Draft Employment Rights (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 Draft Employment Rights (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 Draft Employment Rights (Amendment) (EU Exit) (No. 2) Regulations 2018 Draft Employment Rights (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) (EU Exit) (No. 2) Regulations 2018

Bob Stewart Excerpts

Wednesday 13th February 2019 General Committees

[Mr Ben Bradshaw (Exeter) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Evans. I want to pick up where my hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey finished: on the issue of trust. I know the Minister to be a reasonable woman, and she is in her job at the moment, as the Prime Minister is in hers. However, the Government are basically asking us to take the draft regulations on trust. What will happen in the future, when we lose the protections and rights that we enjoy thanks to our European Union membership? It may happen under a different Minister, but it will almost certainly happen under a different Prime Minister. As we all know, the Prime Minister says that she will not hang around for very long, and she will certainly not take the Conservative party into the next general election.

We also know that, as my hon. Friend said, there are many Conservative Members itching to get their hands on employment protections and regulations. They want a bonfire and a race to the bottom, and they fantasise about a Singapore-style Britain somewhere in the middle of the Atlantic. It is those people who are likely to steal the Prime Minister’s crown when there is finally a Conservative succession, because they are in the majority among her party members.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

I just do not recognise that description of members of my party. I am sorry, but it is wrong to say that we fantasise about doing away with all that stuff.

[Mr Bradshaw]

I was not referring to the hon. Gentleman, of course, but I invite him to study the writings and comments of members of the European Research Group and their favourite economist, Patrick Minford, about their vision for our future. If the hon. Gentleman is not aware of those views, it is very worrying, because these are the people who are holding our country to ransom and taking over the Conservative party. There are Conservative MPs on my own patch whose local parties are being infiltrated by Arron Banks supporters with the specific aim of deselecting decent Conservative Members like the hon. Gentleman and replacing them with hard-right fanatics.

The Minister is asking us to take everything on trust in a world in which it is simply not possible to do so in a responsible way. She was very selective in her list of areas where Britain does have a good record, and where her own Government have a fairly good record on parental leave and so forth.

As others have mentioned, the Government do not have a good record when it comes to organised labour; they have a blind spot regarding its crucial importance in protecting workers’ rights and people at work. We have heard countless examples, including the scandal of tribunal fees, the Trade Union Act and so forth. The Minister is asking us not only to take on trust that the people in charge now will still be in charge in the months ahead; she is also giving a rather imbalanced account of the Conservative party’s record.

I occasionally read that there are members of my own party who would like to facilitate or support the Prime Minister’s EU withdrawal deal, in return for what I consider to be completely meaningless assurances about the future of workers’ rights. I simply invite them, before they take that leap of faith, to look at the way in which the Government are ramming through these SIs without proper scrutiny.

We are elected as Labour Members to support workers’ rights. I would not want any of my colleagues inadvertently to support a very bad deal, on the basis of assurances given by a Prime Minister who is not going to be around, and when the real power brokers in her party have absolutely no intention of respecting those guarantees.

--- Later in debate ---

[Bob Stewart]

Can I get this absolutely right? We are talking about taking employment rights from the European Union and putting them into UK law. Effectively, we are changing as little as possible, so that things do not change for workers. That is what the Conservative party would like to happen.

[Kelly Tolhurst]

I assure my hon. Friend that he is correct; that is exactly what we are doing. Failure to pass this no-deal SI would put workers’ rights in jeopardy. This SI would allow us to protect those rights.

Nuclear Power: Toshiba

Bob Stewart Excerpts

Monday 12th November 2018 Commons Chamber

[Greg Clark]

My view is that we should have a mix of energy sources. It is true that storage, and the progress being made in storage, plus renewables is increasing the possible contribution to our electricity generating system, but, as I say, we are always wise to have a diversity of sources, which is why nuclear has an important role to play.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

When NuGen hands back the Moorside site to the NDA in January, will it be the taxpayer who pays for the clean-up, or—I hope— its preparation for a new tenant?

University of London Bill [Lords]

Bob Stewart Excerpts

2nd reading: House of Commons
Tuesday 16th October 2018 Commons Chamber

[The Minister for Universities, Science, Research and Innovation (Mr Sam Gyimah)]

Last year, the Government passed the Higher Education and Research Act 2017 with the aim of opening up the higher education market. The Act enables high-quality providers of higher education to gain degree-awarding powers more quickly, and also allows those with an excellent track record to achieve university titles.

I recognise, however, that existing legislation poses problems for the colleges in the University of London federation. Under the current rules, colleges that wish to obtain university titles will have to leave the federation altogether, which could undermine both its provision and its reputation. If, however, colleges remain under the current arrangement, their lack of university title may also undermine their prestige and standing, which could have an adverse effect on their ability to recruit students, particularly those from overseas. I therefore fully support this private Bill, which seeks to correct technicalities in existing legislation and allow the colleges of the University of London to become universities in their own right, while remaining part of the university’s federal structure.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

Does that mean that Birkbeck College, for instance, will become “Birkbeck University, University of London”, or will it be “Birkbeck University”? How will we refer to it in future?

[Mr Gyimah]

That will depend on how Birkbeck chooses to refer to itself, but I anticipate that once this Bill gains Royal Assent, most of the University of London’s prestigious colleges will apply to gain full university title, and they are very well placed to be successful. The colleges are already fully compliant with the financial sustainability, management and governance requirements that apply to all directly funded higher education institutions, and they also already have their own degree-awarding powers.

The University of London is one of the very few providers whose powers are set out in a private Act. The primary purpose of the Bill is to correct technicalities in the current Act, which disallows the colleges from applying to become universities in their own right. Given that it is uncontroversial—I hope—and long overdue, I expect it to be passed, with a significant number of colleges taking full advantage of the opportunity to gain university status.

I am very aware that the university and its colleges have already invested considerable time and expense in rectifying the existing situation. Any further delay in the Bill’s progress will be a significant setback to them, and will become increasingly harmful. I therefore encourage the House to allow the Bill to proceed with all reasonable speed.

[Gordon Marsden (Blackpool South) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Westminster North (Ms Buck), who I gather is, according to the nomenclature, the promoter of the Bill. She cut through the thicket of a highly technical and somewhat convoluted selection of arguments with a crisp and concise message—the Minister has just echoed it—which is that at the moment, in technical and practical terms, there are significant concerns for the colleges concerned that, to use the old adage, they are neither fish nor fowl. For all the reasons that my hon. Friend set out and the Minister reiterated, at a time when it is so important that the international reputation of our existing universities and institutions is understood and held in high esteem, especially given the situation in which we find ourselves with Brexit and other challenges from competitor countries with universities, our institutions must not be hampered or impeded with regard to the way in which they are understood by people not just in this place or even in this country, but internationally. That is an important part of the process.

I want first to declare a triple interest, albeit an historical one, in this debate. First, I am a former postgraduate of London University—from the Warburg Institute—which serves as a reminder that the University of London consists of not only colleges, but a number of separate institutions and institutes, many of which found themselves in quite a difficult position in the 1990s and 2000s when the changes that we know about began to take place in the relationship of the central university and the colleges. Secondly, of course, this took place some time ago, and, thirdly, to illustrate that, in the 1990s I was a member, by virtue of my editing the magazine History Today, of the board of the Institute of Historical Research. At that time, the debate about the relationship of the university to the various colleges, and what would happen to the university and its institutions, was a strong and fevered one. Thankfully, in the years since, there has been a coexistence—I suppose that that would be the word—between the central register of the university and the colleges, and that coexistence has brought about the uncontroversial Bill before us today.

I do not want to repeat the points made by my hon. Friend and the Minister about the technicalities of the Bill and the processes, but I do want to make one or two observations about the 1994 Act and where this new settlement might take us. In the promoter’s statement of support for the Bill’s Second Reading, we are told:

“The current arrangements are…unnecessarily cumbersome. The 1994 Act allows consultees 4 months in which to make representations”,

and

“if the governing body wishes to take forward its proposals, it must pass two resolutions with an interval of at least one month.”

That is all very true, but I believe that it has a broader relevance than simply today’s technical debate, as it puts the onus on all the member institutions, when they are changing elements of their statute in the way my hon. Friend has explained will happen under the new set-up, to consult strongly with all their workforce—all their academic staff and students. The Minister will be well aware of the Opposition’s concerns in this area in the light of all we said in the debates on the Higher Education and Research Bill with his predecessor, and the various exchanges that he and I have had about this area since.

The importance of giving the colleges university status cannot be overstated, and I understand the concern of all hon. Members and those involved with the colleges that they should not be hampered externally. The hon. Member for Henley (John Howell), citing his role as a Government envoy to Nigeria, was worried about this, which I can understand, but in defence of the central functions of the University of London, I would like to reassure him that the status of the university as a brand is still very strong internationally. I pray in aid of that argument the tens of thousands of graduate students whom I see every year at the enormous graduation ceremonies, which are often presided over by Her Royal Highness Princess Anne, the chancellor of the University of London. I do not think we should entirely set aside the brand value, if I can put it that way, of the University of London.

Clause 3 of the Bill refers to conferring a general power on the university’s governing body—the board of trustees. The Bill was amended in the House of Lords, and I have taken the time to look at the evidence given to my noble Friend Lord McFall over two sessions in February and March this year, which was very interesting. In putting forward its proposals, the university made a number of claims about the existing process being unnecessarily cumbersome and protracted and the need to refresh its status in a more dynamic way. I pay tribute to the diligence of my noble Friend, because he pressed the university quite hard on the relationship between the university and the colleges. In particular, he was concerned that there should not be a sense of mission creep regarding to what needs to be done to establish that relationship. As a result of my noble Friend’s probing, two amendments were tabled, one of which restored the right of the trade unions at the colleges and the university to be consulted—[Interruption.]

[Bob Stewart]

I am hoping that the hon. Gentleman can have a short break to get his cough under control. I should like to ask him, and indeed the Minister, how much these changes are going to cost. Has there been a cost analysis of the changes?

[Gordon Marsden]

That is a good point. I do not have the answer to the hon. Gentleman’s question, but the Minister might be able to give him an indication. I would simply say that it is important that these processes are taken forward as economically and speedily as possible, which will obviously involve some degree of expense. I hope that no one would wish to see flights of enthusiasm for spending lots of money to promote new titles and logos, for example, especially at this time. That is not the official Opposition’s view; it is just my personal opinion.

I shall return to the question of amendments having to go out for consultation by recognised trade unions. This needs to be widely and substantially understood, particularly by the heads of the colleges and particularly in relation to the two unions involved—the University and College Union and Unison. It is important that the workforce should be involved in the process.

The second change relates to the Privy Council, and I understand the need for that change. As a general principle, however, we remain sceptical about the diminution of the role of the Privy Council in the position of universities. Members of the other place made that point when the Bill was going through. This goes back to the old Bagehot definition of the monarchy: it is not the powers that it confers, but the powers it denies. The Privy Council has historically been a useful backstop against the flights of fancy of higher education administrators, and I will be sorry to see its role entirely extinguished. That said, I understand the reasons given in the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

This debate would not have taken place had I not blocked this Bill going through on the nod on Second Reading, and the contributions we have had today show that it has been a worthwhile exercise. I do not believe Bills should go through this House without being discussed, particularly when they are opaque. When the Bill was being debated in the other place, it was conceded that the foremost reason and key rationale for it was that it would facilitate universities becoming universities in their own right in London, and it was conceded that that was not clear in the Bill. If something is not clear in the Bill, how are we going to get to the bottom of it unless we start debating it? That is where the value of what we are doing this evening lies.

At the moment, there are 18 self-governing institutions within the University of London’s federal structure, a lot of which are, in many respects, regarded as universities in their own right. For example, if one looks at the 2019 university league tables, one sees that the London School of Economics is third, University College London, of which my late father was a graduate, getting first-class honours in Latin, is 10th—

[Bob Stewart]

Better than you then.

[Sir Christopher Chope]

Far better than me. King’s College London is 26th, Royal Holloway is 28th, Queen Mary is 38th, the School of Oriental and African Studies is 46th, St George’s is 52nd, Goldsmiths is 62nd and City, which has recently joined the University of London, is 66th. The college to which my hon. Friend referred, Birkbeck, is 125th. We are told that other colleges, beyond the ones I have mentioned, are aspiring to become universities in their own right. They may include the Royal Central School of Speech and Drama, which this league table puts top of the arts and drama institutions. The question I would like to ask is this: what is going to happen to the other colleges within the federation of the University of London? They are probably not going to be in a position to become universities in their own right, and may not even aspire to do so. What is going to be done to protect their position? Obviously, they operate on the basis that they are part of the University of London, with all the prestige that that brings to their activities. A number of the 24 Russell Group universities are in fact colleges of the University of London—King’s College, LSE, Queen Mary and University College. A lot of these colleges are already seen as universities in their own right, so is it really going to make an enormous difference when this Bill is enacted? I am not so sure about that.

I was disappointed that the Minister did not address one of the hot topics of the moment, which is grade inflation. To what extent are these 12 new universities, instantly created as a result of this legislation, going to engage in grade inflation? A report was produced by Reform, and Tom Richmond, the senior research fellow who was its author, has said:

“Rocketing degree grade inflation is in no one’s interest.”

It continued:

“Universities may think easier degrees are a way to attract students but eventually they will lose currency and students will go elsewhere, even overseas.”

It went on to say:

“Restoring the currency of degrees would also mean better value for money for the £18 billion that universities receive each year in tuition fees.”

That report recommended that universities are stripped of their powers to award degrees and that final-year students should instead sit new national assessments for each degree course. The Bill will do quite the reverse by increasing the number of organisations that will be able to award degrees, with the perverse incentive that they will want to be able to make their degrees easier and engage in the grade inflation about which so many people are concerned. I am interested to hear the Minister’s response to that point.

Parental Bereavement (Leave and Pay) Bill

Bob Stewart Excerpts

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

[Scott Mann (North Cornwall) (Con)]

It is not often that we get to our feet in this place to ask the question: why was this not done before? It is abundantly clear to me that we are doing the right thing today. It is a pleasure to follow the shadow Minister, and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake) on introducing this important Bill and getting it to this stage. I also congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester (Will Quince), who originally introduced this Bill in the last Parliament. He has been a big voice in this place for bereaved parents.

Losing a child is the most traumatic thing that can happen to a parent, and it is right that we introduce safeguards for bereaved parents going through such a painful and unimaginable experience. Parental bereavement has been brought into sharp focus since the start of the 2015 Parliament, notably by my hon. Friends the Members for Colchester and for Eddisbury (Antoinette Sandbach), who have both shared their experiences in a number of debates. I remember when my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester led an Adjournment debate on maternity units and bereavement care in November 2015. The accounts that he and my hon. Friend the Member for Eddisbury gave then significantly raised the profile of parental bereavement.

Since then, my hon. Friends and many others have taken part in debates and continued to campaign in support of bereaved parents. I have no doubt that that campaign led to the Conservative manifesto commitment to ensure that all families who lose a child are entitled to bereavement leave and pay. There has clearly been a lack of support for bereaved parents. I have no doubt that the campaigning on the issue by Members from all parties—including, notably, my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton—has led to the introduction of this Bill.

Currently, if someone loses a child, they have to rely on holiday leave, or compassionate leave, at their employer’s discretion. Alternatively, they could take unpaid leave for a reasonable amount of time, as permitted under the Employment Rights Act 1996. This situation is clearly inappropriate. A bereaved parent should not have to use holiday pay or take unpaid leave at such a traumatic time in their life.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

It strikes me that we should also pay great tribute to the employers who give people as much time as they possibly can, fully paid. That happens so often these days, so only a small percentage of people will require the statutory two weeks’ leave.

[Scott Mann]

My hon. Friend is exactly right: we are dealing with only a small proportion of employers. Many great employers throughout the country would make such provision for their staff.

ACAS has advised that employers should have a duty of care, taking account of instances of bereavement, but it is right that we back that up with statute and give everyone a legal right to bereavement leave. That is why I wholeheartedly support the Bill. I am very pleased that the Government have introduced it and that it has cross-party support. It is a pleasure to be here to see the Bill make progress.

Statutory bereavement leave is a reasonably common right throughout Europe and among many other countries. I welcome the fact that the Bill goes significantly further than the rights that other countries provide for employees. It is right that the UK leads the way on this matter. I particularly welcome the provision of two weeks’ minimum bereavement leave, which will give parents sufficient time away from work to grieve with their family. It will also make easier the unenviable task of planning a funeral. It is a minimum period, and it is hoped that many employers throughout this great country will be able to afford to give people more than two weeks to get their affairs in order.

I welcome the fact that an employee who has been employed for 26 weeks will have a statutory right to bereavement pay, as well as bereavement leave. I also welcome the fact that employees who take parental bereavement leave will have the same employment protections that apply for other types of family-related leave, such as maternity and paternity leave. They will be protected from dismissal and detriment as a result of taking bereavement leave, which would be wrong.

One question before us today has been about the definition of a parent, which my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay (Kevin Foster) talked about, and how it should be covered by the legislation. It is right that the Government will take some time to consider that question and consult on it.

I welcome the amendment that was made in Committee to ensure that the definition of a child includes stillborn babies after 24 weeks’ pregnancy. Stillborn births are extremely traumatic for an expectant couple, and it is right that they should be afforded the same bereavement leave as those who lose a child in other circumstances.

It is important that parental bereavement leave works for employers as well as for employees. I am glad that the Government are currently consulting on the definition of a bereaved parent, on how and when they can take the leave and on notice and evidence requirements. I hope that some of my constituents who have either experienced the loss of a child or who own a business take part in this consultation to shape the bereavement leave policy.

I welcome and support this Bill today. I once again congratulate both my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton on getting the Bill to this stage and other Members who have campaigned on this issue. Bereavement leave should be in place for all families who lose a child, and I will support the Bill on Third Reading today.

Nuclear Safeguards Bill

Bob Stewart Excerpts

Ping Pong: House of Commons
Tuesday 8th May 2018 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Kerr]

I do not intend to detain the House with a long speech, but I want to commend the Minister on the way in which he has guided the Bill to this point and to assure him of my support for the amendment that he has tabled. He has been, and is being, attentive and responsive to the concerns he has heard; he has listened and responded, and I believe that that is what makes for good legislation. I also wish to add to his compliments to the hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Dr Whitehead), whose positive contribution to the progress of this Bill has been greatly appreciated by us all.

To be clear, we need this Bill. Leaving the European Union creates the necessary, even if unwanted, step of leaving Euratom. The Government’s stated preference is for Euratom to continue to provide safeguarding functions in the UK. That is a laudable example of the pragmatic approach that the Government, and in particular the Prime Minister, are taking to issues surrounding our departure from the European Union. I like to think that my conservatism is based not on ideology but on pragmatism, and it is pragmatism that is going to see us through the process by which we leave the European Union. This Bill is a vital contingency plan, because if it transpires that we cannot agree with Euratom to continue with the civil nuclear safeguarding, we will need to have the regulatory framework, the infrastructure and the capabilities in place to maintain our international obligations and responsibilities as an independent and responsible nuclear state.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

I was under the impression that we cannot remain in Euratom unless we are a member of the EU—we may want to, but we cannot, according to the rules.

GKN

Bob Stewart Excerpts

Tuesday 24th April 2018 Commons Chamber

[Greg Clark]

On the hon. Gentleman’s first point, I have said to many colleagues in the House that when it comes to shareholdings, every purchaser in the latter stages has bought from a longer-term shareholder, who has in effect expressed a judgment on the company. This Government, previous Governments and this House have looked carefully at the rights of different classes of owners and have concluded that the hon. Gentleman’s suggestion would not be the right reform. However, he knows me well and I will of course consider the assessment of the conduct of this bid, but it would be wrong to mislead him by saying that I have formed a different view. I will take an objective view of the conduct of the bid, as will others in the House. The grounds for intervention are specified in the Enterprise Act 2002, which reflects the requirements across the European Union that every member state must apply.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

The old management was British, the new management is British, and the Secretary of State appears to have secured guarantees from the new management that it will do certain things that the old management had not guaranteed. Does that not imply that those who are working for the new GKN should sleep slightly more soundly in their beds?

[Greg Clark]

My hon. Friend puts it well and succinctly. Any takeover bid will obviously involve some anxiety for employees with long service, but whether or not the bid had succeeded, this was always going to be a period of change for GKN employees. As a result of the commitments that have been given, they can have more certainty about a confident future than would otherwise have been the case.

Unpaid Trial Work Periods (Prohibition) Bill

Bob Stewart Excerpts

2nd reading: House of Commons
Friday 16th March 2018 Commons Chamber

[Stewart Malcolm McDonald]

The hon. Gentleman knows, as do Conservative Members, that I wish to be a constructive voice in this Parliament while I am here. I think this is a good Bill. Some people may see it as not a perfect one, which is why it should go to Committee, so that we can make good law. If we are not here as legislators to make good law, what on earth is the point of this Parliament? Although my political career rests on that question, while I am here I would like to make some use of the time and so I agree with what he has to say. With support from Members from across the Benches and with great support enjoyed among the public, we should give the Bill a Second Reading.

I wish to adumbrate for Members why I believe, as do so many others, that the law needs to be changed. As I understand it, the Government’s view is that unpaid trial shifts are already unlawful and that such practices are covered by the National Minimum Wage Act 1998. It is 20 years old this year and undoubtedly a fine piece of legislation, but it is insufficient when it comes to dealing with unpaid trial shifts, although I do not think it was meant to be. We have the opportunity to put it right.

In 20 years of the 1998 Act, there has not been a single tribunal or a single fine issued. There has not been a single prosecution, naming and shaming or ticking off of anyone for the use of an unpaid trial shift. That feeds into the fact that the Government, the courts and the trade unions do not hold any statistics on unpaid trial shifts. Nevertheless, we all know that they happen.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

I think I support the Bill, but will the hon. Gentleman clarify that it will apply only to an unpaid trial for a job, and not to an unpaid sixth-former helping in a Member’s office for a while?

[Stewart Malcolm McDonald]

Every sixth-former should have the chance to do work experience in the hon. Gentleman’s office and I would not dream of seeking to rob any of them of the ability to do that. On a serious note, the Bill is not about work experience, which is a good thing. It does not concern itself with volunteering, which is also a good thing. The Bill does not concern itself with internships, because that would require specific legislation, but I shall return to them, because the Minister announced a Government initiative on them earlier in the year.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Philp]

Yes, I agree with that principle. As my hon. Friend pointed out in his earlier intervention, the idea that people should be fairly paid for a fair day’s work, or even for a fair few hours’ work, is an important Conservative principle, and I think it is an important fundamental right as well, so I agree entirely with that premise.

I want to put on the record once again my very strong support for the concept of the minimum wage—the national living wage—and the fact that it has been increased by such a large amount. While talking about wages for those on low earnings, I would point out in passing that the increase in the tax-free allowance in the past few years—from £6,500 to £11,500—means that take-home wages for people on the minimum wage, the topic of the Bill, have actually gone up by 37%, because not only has the minimum wage gone up by 32%, but they are also paying proportionately less tax. It is important to bear it in mind that low tax, as well as a decent wage itself, has a role to play in making sure people are properly paid.

We have talked quite a bit already about enforcement. Clearly, a national minimum wage, or national living wage, is only as effective as its enforcement, as the hon. Member for Glasgow South touched on. In the last financial year, 2016-17, HMRC, the body responsible for enforcing the national minimum wage, took action against 1,134 individual businesses—quite a good track record of taking action to enforce the minimum wage; clawed back £10.9 million—a fairly substantial sum; and took action that encompassed 98,000 workers who had been illegally underpaid. That suggests that HMRC is taking its enforcement role very seriously and enjoying some success in making sure that the national living wage and minimum wage are adhered to.

[Bob Stewart]

Just to clarify, HMRC did not keep the money but presumably gave it to those who had lost it. Is that right?

[Chris Philp]

When someone has been illegally underpaid, I believe that they receive retrospective compensation. As to where the funds go, I rather suspect they end up with Her Majesty’s Treasury, but certainly the unfair loss suffered by people who have been underpaid is made good.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Whitehead]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. He seems to have personally experienced all the various aspects of this problem: they came together on one occasion, in one place and happened to one person.

Many people have talked about their own experiences. One example comes, in fact, from Scotland. K from Kilmarnock says:

“My son was asked to do a trial shift in our local restaurant. The manager who was on shift did not even speak to him when he was in! He was left in the bar with no direction and when he tried to help the others he was told to get back behind the bar! He wasn’t paid a penny for his time. The same restaurant had already done the same thing to a friend of mine’s son except it was for a kitchen porter and he did 4 hours, no pay and again at end of his shift he just left waited over a week with no job offered.”

The use of unpaid trial shifts is a real problem under the current legislation. The concept of “shadowing” has been used by employers to justify bringing in unpaid workers to cover staff shortages, sickness, or particularly busy periods and events. There is a need to clarify the legal position for employees and employers with legislation, and the Bill seeks to do that by closing current legislative loopholes to ensure that workers are paid for every hour they work and every shift they do.

[Bob Stewart]

I think that what the hon. Member for Glasgow South (Stewart Malcolm McDonald) has put together is excellent, and I congratulate him. I also congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South (Chris Philp). “Souths” seem to be in the air today!

Can it be made absolutely clear that the Bill will not apply to someone who goes along to have a taster for a day, does not necessarily work a shift, but just gets an experience of what the work is like? That is not what the Bill is about, is it?

[Dr Whitehead]

My clear understanding, which I think will be borne out by the hon. Member for Glasgow South, is that that is not what the Bill is about. It is not about work experience, or any of the other factors that the hon. Gentleman has mentioned.

Budget Resolutions

Bob Stewart Excerpts

1st reading: House of Commons
Tuesday 28th November 2017 Commons Chamber

[Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)]

Nearly 36% of my constituents work in the financial and professional services sector, and most of them commute to London. This was a good and sensible Budget for them, because it was a good and sensible Budget for economic confidence in the City and financial services, in which Britain is a world leader. It is critical that we maintain that position, and that we do so during the process of leaving the European Union. Investing in and supporting financial services, like investing in and supporting London, is actually an investment for the whole country.

It is worth bearing in mind data released in a report published by the City of London corporation, according to which the total tax contribution from the financial services sector reached £72.1 billion in the year to 31 March 2017, which amounts to 11% of all Government tax revenues. The bulk comes from employment taxes and corporation tax, and also a bank levy—the banks are now paying a significant sum to support our public services. Maintaining London’s position in that regard will be critical as we leave the European Union. For banks, some 35% of the total tax take comes from employment taxes, but the proportion depends on where they are based. If we shed jobs as we leave the EU, the tax base will be diminished.

I do not believe that that is necessary. I believe that the Chancellor and the Prime Minister want a good deal that will protect our financial services sector, and I support them very much in that. What would damage the financial services sector would be a poor deal—I do not believe that that outcome is necessary or desirable, and I am sure that we can avoid it—and an anti-business, left-wing Labour Government who would scare away those jobs and that tax revenue and undermine that great driver of income for our public services. It is self-defeating for those who believe in public services to damage our tax revenue. It is worth bearing in mind that the amount of tax paid by that sector in one year comes to half the value of the NHS. I suggest to Labour Members that they should not put that at risk.

It is also worth bearing in mind that, because of our access to the European markets, the sector processes transactions worth £880 billion every day. That is 100 times our net annual contributions to the EU—

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

The financial sector is crucial to our constituencies, and I very much applaud what my hon. Friend says.

[Robert Neill]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend.

That sum is also 15 times the highest amount that has been spoken of as a potential financial settlement. It therefore makes sense in terms of Brexit to support the financial sector and get a good deal, and it also makes sense in terms of the Budget to make sure that we have a favourable tax and regulatory regime in the UK that is attractive to financial services.

Student Loans Company

Bob Stewart Excerpts

Monday 20th November 2017 Commons Chamber

[Joseph Johnson]

I would of course be happy to do that, but I remind the right hon. Gentleman that the SLC is in many ways a successful organisation, so we should not denigrate it. Opposition Members are doing a massive disservice to public servants who are working hard in Darlington and in Glasgow to ensure that students are getting access to the finance they need to undertake higher education. It is an achievement for an organisation to have 4.7 million customers but to receive complaints from less than 0.1% of them each year, so we should not endlessly run the SLC down. Of course it has room to improve, and the Government are committed to helping it do so.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

What does my hon. Friend consider to be the most significant change brought about by the Higher Education and Research Act 2017?

[Mr Speaker]

Order. That question is not altogether adjacent to the matter of the management and operation of the Student Loans Company. If I am being very polite to the hon. Gentleman, which I invariably am, I will say that his inquiry is at best tangential. It has at best a nodding acquaintance with the SLC, but no better than that. However, the Minister is a versatile and dextrous fellow, and I feel sure that he will be able to handle the matter eloquently and pithily.

Parental Bereavement (Leave and Pay) Bill

Bob Stewart Excerpts

2nd reading: House of Commons
Friday 20th October 2017 Commons Chamber

[Kevin Hollinrake]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Of course, most employers do the right thing, working with the people affected so that they get whatever support and time off they need, and maintaining their levels of pay through that period of time.

During our consultations on the Bill, our excellent parliamentary digital engagement team facilitated a Facebook debate, in which I took part. Some charities and the campaign organisation, 38 Degrees, also provided us with a number of examples of employers and line managers who offered inappropriate levels of support. For instance, a parent told us that their employer— an NHS body—offered them only five days’ leave following the sudden passing of their youngest daughter, with any additional time having to be taken as annual leave. Brendan from Newcastle told us that he did not get any paid leave and was sacked nine months later. Gillian from Milton Keynes did not receive the appropriate support when she lost her daughter 13 years ago. She told us that the measures proposed in the Bill would have meant that she and her partner could have grieved together, and provided help and support for their other children.

No employee should even have to think about being at work when they desperately need some time away to grieve for a lost child. Yet according to a Rainbow Trust survey, around 9% of parents said that their employer was not at all supportive. I ask those employers to consider their position. What is the point of having a parent in the workplace who has had no time off to grieve? What effect do those employers think it has on the bereaved parents’ attitude to their workplace and, indeed, on other people in the workplace? I strongly recommend that all employers and managers read the excellent ACAS guidelines on bereavement, which clearly detail best practice for financial and emotional support.

I will now set out the detail of the Bill. The Bill will provide two weeks’ leave for all employees who lose a child below the age of 18. This will be a day-one right. Those key points are established on the face of the Bill, which deliberately leaves some other details to regulations. This leave will be protected and a person should suffer no form of detriment in the event that they find themselves having to take the leave. Crucially, the Bill will give parents an important choice, allowing them to make a decision on what is best for their needs, when they might otherwise be reliant on the good will of their employer.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

I am very, very happy to say that it has never happened to me, and I grieve for all those to whom it has happened. I have heard of other cases where young men and women have been killed, and sometimes the parents do not want to stop working. They do not have to stop working if they feel that continuing may be better in helping them to get over the loss.