Draft Freedom of Establishment and Free Movement of Services (EU Exit) Regulations 2019

Debate between Bill Esterson and Kevin Hollinrake

Monday 21st October 2019 General Committees

[Bill Esterson]

I absolutely agree. My hon. Friend is right to mention the lack of impact assessment or analysis of the proposed deal, which we are being asked to consider without being able to judge the line-by-line detail of what is in it. Somebody will have to remind me how many pages the new document is.

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

Two hundred and eighty-odd.

[Bill Esterson]

I will accept the hon. Gentleman’s comment from a sedentary position; does anybody want to go higher? The reality is that we do not have the information we need in order to make judgments, whether on the new deal or the consequences of no deal, and on these regulations. In the explanatory memorandum, the Government use the phrase, “It is anticipated”. What they are saying is that they do not know what the impact will be, and I am afraid that is a real problem. These regulations were drawn to the attention of the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

The hon. Gentleman may be familiar with the document we were given access to, which was held in the Treasury since November 2018. That contained an impact assessment of all kinds of different scenarios, and said that in all of them, the economy is expected to continue to grow. Does that give the hon. Gentleman some confidence that there is life beyond the European Union?

[Bill Esterson]

That is a slightly different point to the one we are discussing. We need to look at the detail. I am not sure whether that intervention was part of the hon. Gentleman’s pitch to be Chair of the Treasury Committee—others must judge—but I will touch on his point. The Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee speaks of the removal of treaty rights, and the fact that this is a policy change. That goes to the heart of the concern about what is being proposed, because when the withdrawal Act was passed, the Government promised that they would not use the Henry VIII powers in section 8 of that Act as a vehicle for policy change. They also said that it “almost goes without saying” that no change should be made to rights through delegated legislation, yet that is exactly what is being proposed.

The disapplication of the rights of EU, EEA, Swiss and Turkish nationals is clearly at odds with what was promised regarding section 8 of the withdrawal Act. That Act was not intended to address how, whether, and how quickly we should meet our obligations under the WTO, which is the reason the Government are giving for putting these regulations through. The purpose of section 8 of the withdrawal Act was to fix deficiencies in retained EU law—an explanation that, to be fair to Ministers, they have used to justify previous regulations in Committees in which I have responded on behalf of the Opposition. Why is that not the case on this occasion? Why is this not being addressed through primary legislation? Why is it not being done through an immigration Bill, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff South and Penarth asked, and why is that Bill stuck in Committee?

If free movement of people is to end via primary legislation, as the Home Secretary said on 5 September, why is the same principle not being applied to the freedom of establishment and free movement of services, and what are the consequences for those individuals who are self-employed, or who own or manage businesses in this country? A large cohort of the people delivering services or running businesses depend for their lawful residence qualification on being regarded as economically active. They have the right to that definition and to qualify. Their rights are derived under the 2016 immigration regulations, which the Minister mentioned, but that is because they are in accordance with article 49 of the treaty on the functioning of the European Union. These regulations disapply article 49, and therefore the 2016 immigration regulations.

It makes no sense to decide immigration rights for those who are self-employed or are running a business separately from determining the immigration rights of other people, but that is what these regulations do, despite the assurances that were given when the withdrawal Act was passed. If there is nothing to worry about, where is the legal analysis? Where were the Minister’s comments about the legal opinion that the Government have obtained? Where is the analysis that these regulations will not adversely affect the immigration rights of EU or EEA nationals? Thousands of self-employed, business-owning or business-managing providers of services need the assurance that they will not be disadvantaged and that their right to stay will not be questioned or removed. Where is the legal protection? It is not referred to in the explanatory notes, and the Minister did not refer to it.

I note from previous regulations passed in these Committees that on other occasions it has suited the Government to apply a principle of reciprocity. For example, I was responding for the Opposition on the matter of intellectual property regulations when the Government chose to allow EU and EEA firms the right to continue to have full access to our intellectual property regulations, and there was no guarantee that our firms would have those rights in return. Reciprocity was not a barrier on that occasion, but it seems that it is here, when the Government want to remove the rights of self-employed or business-owning or managing EU or EEA nationals.

Parental Bereavement (Leave and Pay) Bill

Debate between Bill Esterson and Kevin Hollinrake

3rd reading: House of Commons & Report stage: House of Commons
Friday 11th May 2018 Commons Chamber

[Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)]

This is an important and sensitive issue. I am acutely aware that some Members who have been involved with the Bill throughout its passage have direct experience of losing a child, and I commend the bravery with which they have used their personal experiences to do good for others. In my family, my mum experienced the loss of my older sister who I never knew. She died some years before I was born, and for the rest of her life my mum was unable to speak about the loss of her daughter—I know that others have mentioned such experiences. It is something that has been present throughout my lifetime, unmentioned but always there in our family in the background. My sister’s name was Rebecca, which is also the name that my other sister gave to her daughter in her memory.

This Bill can only be a positive step. I am aware of the anxieties about it, but I am sure that none of us wish to do anything to scupper its progress. All those who are going through the ordeal and trauma of losing a child should at least be able to have some paid time away from their employment to deal with the practical elements of a bereavement, as well as the undoubted grief and pain associated with the death of a child.

Families, family relationships and caring relationships in our society are beautifully diverse, and it is right that legislation that offers entitlement to leave because of someone’s relationship with a child reflects that diversity. Often, those who are primary carers are not the biological mother or father of the child. They could be grandparents, other members of the extended family, or those who have opted to care for the child through formal means such as fostering, in a residential care home, or through adoption—my wife and I have gone through that experience and we have two adopted children.

In this country we—including under this Government—encourage foster carers to build loving relationships with children in their care, and rightly so. It is therefore only right and proper to make provision in law, so that people who are caring for a child, in whatever circumstances, are given paid leave if that child dies. That is in recognition of the fact that although those people may not be biological parents, they will often be parents, perhaps even legally, and they will form deep and meaningful relationships with the children in their care. They will suffer pain if they lose that child, and they will need time to make practical arrangements, including a funeral, and of course time to grieve.

How and when grief hits a parent can vary, as does the time at which practical arrangements associated with bereavement are needed. Arranging a funeral is just one of a huge list of responsibilities in the wake of the death of a child. There could be involvement with a coroner, and an ability to take the leave entitlement at varying points and not all at once would be welcome. People may need a day off to register the death, and they may need more time off weeks later because they are too low or upset to attend work. Grief does not come and go in a neat two-week period; it is something that stays with people, as I described with my mum’s experience. Although it is not practical to extend the leave entitlement to an undefined period, that entitlement should be valid for a sensibly long period of time—a year seems reasonable. It should also be possible to take the leave at more than one time.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

The hon. Gentleman is making good points and speaking very movingly. Does he accept that this is principally a signal to employers? There are many different circumstances involving this kind of tragedy, and everybody’s situation is different. Fundamentally, we are trying to ensure that all employers are generous, sympathetic and flexible in how they treat such situations, and that they provide leave and pay that is fair in all different circumstances. However, we cannot necessarily provide for all those things in legislation.

[Bill Esterson]

The hon. Gentleman is right and I commend him on promoting this Bill. I would like to pick up on some of the points he made about employment, self-employment, and the impact of the Bill on businesses. A good employer would certainly want to look after its staff—indeed, it is in its interests to do so. If an employer wants to retain staff, it should look after them, and that is also the right thing to do more generally. As we have heard, the vast majority of employers already do what is set out in the Bill in practice, and the Bill rightly ensures that all employers have a minimum set of standards to follow.

I take on board the point about whether this is the right time to consider broadening the provision to cover adult children, but we are talking about a relatively small number of people who would qualify for an entitlement to leave. We are talking about someone who loses a child, whether that child is under or over the age of 18—the hon. Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Michael Tomlinson) described losing his brother who was 24. It does not matter at what age this happens; it is an extremely painful situation for family members, and I understand that my hon. Friend the Member for North West Durham (Laura Pidcock) reminded the Committee of just that point. In the mind of a parent the pain never ceases, whatever the age of the child.

Although an older child might have a family of their own to help with practical arrangements, that is not always the case. Indeed, some older children are dependent on their parents—for example, parents may still care for a disabled adult. It is perfectly possible that a worker aged 60 could have a daughter or son who dies aged 30 or older, and it is reasonable for them to be afforded paid leave for all the reasons given for younger children. Lifting the age limit of what it means to be a child could be done either in the Bill or later, in recognition of just how exceptional these circumstances are.

Out of all the employment rights currently written into law, parental bereavement leave and pay is something that no one in the Chamber would ever want to apply for. Increasing leave entitlement from zero days and no pay to two weeks’ paid leave at a statutory minimum rate is a welcome step, although I am sure that many people who have lost a child would tell us that two weeks is nowhere near long enough, and perhaps a longer period of leave might be right. However, for purposes of the Bill we are discussing two weeks’ paid leave, which would be a significant and important step forward.

It is crucial that bereavement pay is paid immediately after the death of a child. A parent or carer should not have to worry about whether they can afford to take time off, and that should not be another thing added to the extreme stress that bereavement often creates. The statutory minimum rate is certainly better than nothing, although I fear, having had to take a hit on pay, that if pay is not given in full that may still exclude some from taking leave. Certainly the statutory minimum is better than nothing, and a step forward for those employers that currently do not provide such support.