Sainsbury and Asda Merger

Debate between Antoinette Sandbach and Andrew Griffiths

Monday 30th April 2018 Commons Chamber

[Antoinette Sandbach (Eddisbury) (Con)]

Dairy farmers in my constituency supply milk to both Asda and Sainsbury’s. Will there be an easy way for those family-run businesses to be able to feed into potential efficiencies that may threaten the supply chain?

[Andrew Griffiths]

My hon. Friend makes an important point—I have dairy farmers in my constituency—and this is one of the issues that I have raised with Christine Tacon, the Groceries Code Adjudicator. My hon. Friend will know that in the last few weeks, in conjunction with the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the Groceries Code Adjudicator and the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, we have brought forward new proposals on dairy contracts to help exactly the kind of small suppliers that she talks about. In conversations with Sainsbury’s and Asda, both of them talk about the very real relationships that they have with their suppliers—with their dairy farmers. I hope that we can get some assurances to protect those relationships.

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

Debate between Antoinette Sandbach and Andrew Griffiths

Wednesday 7th February 2018 Public Bill Committees

[Antoinette Sandbach]

I saw the hon. Lady’s amendment and given that the Minister is consulting on a number of matters, I hope he might consider extending the consultation to the amendments. Where there is a high level of recognised dependency, the bond between parent and child is very high, largely because parents in the main, although it is often women who do this, have been carers at a level not necessarily offered in other circumstances.

I am not saying that the grief is any less, but that level of contact with the child will extend beyond the age of 18, whereas in other circumstances many children will have left home and be living independent lives. This is a probing amendment, but one the Government would do well to address, because I suspect there will be easily-available figures from Government data for the number of people covered. The Minister should be able to find that information fairly easily, although there might be implications for that extension.

[Andrew Griffiths]

This has been a very thoughtful and interesting debate. I draw the Committee’s attention back to the first speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester. I think he used the phrase “do not let the perfect be the enemy of the good”.

Members new to the House might not realise that this is the third time that an hon. Member has tried to take through a Bill on parental bereavement leave. The first attempt by Tom Harris was unsuccessful, as was the next by my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester. This is the first time not only that such a Bill has got to this stage, but that any Government have given it backing.

Many Members will say it is outrageous that in 2018 we do not have those rights in statute. I would agree, but the reality is that we do not. There are many reasons for that, given by many Governments of many colours and of different make-up, and for why such a Bill has been resisted. We have an opportunity this time to get a Bill across the line. I politely say to the hon. Member for Glasgow East that, although I understand his desire to press his amendment, he will risk the passage of the Bill if it is used as a Christmas tree on which to hang all our aspirations.

The Bill provides the minimum that we would like to see for bereaved parents in this area, but we need to get it on the statute book. We can have as many lofty aspirations as we wish and we can desire to set the bar as high as we like, but we need to make this real. Various Governments of various colours have been unable to commit to do that, and this is the first time that a Government have committed to support the legislation and make it law. I politely and gently encourage hon. Members to think about that before they decide to press amendments that could risk the Bill’s potential.

To speak to the substance of the amendments, where to draw a line on age was always going to be difficult. I recognise why hon. Members suggest the dates they do. A lost life is always terrible, even more so when a child has not had the chance to live to adulthood. The loved ones who survive that child are left rebuilding and coping in a way that is difficult to imagine for those of us who are fortunate enough never to have been in that position.

Amendments 6 and 7 propose to extend this provision to parents of children of any age. The Bill applies to parents of children under the age of 18. Much as I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton, and would like the Bill to cover parents of all children who have passed away irrespective of age, to do so would have financial implications that cannot be ignored. I draw the Committee’s attention to the Exchequer estimate that the annual cost of statutory bereavement pay would be between £1.2 million and £2 million, with a best estimate of £1.77 million. The estimated cost to business––the employer––is £1.45 million and we estimate that, as drafted, the Bill will cover 5,600 parents.

The hon. Member for North West Durham sheepishly proposes the numbers in the Library note that she has received, and I do not disagree with those: she estimates 29,000 parents for children up to the age of 40. Look at the magnitude of the change from 5,600 to 29,000, when the cost is £2 million for the lower figure. We see how the cost of the Bill suddenly begins to increase dramatically. I urge caution, because there are other things to consider when we look at the Bill’s viability and future. The broader the Bill’s coverage, the more it will cost both the state and employers, in terms of absence costs. I therefore believe that the right balance is to ensure that parents of children up to the age of 18 are covered by the Bill.

I do not for one second underestimate the devastation of a parent losing a child at any age. I look to my own experience. My Auntie Ann had a seriously mentally and physically handicapped daughter called Margaret, who died at the age of 56. She had never been out of a wheelchair in her life, and my Auntie Ann was by then a widow in her late 70s. She was absolutely devastated by the loss of Margaret. As a family, we had always assumed that Auntie Ann would go and we would make provision to care for Margaret. The shock when Margaret was diagnosed with cancer and died very quickly hit the whole family. I do not for one minute underestimate the loss of a child at any age, but, for the sake of securing the Bill, I think we have to draw a line.

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

Debate between Antoinette Sandbach and Andrew Griffiths

Wednesday 31st January 2018 Public Bill Committees

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.