National Living Wage: Under-25s

Debate between Andrew Griffiths and David Linden

Thursday 3rd May 2018 Commons Chamber

[Andrew Griffiths]

I think I have given way quite enough, so I will make a little progress. Forgive me, but I am sure that Members will have an opportunity to come in shortly.

Academic evidence shows that the youth labour market is much more sensitive to economic shocks than the labour market in general, and that young people can be exposed to longer-term scarring effects from prolonged spells of worklessness than others. As I said, the independent Low Pay Commission backs up that research. Its 2015 report, which I urge the hon. Member for Glasgow East to educate himself with, cites New Zealand research that found a 3% to 6% fall in the employment rate for 16 to 17-year-olds two years after a 28% increase in the real value of their minimum wage. The hon. Gentleman talked about fairness, but there is nothing fair about making it harder for young people to get on the jobs ladder.

[David Linden]

The Minister will remember that I referred to Katie, a young girl who was struggling to get the bus fare to go to work. How does that tie in with what he says? She is struggling to get to work; she does not have the pay to get to her job. Is that part of the reason why young people cannot get into work?

[Andrew Griffiths]

I recognise the hon. Gentleman’s point, but it would be even more difficult for Katie were she not to have a job. That opportunity, that experience, that foot in the labour market is hugely important. The hon. Gentleman would deny Katie the opportunity to get vital work experience and make her way in the jobs market.

We are rightly more cautious about young people when setting the pay floor, and a lower minimum wage for younger workers is in keeping with international comparators. The hon. Gentleman referred to two countries, but let me clarify something and educate him a bit. Just under two thirds of OECD countries that have a statutory minimum wage have special rates for young people. Minimum wages are adjusted for young workers in France, Ireland, Belgium and Luxembourg, among many others. He may want to look into that.

Pricing young people out of the labour market by setting their minimum wage too high would be detrimental to the workers whom the policy was intended to benefit. That said, the Government set only the minimum pay threshold, and I commend businesses that choose to pay their younger workers higher rates of pay, and in some cases pay them the higher national living wage. Indeed, in April last year, 88% of 16 and 17-year-olds, 90% of 18 to 20-year-olds and 92% of 21 to 24-year-olds were paid above their age-applicable minimum wage. Those are the facts, whether the hon. Gentleman likes them or not. As a matter of fact, 86% of 21 to 24-year-olds were paid at or above £7.50 an hour, which was the national living wage for the over-25s.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Griffiths]

I think I have given way enough.

The national living wage will rise further to reach 60% of median earnings in 2020, subject to sustained economic growth. We have awarded younger workers in receipt of the national minimum wage the biggest hourly pay rise in more than a decade. In particular, 20 to 24-year-olds saw a 33p increase in their hourly rate to £7.38, meaning a full-time worker in that age group will see their earnings rise by £600 a year, like those aged 25 and over in receipt of the national living wage. Those aged 18 to 20 saw an annual increase of 5.4% to £5.90, and those aged 16 and 17 are now entitled to a minimum of £4.20 an hour, an annual increase of 3.7%. Finally, apprentices aged under 19, or those aged 19 and over in the first year of their apprenticeship, saw an increase of 5.7%, the largest annual increase of all the hourly rates. In total, we believe that more than 2 million workers, 400,000 of whom are young workers under 25, have directly benefited from the latest increases in the national minimum wage.

[David Linden]

Will the Minister give way?

[Andrew Griffiths]

For the last time.

[David Linden]

My previous dealings with the Minister were in Committee on the Parental Bereavement (Leave and Pay) Bill, and I came into the Chamber today with a due amount of respect for him. The patronising tone he has taken in this debate demeans his office, and I hope he will reflect on that afterwards.

[Andrew Griffiths]

rose—

[David Linden]

The Minister should have a wee seat, because I am not finished.

Will the Minister put it on record that a 21-year-old first-year apprentice can still be paid just £3.70 an hour? Would he be happy being paid £3.70 an hour?

[Andrew Griffiths]

I spend a lot of time talking to apprentices, and I see the vast contribution that apprenticeships make to those young people. Apprenticeships provide them with the opportunity to earn and learn, to gain vital experience and to have on-the-job training while following a vocation. That is hugely important. I have spoken to apprentices, and they value the apprenticeship scheme. They are building their careers thanks to it.

Raising the national minimum wage forms part of our long-term industrial strategy to boost productivity and to create good jobs and greater earning power for all parts of the United Kingdom. That is absolutely central to creating an economy that is fair and that works for young people.

All the increases were recommended by the independent Low Pay Commission, in line with the annual remit issued by the Government. The world-renowned LPC brings together business and worker representatives to form a consensus on the appropriate minimum wage rates. As ever, I thank the LPC for the extensive research, consultation and analysis it undertakes throughout the year to inform its recommendations.

Previous LPC reports discussed various pieces of research showing that higher youth wage rates can have a negative impact on employment rates. Consequently, in the annual remit, the Government asked the LPC to recommend the highest increase in national minimum wage rates that were possible without damaging the employment prospects of low-paid young workers by setting them too high. The Government will continue to take the LPC’s advice when setting all the wage floors in order to ensure that minimum wage rises are balanced between rewarding workers and ensuring that they are not priced out of employment. We are not complacent, and that is why I am pleased that the LPC will conduct a review of whether the current structure of the youth rates best supports our aim. I look forward to the LPC’s advice on the matter in spring 2019.

I recognise the hon. Gentleman’s concerns about young people, but the Government are committed to supporting them. Specifically, the Department for Education is reforming technical education by introducing T-levels to equip young people with the relevant skills to reach their potential, and the Department for Work and Pensions has launched the youth obligation support programme for 18 to 21-year-olds who are making a new claim for universal credit. The programme provides valuable intensive support to help people move into work. The DWP announced at the end of March that all 18 to 21-year-olds in receipt of universal credit will be entitled to claim support for housing costs, and that change is currently in the process of being implemented.

This Government are committed to building an economy that works for everyone, including young people. By having a lower national minimum wage for under-25s we are protecting young workers, to help them gain crucial experience, as well as supporting their transition and progression from education into the jobs market. Getting on to that all-important first rung on the jobs ladder has to be the priority. The independent Low Pay Commission will continue to make recommendations on the national minimum wage, and I look forward to its advice in spring 2019 on whether the current structure of the youth rates best supports the youth labour market. This Government have the economy, the country and the interests of young people at their heart.

[David Linden]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. During his speech, the Minister perhaps inadvertently misled the House by saying that France has different pay levels for young people. What opportunities are available for him to correct that, as I believe it is not actually true?

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Andrew Griffiths and David Linden

Tuesday 1st May 2018 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Gethins (North East Fife) (SNP)]

3. What estimate he has made of the number of non-UK EU nationals who work for small businesses.

[David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)]

7. What estimate he has made of the number of non-UK EU nationals who work for small businesses.

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

Non-UK EU nationals account for 7% of total UK employment. Scottish businesses have had the opportunity to feed into the Migration Advisory Committee’s analysis of the role of EU nationals in the UK. We appreciate the strong contribution that EU nationals make to small and large businesses, and we have already agreed to protect the rights of EU citizens in the UK under our withdrawal agreement with the EU.

[Andrew Griffiths]

I can reassure the hon. Gentleman that there should not be uncertainty. We have made it clear that we do not regard the referendum result as a vote to pull up the drawbridge. The United Kingdom will remain an open and tolerant country which recognises the valuable contribution that migrants make, and welcomes those with the skills and expertise that will make our society even better. The Government commissioned the Migration Advisory Committee to report on EU patterns of migration in different sectors and different parts of the UK, and it will do so by September 2018.

[David Linden]

Analysis shows that EU citizens contribute £4 billion a year to the economy in Scotland. We see that happening in small businesses along Shettleston Road, for example. Does the Minister agree that the devastating effect of free-movement restrictions will have a colossal impact on small businesses in Shettleston and in Scotland as a whole, and will he support the calls from the Scottish Trades Union Congress for immigration to be devolved to Scotland?

[Andrew Griffiths]

Our position on immigration policy and who should be responsible for it is clear, and has not changed. Since the referendum we have been engaging widely with, among others, the devolved Administrations and businesses in Scotland to ensure that we fully understand the requirements, but let me make it absolutely clear that the Government understand the issues of businesses and will ensure that the system works for them.

Taylor Review

Debate between Andrew Griffiths and David Linden

1st reading: House of Commons
Wednesday 7th February 2018 Commons Chamber

[Andrew Griffiths]

The hon. Lady says “Consider”, but I would have thought she was a supporter of the Low Pay Commission and that she would think this was a good idea.

We are creating a right for all workers on zero-hours contracts to request a more stable contract, and the Government want to go further than the Matthew Taylor report to address the issues of exclusivity of agency workers or those on zero-hours contracts. I would have thought that the hon. Member for Blaydon (Liz Twist) welcomed that; I know many in the trade unions organisation do.

[David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)]

One of the issues not within the scope of the Taylor review was that of unpaid work trials, which is regrettable. However, on 16 March my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow South (Stewart Malcolm McDonald) is bringing forward his Bill to end exploitative unpaid work trails. Will the Government be supporting it?

[Andrew Griffiths]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. I am happy to meet his colleague to discuss his Bill.

Bill Presented

Vagrancy (Repeal)

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)

Layla Moran, supported by Caroline Lucas, Wera Hobhouse, Christine Jardine and Jo Swinson, presented a Bill to repeal the Vagrancy Act 1824.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 16 March, and to be printed (Bill 162).

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

Debate between Andrew Griffiths and David Linden

Wednesday 7th February 2018 Public Bill Committees

[David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Gray. I warmly commend the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton for proposing this Private Member’s Bill. I also pay tribute to the hon. Member for Colchester, who proposed a similar Bill in the last Parliament. I am glad to see that the Bill has finally got Government support. I congratulate the Minister on his appointment to his post—we have had an exchange in the Chamber only this afternoon.

I rise to speak to amendments 3 and 10 in the name of myself and my hon. Friends the Members for North Ayrshire and Arran and for Paisley and Renfrewshire North. I also support amendments 11 and 20 in the names of the hon. Members for North West Durham and for Eddisbury. As my hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran set out, we in the SNP believe that this is fundamentally a good Bill. We welcome it, although we feel it could be strengthened to go even further.

Before speaking to the amendment, I pay tribute to Shaun Walsh of Together for Short Lives and Priyanka Patel of CLIC Sargent, who were both kind enough to brief me about the Bill and other issues, particularly those relating to children’s palliative care. I have been fortunate to visit CLIC Sargent’s social work team at Southern General Hospital in Glasgow, in my constituency.

Broadly, my interest in the Bill stems from two reasons. First, I have a longstanding interest in children’s palliative care policy. I declare an interest, as my mother is a children’s palliative carer for Icare Scotland. My second reason stems from my personal experience of becoming a father. Originally, my wife Roslyn and I were led to believe that having children would be very difficult, if it was possible at all. In February 2015, after some blood tests, we were told that Roslyn was in fact 19 weeks pregnant, and that due to her Type I diabetes it would be an incredibly complex pregnancy. Essentially, every time my wife injected insulin, which is required to keep her alive, our baby grew bigger; and as a result, so did his chances of dying. A couple of weeks later we were called in to Southern General Hospital and told that, due to the increasing size of our son, we had to brace ourselves for the possibility of a stillbirth. It was the hardest conversation we have ever had with anybody in the medical profession and as a married couple; it felt as though a train had hit us.

In the end, our son Isaac was born, almost two months premature and significantly overweight. He spent the first two weeks of his life in intensive care at Southern General Hospital, before moving on to special baby care. The doctors, nurses and staff at Southern General could not have been more loving and supportive. I know that all of us in this room have nothing but admiration and respect for the national health service staff who look after us. Many Members of this Committee have already shared their own deeply personal experiences of losing a child and I am incredibly mindful of the fact that our wee boy pulled through. For that I am nothing but thankful to God. It was during the darker times of being told to prepare for a stillbirth, and when Isaac was whisked away to intensive care after his birth without us, that we were left in shock and contemplating what losing a child could be like, on every level possible—be that practical or emotional. It is for that reason that we have come together on the Committee to ensure that a good Bill becomes an even better law.

Amendment 3, in my name and those of my hon. Friends the Members for North Ayrshire and Arran and for Paisley and Renfrewshire North, would extend the period within which bereavement leave must be taken from 56 days to 52 weeks. The rationale behind the amendment is to give more flexibility to parents who lose a child. Through my fundraising work with children’s hospices across Scotland, I have had the opportunity to visit Robin House in Balloch and meet parents whose children have a life-shortening or life-limiting condition. I have also spoken to families who have experienced the loss of a child. One of the clear messages and asks they have of us as policy makers and legislators is to allow more flexibility in when they can take bereavement leave.

My friend, Maria McGill, the chief executive of Children’s Hospices Across Scotland, often speaks of the importance of marking a child’s birthday and other such anniversaries, which is a significant part of the grieving process. If the Committee agrees to the amendment, parents would have more flexibility in the first year, rather than the first month or two, following their child’s death. In the grand scheme of things it would not cause a lot of difficulty to employers, but it would make a massive difference to families who have experienced bereavement.

The amendments in this group seek to make a good Bill and a better law. I ask the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton, and all right hon. and hon. Members, to support amendment 3 in particular.

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

Thank you for your continued chairmanship of this important Committee, Mr Gray. As I was listening to hon. Members debate these issues, I was thinking about how in this Committee it feels like we are never more than a word away from a tear. The palpable emotion we all feel in the room is powerful. I strongly commend all hon. Members who lay themselves bare by talking about their personal experiences; I know it is not easy at all.

From the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran, it is easy to see the pain that remains. My hon. Friend the Member for Eddisbury introduced me to this issue when she spoke so movingly in the Chamber, as have my hon. Friends the Members for Banbury and for Colchester. Even last week, we saw the emotion of the hon. Member for Washington and Sunderland West (Mrs Hodgson) when, in the debate on the Civil Partnerships, Marriages and Deaths (Registration Etc.) Bill, she spoke about the loss of her child.

As you know, Mr Gray, my wife is seven months pregnant. We are overjoyed at that prospect, although Mrs Griffiths is getting slightly more uncomfortable and is daunted by the imminent arrival of Griffiths Jr. This debate makes us think about things we do not want to contemplate, and it is brave of hon. Members to lay themselves open to that. As Members of Parliament, we have little privacy these days. We regularly feel as though our every movement is laid bare to the public—we cannot even fall asleep in a hotel without someone taking a picture and putting it on Twitter.

To the point of the matter, I understand what colleagues are trying to achieve in the amendments. The period of time in which leave is taken, which amendments 3 and 20 seek to address, is key to getting the framework right. The time needed by each individual will vary according to their own way of dealing with the grief that comes from the loss.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton said, there is a balance to be struck, and I understand my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester when he says that we need to strike a balance between flexibility and certainty. I believe his approach to the Bill has been always to mirror existing provisions in legislation so that we do not create precedents, to ensure a smooth passage for the Bill. That is the right approach. It eliminates a lot of difficulties that might be the unintended consequence of what we agree in Committee. It also makes it easier for officials, business and the general public to understand the marrying of rights. In that respect, I agree that maintaining the suggested timeframe of at least 56 days, to maintain consistency with the other provisions, is a sensible approach.

However, I recognise that it would not be right if sticking to 56 days meant that the provision in this Bill did not do what we intend it to. The reason we are here today is to ensure that the leave suits and supports the bereaved parents and allows them what they need to grieve properly. For that reason, it is absolutely correct that we consult on this matter.

I know that the hon. Member for North West Durham would point to the fact that this is yet another consultation; pursuant to my urgent question earlier we had some exchanges on the merits or otherwise of consultation, but I want to be clear with members of the Committee about what the consultation is. It is our intention to launch the consultation in May, and I make a pledge to the members of the Committee that if they agree to it, it will report before Third Reading of the Bill, so that all members of this Committee and all Members of the House will be able to assess the consultation and see the range. Even in this room today we have a range of different views about how long the time should be.

We want to get it right and ensure that the time we put on the face of the Bill is the right time. Within that consultation, we will be able to talk to all the groups that have been mentioned today, and others, to get a proper understanding of the best timescale in which to deliver this.

[Andrew Griffiths]

I am sure the hon. Lady will accept that, obviously, I cannot write a blank cheque. If the consultation came back and suggested something that was simply unworkable or impracticable, of course I could not commit to that. What I can commit to is that the process will be open and transparent, and that all hon. Members will be able not only to contribute, but to see the evidence that is presented. It will be open and transparent.

[David Linden]

Given what the Minister is saying about the consultation process, will he give us a timeline on that, particularly for those members of the Committee who have been asked to withdraw amendments?

[Andrew Griffiths]

As I say, we will launch the consultation in May and it will report well in advance of Third Reading. If, at Third Reading, hon. Members are not satisfied with what we have agreed to on the consultation, they will be able to table amendments and we can have the debate on the Floor of the House. We can have a Division, and the whole House in its entirety can decide which of those dates—

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Griffiths]

I was about to say that the hon. Lady is itching to intervene, but actually she was just itching.

We all know too well that the realities of bereaved parents are sometimes very different. The fact is that those who work for less accommodating employers need this Bill the most. I understand the point that is being made. My hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton also pointed out existing leave provisions, which are already helpful and should not be ignored. The Bill will provide an important statutory minimum that employers must adhere to, giving key legal protections to parents who suffer a tragic loss. This policy sets an important benchmark without preventing employers from enhancing it if they wish. We know that the majority of employers try to do the right thing.

I hate to use the defence that I have used at other times during this debate, but a consultation is being held. This will be part of the consultation, which will report before the end of the Bill’s passage. With that in mind, and bearing in mind the points that have been made, I ask that the amendment be withdrawn.

[David Linden]

I find myself in a difficult position. I am minded to press the amendment to a vote, but it would be the first time I have divided the Committee, which in the light of my earlier comments is not something that I want to do. A lot has been said about the fragility of the Bill and the difficulty of getting it through Parliament, but one thing that has not been acknowledged is that we are in a two-year Parliament, so it is not as if we have to get the Bill passed before Prorogation in March.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Griffiths]

My hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton raised a good point about mirroring existing legislation in order to make the familiarisation process for employers more straightforward. We have heard that time and time again throughout this Bill. It is an important point and one I agree with. Managing bereavement in a workplace is not an easy task, so keeping it simple, stupid, is a good mantra. The Bill should be viewed as a base-level right for those who find themselves in this position. My hon. Friend said quite clearly that this Bill does not prevent employers from enhancing their offer, if they would like to make full pay. I hope that hon. Members will agree that this amendment should not be pursued and that the hon. Member for Glasgow East is content to withdraw it.

[David Linden]

I have listened to what the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton and the Minister have said. On that basis I am happy to withdraw the amendment. This is probably the last contribution that I will make in this Committee. I found serving on this Committee a challenging experience for a number of reasons, but I want to pay tribute to all members of the Committee. This has been an incredibly difficult topic to go through and on the whole it has been done with a degree of courtesy on all parts. I look forward to the Bill returning to the House. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendments made: 28, in the schedule, page 9, line 18, at end insert

‘(see also section 171ZZ15 for the application of this Part in relation to stillbirths)’.

This amendment is consequential on Amendment 29.

Amendment 29, in the schedule, page 10, leave out lines 40 to 46 and insert—

‘171ZZ15 Application in relation to stillbirths

In this Part—

(a) references to a child include a child stillborn after twenty-four weeks of pregnancy, and

(b) references to the death of a child are to be read, in relation to a stillborn child, as references to the birth of the child.’

This amendment extends the provisions about statutory parental bereavement pay to bereaved parents of stillborn children.

Amendment 30, in the schedule, page 11, leave out line 3.—(Will Quince.)

This amendment is consequential on Amendment 29.

Schedule, as amended, agreed to.

Bill, as amended, to be reported.