deserved new position. I very much welcome the national living wage as a way of boosting the wages of our lowest-paid workers. Does he share my surprise that there are those who criticise its generosity, given that the only international comparator is The Economist’s Big Mac index, under which we have the most generous minimum wage in Europe aside from that of its richest country, Luxembourg?

[Andrew Griffiths]

I completely agree with my hon. Friend on that. The next increase to the national living wage is to be a whopping 4.7%. The introduction of the national living wage was the biggest pay rise for low-paid workers in nearly 20 years. The latest increase will benefit more than 2 million people and is set to cover 3 million by 2020. The average earnings of a 25-plus, full-time worker have increased by £2,000 since 2016.

[Helen Jones (Warrington North) (Lab)]

When will the Government accept the need to actually prosecute more firms that fail to pay the national minimum wage? Only when people are prosecuted for breaking the law, rather than being issued with warning notices, are they going to take it seriously.

[Andrew Griffiths]

I gently point out to the hon. Lady that the Government take robust enforcement action against employers who do not pay their staff correctly. We have increased enforcement funding to £25.3 million this year. The total value of penalties has more than quadrupled since 2014-15, and in 2016-17 a record £3.9 million was recovered in penalties, with one penalty of more than £1 million being issued.

[Tom Pursglove (Corby) (Con)]

Along with the steps the Minister has outlined, does he agree that increasing the tax-free threshold and taking the lowest paid out of tax altogether has made an enormous difference to many workers in this country?

[Andrew Griffiths]

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend: 4 million people have been taken out of paying tax as a result of decisions taken by this Government. The employment rate is 75.3%, which is the joint highest rate since comparable records began in 1971. We have record numbers of people in work, and unemployment is at its lowest for 40 years. This Government are on the side of the worker and the lowest paid.

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

Low pay stifles investment and holds back productivity. We in the Scottish National party believe that the economy is stronger when a real living wage is paid. The Minister’s own Department has rightly named and shamed 350 companies for failing to pay even the minimum wage. Does he therefore agree that the practice of companies paying no wages at all through unpaid work trials is morally repugnant? Will his Department support the ending of that shameful practice?

[Andrew Griffiths]

I should point out to the hon. Gentleman that more than 160,000 people in Scotland benefit directly from the national living wage. The Government are looking closely at employment practices. We engaged Matthew Taylor to look into employment practices and to come up with new ways to support people, particularly those in the gig economy. We very much value that work and will be coming forward with recommendations in the very near future.

[Laura Smith (Crewe and Nantwich) (Lab)]

3. If he will take steps to regulate executive pay.

[Stephanie Peacock (Barnsley East) (Lab)]

19. If he will take steps to regulate executive pay.

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

The Government will legislate to require quoted companies to publish and explain the ratio of their chief executive officer’s pay to the average pay of their UK employees. Companies will also have to provide a better explanation of how share price increases affect the value of complex, long-term incentive plans.

[Laura Smith]

Does the Minister acknowledge that there is sufficient compelling evidence to conclude safely and beyond any reasonable doubt that collective bargaining significantly reduces income inequality?

[Andrew Griffiths]

The hon. Lady is absolutely right to raise the issue of collective bargaining and how that affects employee pay and the wider pay of executives. I should point out to her one interesting fact: the average FTSE 100 CEO’s pay leapt from £1 million to £4.3 million between 1998 and 2010, but CEOs’ pay fell by 17% in 2016. Interesting.

[Stephanie Peacock]

It would take the average person in Barnsley East more than 176 years to earn what the average FTSE CEO earns in 12 months. Does the Minister agree that that is a sign of grotesque inequality in the UK? What is he going to do about it?

[Andrew Griffiths]

What private companies pay their directors is ultimately a matter for their shareholders, but the new pay ratio disclosure requirements mean that we will give shareholders and other stakeholders important new information on how pay at the top of companies fits with wider workforce pay. Companies will be forced to explain and defend their pay ratios and account for changes to the ratio over time.

[Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)]

Does the Minister agree that Britain’s biggest broadcaster, the BBC, is setting an appalling example to the nation over executive pay in failing to ensure gender parity?

[Andrew Griffiths]

I assure my hon. Friend that we absolutely and completely agree with fair pay. It is unacceptable that women who are doing the same job as men receive less pay. That must change. The BBC must act.

[Jo Swinson (East Dunbartonshire) (LD)]

Hardworking people on ordinary incomes are understandably angry at the way executive pay has skyrocketed at a time when ordinary wages have remained flat. When can we expect to see these regulations that the Minister is talking about on publication of pay ratios, and can he confirm that this requirement will be in place for companies by June, as promised?

[Andrew Griffiths]

I have to point out to the hon. Lady that she may have her figures wrong. CEO pay has fallen, not risen. This Government are keen to ensure that there is more accountability and transparency in relation to the pay of top executives. We want to give the shareholders of companies greater power and ensure that there is greater accountability to shareholders and to the workforce.

[Laura Pidcock (North West Durham) (Lab)]

Since 2010, Carillion has paid out more than £500 million in dividends to shareholders while, over the same period, running up a pensions deficit of £587 million, a deficit that is now threatening the security of thousands of hardworking people. While those people suffer, former Carillion CEO Richard Howson was rewarded with a bonus package worth £1.5 million in 2016. Will the Government join me in condemning this scandal and work with the Labour party to end the failed model of outsourcing using shell companies and in condoning excessive pay, or will it be just business as usual?

[Andrew Griffiths]

Please allow me to assure the hon. Lady that any payments due to directors and executives of Carillion have been stopped; nobody is getting paid and nobody is getting executive bonuses. The moment that the insolvency happened, the Secretary of State wrote both to the Insolvency Service and the FRC to ensure that there was a thorough investigation of all payments to directors. If necessary, PricewaterhouseCoopers and the Insolvency Service have the power to claw back all of those payments. I can assure her that we will be learning the lessons from the Carillion insolvency and ensuring that we do all we can to support businesses going forward.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Chris Williamson (Derby North) (Lab)]

4. What discussions he has had with Cabinet colleagues on the work of the legal working group on seafarers and the national minimum wage.

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

The Government believe that seafarers should be paid fairly for the work that they do. My Department and the Department for Transport worked with trade unions and employers to publish new guidance that explains the responsibilities of employers to pay the national minimum wage. We are crystal clear that if someone works in UK waters, they are entitled to at least the minimum wage and that all employers—no matter where they are from—must pay it.

[Chris Williamson]

I am pleased to hear that, but is the Minister aware that UK seafarers are being undercut by rates of pay as low as £1.75 an hour? That is happening even though the legal working group on seafarers and the national minimum wage, which includes his Department, agrees that legislative change is needed to provide more protection. Will the Minister give a commitment to work with the RMT and Nautilus to end this brazen exploitation, starting with the application and enforcement of the national minimum wage for seafarers working between UK ports and offshore installations?

[Andrew Griffiths]

I reassure the hon. Gentleman that the guidance is clear that the national minimum wage applies on foreign registered ships when they are in UK territory. The new guidance is the first of its kind on the application of the national minimum wage specifically to seafarers, which shows that this is a priority for the Government. UK national minimum wage law must naturally have a limit, but if a person is employed as a seafarer in British waters, they will be entitled to the national minimum wage.

[Ben Bradley (Mansfield) (Con)]

Q5. What discussions he has had with the Secretary of State for Education on encouraging small and medium-sized enterprises to take advantage of the apprenticeship levy.

--- Later in debate ---

[Maggie Throup (Erewash) (Con)]

13. What steps he is taking to support growth in the small business sector.

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

We are actively supporting small businesses by enhancing the business support helpline and funding growth hubs in every local enterprise partnership area in England. The new Small Business Commissioner will help with payment issues, and British Business Bank programmes support nearly £4 billion of finance to more than 60,000 small and medium-sized enterprises.

[Trudy Harrison]

I thank the Minister and welcome him to his new position. Sellafield in my Copeland constituency is one of Britain’s biggest single-site employers. It is about to award its multimillion PPP contract. What is he doing to promote the role of SMEs, rather than just large companies, when awarding those contracts?

[Andrew Griffiths]

I clarify to the House that PPP stands for “programme and project partners” and not, as many might have assumed, “public-private partnership”. The programme that my hon. Friend talks about will support Sellafield in decommissioning and contains provisions designed to support small businesses. In November 2015, the Cabinet Office agreed to a target of 31% of spend with SMEs for the Government’s Nuclear Decommissioning Authority. Moreover, as the Small Business Minister, I will look at what I can do to ensure that more is done to help small businesses to win Government contracts.

[Maggie Throup]

Will the Minister join me in commending the work of the Erewash Partnership, which helps entrepreneurs in my constituency to start up and grow their own small businesses? Will he consider what more Government can do to help such organisations expand their support services?

[Andrew Griffiths]

I am delighted to join my hon. Friend in applauding the work of the Erewash Partnership, which she will know was a previous winner of a national enterprise award—well done them. Through our industrial strategy, all businesses in every region will have access to a growth hub. We have announced a further £24 million of core funding over the next two years for growth hubs, including the D2N2, which I understand works with the Erewash Partnership. I am delighted to work with her to do what I can to support businesses in her constituency.

[Richard Burden (Birmingham, Northfield) (Lab)]

Stability among larger tier 1 suppliers is really important to SMEs in the automotive and aerospace supply chains. Given that, does the Minister agree that if the Melrose bid for GKN splits up and sells off that company, as is anticipated, that cannot be in the interests of either sector or SMEs in this country?

[Andrew Griffiths]

We are always sensitive and aware of the impacts on the supply chain. We need a strong supply chain, but I point the hon. Gentleman to the Secretary of State’s previous answer on that issue.

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

Support for the small business sector will be even more urgent given the findings of the UK Government’s leaked Brexit analysis, which shows that in all current scenarios, businesses across all sectors and all parts of the UK will be hammered with between 2% and 8% reductions in GDP growth. Will the Minister confirm what planning his Department has undertaken in the light of those figures? Is he declining to publish because it is too embarrassing?

[Andrew Griffiths]

The hon. Gentleman will know that that issue is the subject of an urgent question later on in the House. I would hate to spoil his fun, so I will leave it to others.

[Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)]

9. What assessment he has made of the UK’s ability to meet its carbon reduction targets.

--- Later in debate ---

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

The taskforce established to tackle the impact of Carillion’s liquidation includes the Department for Work and Pensions, and my right hon. Friend the Business Secretary is in regular contact with my right hon. Friend the Pensions Secretary. Those already receiving their pensions will continue to receive payment at 100% of the usual rate. Anyone worried about their pension situation can contact the Pensions Advisory Service; its dedicated helpline has now responded to over 800 calls since Carillion’s insolvency.

[Paul Blomfield]

I thank the Minister for that answer, but I think it will be of very little comfort to many Carillion staff, past and present, when they hear that the deficit in their pension fund is approaching £1 billion. Public sector contracts have made some at the top of Carillion very rich indeed, so what action is the Minister taking to ensure that current and future pensioners do not lose out?

[Andrew Griffiths]

The hon. Gentleman will understand that issues in relation to pension schemes are a matter for the independent Pensions Regulator. However, the Pensions Regulator has been in contact with Carillion and the pension scheme trustees for a number of years about the funding of the pension scheme. I can absolutely assure the hon. Gentleman that the work of the taskforce is to look at what happened in relation to the Carillion insolvency, and to ensure that if lessons are to be learned, we will learn them.

[Rachel Maclean (Redditch) (Con)]

The global headquarters of GKN is in my Redditch constituency. It employs 200 people, and concerns have been raised about the pension scheme there as well. The Pensions Regulator is warning that in the event of a takeover, there may be something to look at. What lessons is the Minister learning from Carillion in this case, and what further action does he need to take?

[Andrew Griffiths]

The Secretary of State, I think, has already outlined the approach with which the Government are handling the takeover of GKN, but I can assure my hon. Friend that the implications of business actions, and particularly takeovers, in relation to pension schemes are a priority for the Government. We will continue to proceed with care and caution to protect the interests of all members of pension schemes.

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

14. Whether he plans to review the rules governing the use of agency workers.

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

The Government work to ensure that our labour markets work for everyone. That was why the Prime Minister asked Matthew Taylor to carry out an independent review on modern working practices. The Government are considering the issues that the review has raised, including rules governing the use of agency workers. The review is comprehensive and detailed, and we have been giving the report the careful consideration it deserves. We will respond shortly.

[Gareth Thomas]

Two thousand workers in BT call centres, some of whom handle 999 calls, are paid up to £500 less per month than permanent staff because BT uses the loophole known as the Swedish derogation under agency workers regulations. Taylor recommended its abolition; when will the Minister get on with it?

[Andrew Griffiths]

As I have outlined, the Matthew Taylor report does, in some depth, look at the Swedish issue. I am meeting Matthew Taylor this afternoon, and that issue will be one of those that we shall discuss. I can reassure the hon. Gentleman that in 2017, the employment agency standards inspectorate dealt with more than 800 complaints from agency workers. EAS investigations have protected an estimated 303,000 agency workers, and we will continue to defend their interests.

[John Cryer (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab)]

How many of those complaints under the agency workers directive led to successful prosecutions?

[Andrew Griffiths]

I will write to the hon. Gentleman with the answer.

[Stuart C. McDonald (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (SNP)]

15. What recent steps he has taken to support the development of renewable energy sources.

--- Later in debate ---

[Maria Caulfield (Lewes) (Con)]

T7. As banks are closing on our high streets, two of my towns, Newhaven and Polegate, are not having any banking facilities left. Will the Minister consider expanding the facilities that post offices offer? Postmasters such as the one in East Dean in my constituency are keen to do more, but Post Office Ltd refuses to allow them to do so.

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

I take on board the very important question that my hon. Friend asks. The Government have invested over £2 billion to ensure that the Post Office is able to meet the needs of our constituents and the small businesses that rely on it. That means that 99% of UK personal bank accounts and 95% of small business accounts can be accessed to withdraw cash, and that customers can deposit cash over the counter or cheques in any one of the 11,600 post offices across the UK.

[Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)]

T6. Investment in solar energy has fallen by 85% over the last year. Will the Minister explain why her Department believes that solar energy no longer requires public subsidy?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

I remind colleagues of the merits of the blue pencil. If you have a prepared question and it is a bit on the long side, just scratch a bit out—very useful, and the question never suffers.

[Andrew Griffiths]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on his tenacity in campaigning on behalf of his residents. Following his representations on the impact of the proposed redundancies, I am happy to confirm that there will be additional flexibility in how the rapid response service can be used. That means that, while there is no additional funding, all workers made redundant from Cleveland Potash will benefit from the same flexibilities for job-focused training as have been made available to ex-SSI and supply chain workers.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

T8. In the light of the possible barriers to resolving cross-border insolvencies in the UK post Brexit, what assessment has the Minister made of the need to reform the UK’s corporate insolvency framework to ensure that it is fit for purpose?

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Griffiths]

The hon. Gentleman will find that the date set out in the Digital Economy Act 2017 was 2020, but I am sure he will join me in congratulating the Government on their success in ensuring that 95% of the country now has access to broadband.

[Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)]

Will the Minister support Transport for the North’s strategic transport plan, which calls for a 50% increase in regional infrastructure spending across the north of England?

--- Later in debate ---

[Alex Chalk (Cheltenham) (Con)]

Does the Minister agree that competitive rates of interest should be offered to businesses and subcontractors that are affected by the LARC collapse, and that the 8.64% offered to LARC Construction in my constituency is simply too high?

[Andrew Griffiths]

I agree with my hon. Friend that access to competitive finance is essential, not just for businesses affected by LARC, but more widely, and particularly for small businesses. I am happy to meet him to discuss the issues if he would like me to.

[Mr Speaker]

It is a great pleasure to welcome back to the House the hon. Member for Redcar (Anna Turley). I know that the House will join me in doing so.

--- Later in debate ---

[Michelle Donelan (Chippenham) (Con)]

A constituent of mine is a director of Tower Supplies, one of the leading small and medium-sized enterprises in the personal protective equipment sector, whose bid was recently rejected by Transport for London in the first round of the process with no explanation. The practice is for feedback to be given, but that does not always happen. Will the Minister work with the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government and other Departments to ensure that the system does not hinder SME growth?

[Andrew Griffiths]

The Government are committed to ensuring that more small businesses are able to bid for such contracts. We want to support SMEs through the procurement process, and to ensure that they can be competitive and win such contracts. I shall be happy to meet my hon. Friend and representatives of the company that she mentioned in order to find a solution.

[Eleanor Smith (Wolverhampton South West) (Lab)]

When I met the Minister last week, I was told that the Carillion headquarters would continue to operate in the interim. What steps are the Government taking to safeguard jobs for the employees who work in my constituency?

[Andrew Griffiths]

I think that the hon. Lady and I spoke on the telephone on the day of the insolvency, and I think I have met her twice since then, along with other Wolverhampton colleagues, to ensure that she is kept fully updated. We are working closely with PricewaterhouseCoopers and the Insolvency Service in the best interests of not just the creditors but all those employed in the Carillion network. To date, things have been positive, but I will seek to update the hon. Lady further as more information becomes available.

[Gillian Keegan (Chichester) (Con)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker.

Fireworks

Andrew Griffiths Excerpts

Monday 29th January 2018 Westminster Hall

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hanson. This is my first opportunity to respond to a Westminster Hall debate, so I trust that you will be gentle with me.

I pay warm tribute to the hon. Member for Clwyd South (Susan Elan Jones), not only for introducing the debate on behalf of the Petitions Committee, but for her interesting and well-rounded perspective. I commend her for her thoughtful and at times humorous speech. I also pay tribute to all right hon. and hon. Members who have contributed to the debate—I think I counted 25 in the Chamber. We have heard a huge number of interesting and well-informed speeches. That is not a rarity, but it shows the great level of interest in the issues, and the work that hon. Members have put into understanding them on behalf of their constituents. As Minister responsible for consumer protection, I understand the effort that has gone in, and I put great weight on the speeches that have been made.

We have heard today not only from the hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Jim Fitzpatrick)—a former firefighter who has been decorated with the Fire Brigade Long Service and Good Conduct Medal and who now serves as secretary of the all-party fire safety rescue group—but from my hon. Friend the Member for Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock (Bill Grant), a firefighter with some 31 years’ service who ended his career as deputy commander of Strathclyde fire and rescue service. As my dad would have said, you can’t teach your granny to suck eggs. It is not the first time that I have sat in a debate thinking, “There are people here who know a lot more about this than I do,” but that is guaranteed to be true today.

I thank the huge number of people who have signed the petition and made the debate possible, particularly the Firework Abatement campaign. A lot of people get petitions together and try to raise issues, but it is clear that Firework Abatement has done a lot of groundwork to understand the issue. It speaks not only for the more than 111,000 signatories of the petition, but for many of our constituents. With my three weeks’ experience as a Minister, I can tell the House that a huge number of my letters have been about fireworks, so it is clearly an issue that concerns constituents. This is our second petitions debate on it in recent years; the first, in June 2016, focused more specifically on the impact on pets and animals, which I shall address later.

Hon. Members have made some compelling speeches. No one could fail to be moved by the tragic stories we have heard. The hon. Member for Derby North (Chris Williamson) described somebody seeing their house destroyed as a result of fireworks. We have heard some really distressing and disturbing anecdotes about animals, including pets, horses, cows and other livestock, suffering not just distress but death from the misuse of fireworks. Of course, we also heard about Flo from my right hon. Friend—sorry, my hon. Friend, but it is just a matter of time—the Member for Walsall North (Eddie Hughes). He made the case for pets in his constituency with his usual passion and aplomb, and I am sure that many pet lovers will be pleased that he is raising their concerns in this place.

I recognise the effects that fireworks can have—the pleasure that they give to many of our constituents, but also their negative impact on many people, including those who are vulnerable or have pets or livestock. The hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough (Gill Furniss) said a number of times that many fireworks are used responsibly. That is true: there are many examples of law-abiding people who use their fireworks safely, responsibly and in a caring and considerate manner towards their neighbours. However, as we have heard, there are others who do not use them in that way, and they are the people with whom we are concerned.

It is for the Government to ensure that we have a system that allows for the enjoyment of fireworks but protects those who might be harmed or inconvenienced, including the young, the elderly and those with mental health issues. As a former trustee of a service charity for veterans in the criminal justice system, I understand the impact that post-traumatic stress can have on veterans. Fireworks also have an effect on wildlife and livestock, as we have heard.

The Government’s aim is to ensure that people who enjoy fireworks can do so safely, but that we minimise the risks, noise and distress that can be an unwelcome by-product of their use. Even in this debate, in which the same concerns have been raised consistently in almost every speech, there has been a difference of opinion about how we should tackle the issue. Some advocate an outright ban, some want a consultation and some want tighter legislation. It is for the Government to consider all those arguments in the round, form an opinion and ensure that the legislation meets those challenges.

I will not go into great detail on the laws that govern the sale and regulation of fireworks, because other hon. Members have already outlined them. The controls on supply, sale and use reflect the level of risk posed by the four different categories of firework. Those controls include a curfew on their use; restrictions on when they can go on general sale; restrictions on their sale to minors; and noise limits and penalties for their misuse. The controls restrict the general availability of fireworks for public sale to certain times of the year, such as bonfire night, new year’s eve, Diwali and Chinese new year. Outside those traditional periods, retailers who wish to sell fireworks must obtain a licence from their local licensing authority. It is worth noting that local authorities have the power to restrict such licences if they so wish. A local authority can refuse to issue a licence for the sale of fireworks outside seasonal celebrations, so hon. Members who have concerns about such sales may wish to raise them with their local authority.

Another way in which the current system seeks to lessen the distressing impact on vulnerable groups is by controlling the times at which fireworks can be used. As we have heard, there is a strict curfew of 11 pm, with exceptions for bonfire night, new year and Diwali.

My hon. Friend the Member for Saffron Walden (Mrs Badenoch) raised Collecchio, the Italian town that has banned noisy fireworks. In the UK, there is already a limit on the noise levels of fireworks that can be bought for general sale. That is, as has been said, 120 dB. However, I think there is a disagreement in this House about whether 120 dB is a jumbo jet, a chainsaw, a rock band starting up or a number of other very noisy things. Also, quieter fireworks are increasingly being developed by manufacturers, and they are increasingly available from retailers, so that consumers can have more choice and a better chance of acquiring lower-noise fireworks, to help them to avoid disturbing their neighbours.

Earlier, we touched on the issue of education, which is important, both for fireworks users and for pet or livestock owners. They are not the outright solution but there are things that pet owners can do to reduce the very real distress their pets can experience. There is excellent advice provided by the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals and the Kennel Club, intended to help owners to reduce their pets’ stress, and it can be found on those organisations’ websites.

There are a number of controls on the use and misuse of fireworks. Antisocial behaviour, such as the throwing of fireworks, is covered by the Explosives Act 1875, which prohibits fireworks from being thrown in or on to public places. Some hon. Members asked whether the powers that I am drawing attention to actually work. Earlier this year, a man in Kirkwall was sentenced to six months in prison after admitting setting off fireworks in a culpable and reckless manner in the town centre. So these powers are available and they are used.

There are a number of agencies that have responsibility for enforcing those rules, including the police, trading standards, and the Health and Safety Executive. Of course, any injury caused by fireworks can be a tragedy, but thankfully the number of people admitted to hospital because of fireworks is quite stable. I think that the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough said that fireworks accidents are on the rise, but my statistics show that the number of people admitted to hospital with firework injuries remains at a stable and relatively low level. NHS statistics show that the total number of people admitted to hospital because of firework injuries remained below 200 a year from 2007-08 to 2016-17. Of course, that is still too many injuries, and we want to do more to bring that number down, but the figures are relatively stable. The number of accident and emergency attendances in England in 2016-17 due to “firework injury” was 5,340. Again, that has remained pretty stable as a proportion of all A&E attendances between 2013-14 and 2016-17.

The safety of UK consumers is our highest priority, and we recognise the particular impact that fireworks can have. We believe that, at the moment, we have a balance between people’s concerns about fireworks, and the legitimate interests of those who wish to enjoy celebrating with fireworks and of those employed in the firework industry. However, we recognise that more can and must be done.

I will share with hon. Members here today the news that one of the first things I did when I became the Minister with responsibility for consumer protection was to announce on 21 January the creation of the Office for Product Safety and Standards. This is a new body that will receive some £12 million a year in central Government funding to ensure that we have access to information nationally and to support local authorities in their work. The new office will work with key stakeholders and enforcing authorities to review the guidance materials available on the safe and responsible use of fireworks. It will also provide an intelligence-handling function to improve the information we have. It will also examine the individual safety of particular fireworks and of other products on sale.

There was some suggestion about cuts in relation to trading standards bodies. I will just draw the attention of the House to the fact that the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy gives some £15 million a year to local authorities to support the work they do through trading standards, but in addition we will have this new £12 million-a-year body to provide extra resource to local authorities.

[Jim Fitzpatrick]

I am very grateful to the Minister for giving way. I hope that he will forgive me if I was perhaps a little disappointed when, after 13 minutes of his speech, I thought that he was announcing no change, but then he came out with the reminder that he has set up this new body. Will he facilitate a meeting between interested parliamentary colleagues and the senior officials now staffing this new body, so that we can have a face-to-face discussion with them about the concerns that exist across the country about fireworks?

[Andrew Griffiths]

I absolutely commit to doing that. As I said, the new body was announced just a few days ago. We have to recruit people to staff it properly and move it forward, but I would be very happy to make that commitment and to attend that meeting as well.

A number of colleagues raised the issue of collecting data on the misuse of fireworks. Clearly, this new body will look at evidence-based policy making, so it will look at the evidence, chase down and identify where the risks are, and—where necessary—come forward with suggestions and advice to Government.

[Patricia Gibson]

Can the Minister assure me and many other Members in the Chamber today that this new body will consider the fact that, as long as fireworks are pretty freely available to anybody over the age of 18, and despite the powers and the enforcing authorities that he has said will take action against the irresponsible misuse of fireworks, prosecutions will be extremely difficult, because of the nature of the crime? As we have heard today, quite literally the evidence goes up in smoke, people scatter and there is no evidence left to prosecute anybody. Is that something that the new body he is talking about will examine?

[Andrew Griffiths]

I am delighted to say to the hon. Lady that the new body will have the power to make recommendations to Government, so if it believes there are issues in relation to the sale and regulation of a particular item—be that a tumble dryer or a firework—it will have that power to make recommendations about those issues to Government, and it will be for Ministers to respond to such recommendations.

I will just add something in relation to the collection of information concerning antisocial behaviour. Of course, collection of such data would be a decision for the Home Office to make. I am sure that Ministers within the Home Office will look at this debate; I will make sure that the concerns that right hon. and hon. Members have expressed today are drawn to their attention. Clearly, however, it is a decision for the Home Office as to which data it chooses to collect or not collect.

In closing, I again thank everybody who has taken part in this debate today. Clearly, the safety of our constituents remains at the forefront of all our minds, and as the Minister with responsibility for consumer protection, I am absolutely clear that we have to do all we can to protect our constituents, who are the people we are here to represent. I look forward to working with colleagues on this issue in the future, and I thank you, Mr Hanson, for your time.

Overseas Entity Beneficial Ownership: UK Public Register

Andrew Griffiths Excerpts

Wednesday 24th January 2018 Written Statements

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

I am today confirming to Parliament the Government’s timetable for implementation of their policy to achieve greater transparency around foreign entities that own or buy property in the UK or participate in UK Government procurement. This will set down in legislation the commitment made at the 2016 Anti-Corruption summit and reaffirmed in the UK’s anti-corruption strategy, published in December.

The Government intend to legislate to establish a public register of beneficial owners of non-UK entities that own or buy UK property, or which participate in UK Government procurement. They will publish a draft Bill before the summer recess this year. This will be a significant piece of legislation that delivers a streamlined policy, consistent across the UK, where currently the land registries for England and Wales, for Scotland and for Northern Ireland have taken different approaches to land registration and registration of overseas entities.

The Government intend to introduce the Bill to Parliament early in the second Session. Following Royal Assent and the making of secondary legislation, the Government intend that the register will be operational in 2021.

Separately, I will be publishing a response to my Department’s call for evidence last year on this policy very shortly that will provide more detail on responses received and our proposed approach.

[HCWS425]

Working Group on Product Recalls and Safety

Andrew Griffiths Excerpts

Monday 22nd January 2018 Written Statements

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

Yesterday the Government published their response to the report of the Working Group on Product Recalls and Safety, and announced the establishment of a new Office for Product Safety and Standards.

Setting up the Office for Product Safety and Standards represents a significant upgrade in the Government’s approach to product safety in the UK and will, for the first time, give us dedicated expertise to lead on national product safety challenges. It demonstrates our commitment to ensuring that UK consumers receive the highest possible levels of protection from unsafe goods, and that UK businesses are protected from the unfair competition posed by substandard and unsafe products (including imports) and can have confidence in meeting their responsibilities to supply safe goods.

The Working Group on Product Recalls and Safety was set up in October 2016 to provide advice to Ministers on tangible improvements that could be made in the safety of white goods and the recalls system. The Working Group is chaired by Neil Gibbins, former Deputy Chief Fire Officer for Devon and Somerset and former Chief Executive of the Institution of Fire Engineers; and brings together product safety experts, the fire service and trading standards professionals.

The group published its recommendations in July 2017. The Government accept the recommendations in full and are now taking action to address them.

The recommendations, and the headlines of the Government’s response to each, are as follows:

There is a need for centralised technical and scientific resource capability to support decision making and co-ordination of activity of Local Authorities and the businesses that they regulate. The Government fully accept this recommendation and today we are establishing the Office for Product Safety and Standards to deliver this capability.

A detailed Code of Practice should be developed with input from all relevant stakeholders; this should be informed by behavioural insights research. This should set out expected good practice with regard to product safety corrective actions (including recalls). The Government fully accept this recommendation and commissioned the British Standards Institution who published a draft code in November. The draft code was widely welcomed and finalised text is expected to be published by March this year.

Full consideration should be given to establishing central capacity to co-ordinate product safety corrective actions at a central level. The Government fully support this recommendation and the Office for Product Safety and Standards will be responsible for providing incident management capability and for maintaining a comprehensive database of corrective actions and recall programmes for consumer goods.

Systematic and sustainable ways to capture and share data and intelligence should be established and agreed by relevant parties—this should make use of existing systems used by Trading Standards and the Fire Service. The Government fully accept this recommendation and the Office for Product Safety and Standards will establish an intelligence capability that brings together the widest possible range of information and evidence to inform the understanding of risks at industry and product level. Work has already begun to map available data sources and available expertise.

Manufacturers and retailers should continue to work together and through standards setting bodies to develop technological solutions to product marking and identification. This recommendation was aimed at manufacturers and retailers however the Government would welcome further thinking from the business community on the practicalities and costs of taking this forward. The Government themselves are undertaking research on indelible marking which may prove useful to industry in their considerations.

Primary authority provides a key mechanism for ensuring that businesses, local authority and BEIS (Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy) expertise is shared to ensure the protection of consumers. The Government support this recommendation. Primary authority helps businesses to improve their compliance and it supports local regulators in delivering protections for the public. The Office for Product Safety and Standards will work with primary authorities and businesses to provide additional compliance advice based on the latest scientific and technical knowledge.

The registration of appliances and other consumer goods with manufacturers by consumers should be encouraged to make corrective actions (including recalls) more effective. The Government welcome the ‘Register my Appliance’ initiative developed by the Association of Manufacturers of Domestic Appliances. The Government will continue to work with retailers, fire services and others to see what more can be done to improve the registration of appliances.

An expert panel bringing together trade associations, consumer and enforcement representatives and BEIS should be established. The Government fully accept this recommendation and is looking to build on the foundations of the Working Group on Product Recalls and Safety. The Office for Product Safety and Standards will also work closely with the BEIS Chief Scientific Adviser to consider the potential role and make-up of additional scientific and technical committees.

The establishment of the new Office for Product Safety and Standards will deliver on the Working Group’s key recommendation which called for centralised technical and scientific capability to support effective decision making and to help co-ordinate the activity of local authorities and the businesses that they regulate. It also provides the capability needed to address the other recommendations made by the Working Group.

The Office for Product Safety and Standards will enable the UK to meet evolving challenges—responding to expanding international trade, the growth in online retail and the increasing rate of product innovation. It will also help the UK to put in place the most effective system for regulation and enforcement of product safety in preparation for our exit from the European Union.

The Office will:

provide incident management capability to respond to national product safety issues;

improve the information available to consumers on the Government’s product recall website;

provide central scientific and technical expertise on product safety issues;

provide support for local authority Trading Standards teams, and for district councils in Northern Ireland;

support checks at UK borders and the interception of unsafe imports;

provide improved intelligence and risk analysis to guide enforcement activities; and,

work with UK business to ensure they are able to meet their compliance requirements.

The Office for Product Safety and Standards will initially be based in the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy and will have an operating budget of around £12 million per year when it is fully operational. In the longer term, the Government will examine the options for making the Office an arm’s length independent body and will look at associated funding options. This will be subject to further consideration and public consultation before any decisions are made.

The Government’s response to the Working Group’s report marks the culmination of longer term work on product safety and recalls. An independent review of the recall system was undertaken by Lynn Faulds Wood in 2015, with her review published in February 2016. The Working Group has built on that review and made its own recommendations.

On 16 January 2018, the BEIS Committee published its report “The Safety of Electrical Goods in the UK”. The Government will respond to the Committee in due course.

The Government response to the Working Group on Product Recalls and Safety sets out in full how we are addressing each of the Working Group’s recommendations. That response has now been published, and copies of the documents have been placed in the Library of each House.

[HCWS418]