Oral Answers to Questions

David Linden Excerpts

Tuesday 30th April 2019 Commons Chamber

[Kelly Tolhurst]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for allowing me to highlight some of the details of the youth entrepreneurship review. It has started and the board will be announced shortly. It will be looking at 18 to 30-year-olds, and we are hoping that it will report in the autumn. He is absolutely correct: the Prince’s Trust does amazing work with young people from all types of background. In fact, there is already a programme with the Prince’s Trust and Innovate UK that provides mentoring to young people and makes available loans of up to £5,000.

[David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)]

The Scottish Government’s 2018-19 Budget means that 90% of firms in Scotland pay lower rates than they would if they were based elsewhere in the UK. Given that 55% of individuals will pay less tax than they would in the rest of the UK, what lessons do the Government plan to take in terms of supporting Scotland’s young entrepreneurs and those elsewhere in the UK?

[Kelly Tolhurst]

The hon. Gentleman highlights specific differences within Scotland, but we are interested in making sure that young people are able to follow their dreams and aspirations whichever part of the country they happen to be in. We are announcing the young entrepreneurs review so that we can look at all the different barriers, including access to finance—something that the Government and I, as the small business Minister, take very seriously—and make sure that we create the right environment for our small businesses to start up, thrive and grow.

Exiting the European Union (Consumer Protection)

David Linden Excerpts

Tuesday 2nd April 2019 Commons Chamber

[Kevin Foster]

I am conscious that I could probably expand this debate widely into legal services and the impact potentially from the recognition of judgments between different jurisdictions. A lot of people forget that the EU is not a sovereign state—I do not want it to be and nor does my hon. Friend. It is a creature of treaty, and its actions and rules are therefore effective only through the structures of member states—that is, recognition of court judgments that enforce EU law between different jurisdictions. He is right that if we go out under a no-deal scenario, from Brexit day plus one, that level of co-operation and recognition is unlikely. That is why this SI is needed. Bizarrely, the enforcement of these EU regulations could be pursued in courts across the EU, or even in our own courts, and meanwhile, a judgment looking to enforce to the benefit of a British company would not be recognised at all. It would basically be a bit of paper someone would get.

We keep coming back to the fact that if people do not want this type of outcome, they have two choices. There is the Scottish National party’s choice, which is to revoke article 50—[Interruption.] We can hear the cheers coming from SNP Members. Or we can put through the withdrawal agreement. That is where we are. We can talk about whether we should be in a particular type of customs arrangement, what we would like on security and defence, and whatever. At the end of the day, the withdrawal agreement is the gateway to every relationship with the EU, other than revocation or no deal.

[David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)]

rose—

[Kevin Foster]

I will happily give way to my friend, the hon. Gentleman.

[David Linden]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. Are we not facing a Hobson’s choice? The hon. Gentleman says that we need to support the deal that is before us, but one of the things that I am struck by sitting in this debate is that we were meant to leave the European Union on Friday, yet we are dealing with a statutory instrument on the subsequent Tuesday. Is not the issue that the Government have forced us into this position because the Prime Minister, through her intransigence, set her red lines—like these red lines on the floor that have kept us on this side in this House—and said, “We do not want to listen”? That is why three or four days after we were meant to leave the EU, we now find ourselves being rammed into this position by Her Majesty’s Government.

[Kevin Foster]

Let us be candid: we are here because there are those in this House who do not want Brexit to go ahead, who voted against the withdrawal agreement—to be fair, that is a principled position from the SNP. This is combined with those who see it as a chance to score some political points, and there are some Government Members who think—perhaps wrongly—that there might be a different type of Brexit if they resist the withdrawal agreement. I am afraid that they might find themselves with an outcome that is more pleasing to the hon. Gentleman than it is to them, if their position continues.

Let us be clear: the Scottish National party and the Government in Scotland suggested after the referendum that basically, as long as we only left the fisheries policy, they would be happy with Brexit. In terms of staying in the single market and the customs union, it would be debatable whether we would even come out of the common fisheries policy—

[David Linden]

rose—

[Kevin Foster]

I will give way again in a moment. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman wants to offer a point of clarification.

That outcome would not really be about delivering any real benefits from the referendum. To be fair, I note that the SNP’s position is firmly that it wants to stay in the EU. That is a respectable point. I accept that we do not need the withdrawal agreement for that, but the nonsense comes when people say, “I want one of the outcomes where I have to have the withdrawal agreement, but I am now going to vote against the withdrawal agreement.”

[David Linden]

I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way; he is one of my genuine friends in this place. He is right that in 2016, the Scottish Government said, “We campaigned for remain. We did not want to leave the European Union,” but we realised very early on that because of the democratic deficit that exists in this House, we had to compromise. That is why “Scotland’s Place in Europe” looked at membership of the single market and the customs union. We compromised in 2016 when it was very, very unpopular to do so. There has been a process of evolution: we have gone from that compromise to what I accept is a very hard-nosed reality, where the only thing that we can do to protect our economy is to revoke article 50. Does he not agree, however, that it might just have helped things in 2016 if that spirit of compromise had evolved a bit sooner in this place and that we might not have found ourselves, three or four days after the scheduled exit, debating a statutory instrument that could have profound consequences, depending on what happens over the next few days?

[Kevin Foster]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comments. We can all look back over the past three years and suggest that there were things that we might have done differently or changed.

“If? What? Could?” is great fun to play—hindsight has 20/20 vision—but the other 27 member states have their own red lines. The idea that if I or the hon. Gentleman had walked in as the UK Prime Minister, everyone would have said, “Ah, it’s you! What can we do for you? Let’s offer you a great deal” is for the birds. The other member states would still have had their own red lines.

As I said, the only things for which a negotiated deal is not necessary are a complete no deal and revoking and remaining—the latter for obvious reasons—but if we want a negotiated deal, we need the prism of a withdrawal agreement. There is a strong argument for saying that even if we did go down the no-deal route, we would find at some stage that if we wanted a free trade agreement, the first three items on the EU’s agenda would be: clarifying citizens’ rights, which is not particularly controversial across the House; a financial settlement—that might be where a debate comes in; and arrangements to keep the land border in Northern Ireland open. Whether under a withdrawal agreement now or a free trade agreement in the future, those three issues will almost certainly be the basis of any agreement, no matter which of the panoply of Brexit ideas we have been treated to over the last year or two the House, and ultimately the country, decides upon. Once the divorce process is complete, the second phase of negotiations and decision making in the House remain.

Great though it would be to settle Brexit this afternoon, it is time that I return to the substance of the SI: the geo-blocking regulation. [Interruption.] I hear shouts of joy from the shadow Front Bench. Geo-blocking sounds like something to do with a map—a rambler might find their geo-signal being blocked—but it is actually one part of making sure we have a single market online as we do for physical goods. Those of us who grew up in the late 1980s—I am not sure if my hon. Friend the Member for Solihull (Julian Knight) is old enough, and I am certain the Minister is not—will remember the debate about how much a particular CD or tape cost in the UK, the United States, Canada, Germany and other countries. Nine times out of 10 a CD produced in the same factory, with the same copyright and by the same company would be more expensive in certain countries—that excludes differing VAT rates, of course, because that could change the price in the shop; I am talking about the base cost excluding taxes.

The regulation tried to prevent different prices in different markets arising from differing charging and supply. Those of us who studied European law will know that the Commission tried to eliminate this grey market idea of trying to restrict or increase prices in particular markets across the EU single market—a single market that we will remain a part of during the implementation period, if the withdrawal agreement goes through. The regulation was about making sure the consumers had the full opportunities. Such regulations make a difference. It is eminently sensible that we revoke the regulation—I agree with the Minister’s reasoning, and, as I have said, it would be bizarre if British businesses were under an obligation that EU businesses were not but which EU businesses could enforce against us under our law—but having in place some other appropriate measure would make a difference.

I hope therefore that we could consider that in future trade agreements—and not just with the EU. I have just given the example of the US. With increasing online commerce and trading, we should look to open up to other jurisdictions that use the English language and have similar commercial standards, consumer protections and quality standards. Under future trade agreements, we should look to ensure that businesses large and small that are buying stuff in across our borders can benefit from free trade arrangements.

--- Later in debate ---

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

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Torbay (Kevin Foster). I actually agree with a large percentage of his very detailed contribution, particularly in relation to some of the protections that are going to be lost. Before I get started on the substance of my speech, may I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests and my shareholding in the digital marketing company, Teclan?

I am amazed at how blasé those on the Government and Labour Front Benches have been about this statutory instrument. It is one of the instruments that will directly affect consumers and business owners across the nations of the UK almost immediately. Geo-blocking legislation is there for a purpose: to ensure that there is fairness for companies. Instituting this SI without any other provisions causes unfairness anyway: having it in place is unfair, and removing it is unfair too. It is one of those consequences of Brexit that highlights the foolishness of this whole process. There is a way to avoid the SI and a hard Brexit. We need to understand that Westminster has failed to make any kind of decision, that we should revoke article 50 and that we should get to the point where we can bring the choice to the people, with the option to remain.

Returning to the substance of the measure, the EU have introduced geo-blocking—we were in partnership on the legislation—to balance the growth of online platforms, with a need to protect small and medium enterprises and consumers. It focuses on transparency and new options for redress. In short, it treats EU citizens—currently us—and other end users in the same manner. It does not take account of nationality, place of residence or the place of establishment. The European Union’s “Notice to stakeholders: withdrawal of the United Kingdom and EU legislation in the field of geo-blocking” says that from the date of application the regulation

“prohibits discrimination based on customers’ nationality, place of residence or place of establishment, including unjustified geo-blocking, in certain cross-border transactions between a trader and a customer in relation to the sales of goods and the provision of services within the EU. In particular, it provides for the following measures protecting customers: ban of discriminatory blocking or limiting customers' access to traders’ online interfaces (e.g. a website) and redirecting them to another online interface without the customer’s prior consent”.

That is the simple right for someone to get what they are looking for. The regulation imposes a prohibition on

traders to apply, in certain defined situations, on a discriminatory basis different conditions of access for customers to goods and services…informally known as ‘shop like a local’”

across the EU. The regulation provides for

“non-discrimination for reasons related to payment. As of the withdrawal date, natural persons residing in the United Kingdom (unless they have a nationality of a Member State) or undertakings established in the United Kingdom will not be able to benefit from Regulation (EU) 2018/302”.

There are no undertakings established by the UK Government, so there is a direct inequity.

The notice says that

“such persons or undertakings who wish to access websites in the EU will not benefit from the aforementioned ban related to access to traders’ online interfaces. This means that a trader could block, limit or redirect those customers to specific versions of his/her website which might be different from the one that the customers initially sought to access.”

Again, that is a clear removal of a right that we currently enjoy. The notice says that

“such persons or undertakings will not have the guarantee to be able to ‘shop like a local’ in the EU in the situations covered by Article 4 of the Regulation, including benefitting from the same prices and conditions relating to the delivery of goods and services as the locals (i.e. the customers of the trader's home Member State). For example, the off-line and on-line sales of goods and services, such as goods delivered or picked up in the EU territory, tickets for sports events or amusement parks in Member States, and the sale of electronically supplied services, such as hosting services, are areas where those customers will be affected…such persons or undertakings using payment means from the United Kingdom will not be protected against traders applying different conditions for a payment transaction from the ones offered to EU customers, or refused to complete the purchase for reasons related to payment, when (wanting to) pay electronically for goods or services.”

The notice goes on to list the rights that we will lose as a result of not being able to participate in the legislation on geo-blocking.

[David Linden]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend and Romanian knight for giving way. He has outlined some of the dangers involved in pursuing this Brexit nonsense. Does he agree that none of this was written on the side of a bus, whether in Inverness or anywhere else in the United Kingdom? The only thing we can do now is revoke article 50 and stop this madness.

[Drew Hendry]

My hon. Friend is right that that is the only way out of the hole being dug by the infighting in the Tory party, which is trying to settle a dispute that has lasted decades. This ham-fisted approach has left us in this guddle of Brexit and has put people in their homes at risk of losing out, of paying more and of being ripped off because we are losing these protections.

The regulations, as they stand, ban the blocking of access to websites and ban rerouting without a user’s consent, and they end payment discrimination through the revised payment services directive. People across the nations of the UK use online marketplaces such as eBay and Amazon on a daily basis. I would be surprised if there is a Member in this Chamber who has not received a parcel from one of those companies, and certainly all our constituents, bar a very few, will have received something from these online marketplaces. Both third party traders and the marketplace itself are subject to these regulations. That means loopholes will now open that allow people to exploit consumers across the nations of the UK. These regulations are about treating customers in the same way across the EU, and the regulations are enforced so that people are not affected in that way.

The Minister said in her opening remarks that the regulations cannot be replicated. She said very directly that the regulations are impossible to replicate or replace, but is not the truth of the matter that there is no interest in doing so? The Government are hellbent on trying to persuade their own Members and the rest of the House to support a deal that nobody wants to support, and they are avoiding responsibility for doing anything that would protect the people who will be affected by this nonsensical situation.

That abdication is leaving loopholes all over the place. Citizens are losing their rights and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow East (David Linden) said, any promises to make that up are about as good as a Brexit handout or what is written on the side of a bus. There is nothing here that will give comfort to any of our consumers or small and medium-sized enterprises—the ones who are most likely to be directly affected by the removal of this legislation.

Based on these regulations, from 2019 the Commission will publish certain tariffs for parcel delivery services on a website so that consumers and e-retailers can easily compare domestic and cross-border tariffs between member states and between providers. The website will highlight the highest tariffs to encourage consumers and small e-retailers to look for a better deal, and national regulatory authorities will be required to assess certain tariffs that seem unreasonably high. Regulatory oversight of the growing number of parcel delivery service providers will also be increased.

I mention that because Scotland already suffers from geo-blocking under this Westminster system. I have lost count of the number of times I and other Members with rural communities have brought up the postcode discrimination in both online and distance-selling deliveries to Scotland. Some £33 million a year of unfair surcharges are paid in Scotland for deliveries. Citizens Advice Scotland says this particularly affects consumers in Scotland, with 1 million Scottish residents paying, on average, an extra £19 for deliveries. Some 72% of the extra charges for deliveries directly affect Scotland. This is a long-standing discrimination, and the removal of these regulations, which protect people, can only make matters worse, particularly for people living in rural communities.

When I say “rural communities,” believe it or not, I am talking about cities in Scotland. I am talking about areas of high population density because, as I say, we suffer postcode discrimination. For example, a constituent of mine was asked to pay an extra £90 to have a mobile phone delivered to Nairn. These protections are not being delivered by the UK Government now, so what hope do we have with this regulation disappearing? I have another good example of where the EU has been able to protect internally. A crash helmet can be delivered from London to Inverness for a £29 charge. The same item could be delivered from London to Croatia or Estonia for £9.99.

I fear that others across the nations of the UK will begin to experience some of the discrimination that we in Scotland have seen over a number of years, and not just in the highlands and islands but in the borders and across large parts of mainland Scotland, because they too will now be subject to these inequities, as other Members have admitted today in their contributions. It is a reprehensible situation.

This statutory instrument brings forward no replacement protections. It does not even address the issue. It is predicated solely on getting through the Prime Minister’s dodgy, duff, dead-duck deal. That is the sole reason for bringing this through without any attention to detail. More rights are being sacrificed on the altar of Brexit. This Government must now put this and the postcode injustices right, especially for Scotland but also to protect others across the nations of the UK who will now be affected. They should do the sensible thing and agree that it is a disaster, as the removal of this regulation shows that there is no good no-deal Brexit; it is just a calamity that should be ruled out. They should then revoke article 50 until we get an opportunity to take this back to the public and give them the choice of whether to remain in the EU, with all the protections they currently enjoy, before those are sacrificed for this wonky ambition of the infighting in the Tory party.

Of course, there is one absolutely guaranteed way for the people of Scotland to enjoy these vital European protections so that we will no longer suffer from geo-blocking, and that is for Scotland to take its place as a fully independent country in the European Union.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kelly Tolhurst]

I was going to come on to that, but I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising it. He and many of his colleagues—as well as many of my hon. Friends—have raised the issue of Scotland’s surcharges for parcel delivery. He will know that I have been working with the Consumer Protection Partnership to see how we can ensure fairness across the British Isles, but I must remind the House that we are talking about individual parcel organisations—as opposed to the Royal Mail—using these surcharges. However, it is true that many organisations are unable to use Royal Mail to distribute their products throughout the country. I remain committed to working with colleagues across the House to resolve this issue and to enable fairness for consumers right across the UK. He is right to raise it and I do take his point.

I just want to return to the point that I was making about consumers. If we want to make sure that we are able to enter into good agreements in terms of cross-border participation and consumer protection and to work with the European Union, my view is—and I will be clear about this—that we should vote for the withdrawal agreement. [Interruption.] Hon. Members reject a no-deal Brexit, but they are not prepared to support something that is on the table that would enable us immediately to have those conversations—

[David Linden]

rose—

[Kelly Tolhurst]

I will give way to the hon. Gentleman.

[David Linden]

When might we have the opportunity to vote for the withdrawal agreement again?

[Kelly Tolhurst]

Well, I hope that the hon. Gentleman is asking me that question because he wants to support me and my colleagues on the Government Benches. It is quite right that any responsible Government would prepare for a no deal, and that is exactly what we are doing. I must remind colleagues that this regulation came into force in December last year, and, where we have had to enforce it, there have not, as yet, been any complaints.

Young Carers Support

David Linden Excerpts

Tuesday 12th February 2019 Westminster Hall

[Paul Blomfield]

The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right, and that is a point that I will return to.

The lives of young carers are divided between home and school, so schools can make a huge difference. In their recommendations to the Prime Minister last May, our young carers made two main points. The first was that schools should be required to have a young carers lead. There is nothing special about that—it is there for children with special educational needs and disabilities, and for looked after children, so we would just be following the same approach. The second recommendation was that Ofsted should inspect schools on what they are doing to support young carers and whether they have a young carers lead in the school. In a press release after the meeting, No. 10 said:

“The Prime Minister recently met with a group of young carers who highlighted issues with identification and support in schools and NHS settings and the Government will be undertaking a review to identify opportunities for improvement in these spaces.”

Will the Minister say, eight months on, what progress his Department has made with the review?

[David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)]

The hon. Gentleman is making a powerful speech. Will he join me in commending Megan McGarrigle from Glasgow North East Carers Centre, who has being doing a lot of work, going into schools in the east end of Glasgow and talking to young people? That work has identified young people who probably do not even realise that they are carers. The hon. Gentleman is right to touch on the collaboration between local authorities, because in my experience it has been a bit piecemeal.

[Paul Blomfield]

I certainly congratulate the group that the hon. Gentleman mentions for its work, and indeed groups across the country for their work, but that work is very patchy, and it is patchy in our schools, too.

Unpaid Work Trials

David Linden Excerpts

Tuesday 5th February 2019 Westminster Hall

[David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)]

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair and to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow South (Stewart Malcolm McDonald), not just on securing this debate but on the legislation he introduced under the private Member’s Bill process. It is an area of deep regret that that legislation has not been pursued. It highlights the absolute folly of the private Member’s Bill system in this place, but that is a debate for another day.

I rise to make similar points to those already made. We need action on this today. I think, “Okay, fine, great, guidelines,” but the reality is that we need this enshrined in law. In the time I have been in this House, I have already seen a number of areas of employment legislation and employment practice that do not do justice to our constituents, quite frankly. Some of it is about unpaid work trials, which I reckon will be even more of a thing after Brexit. The hospitality sector largely relies on EU nationals. When the drawbridge is brought up as a result of the Immigration Bill, the chances are that the hospitality sector is going to rely more on people in the local population working in those jobs. I would be very concerned if hotels and restaurants decided that they were going to deploy unpaid work trials.

[Patricia Gibson]

The UK Government have said that they are of the view that unpaid work trials are permissible in legitimate recruitment processes. Does he agree with me that the problem is that nobody is monitoring what is permissible and what is legitimate?

[David Linden]

My hon. Friend makes a powerful point; that is something the Minister should consider. When we say that this place just does not deliver for workers’ rights, we look at the absolute lack of any action on zero-hours contracts. We look at, for example, the age discrimination in the national living wage, which is not applicable to those under 25. Those are areas where the Government have been told time and time again that Parliament wants action, but they sit back and say, “Oh well, we’ll do guidelines, or we’ll do consultations.” I certainly welcome consultations, but at this stage we need to see legislation.

The hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Justin Madders) has made the point that, even though the National Minimum Wage Act 1998 is on the statute books, only 14 employers have been found in breach of the legislation since it came into force. I do not think that is helpful at all.

The point I would make, which people would expect to come from a Scottish Nationalist Member of Parliament, is that if Westminster is not willing to take action on better employment conditions, then surely it should look at devolving that legislation to the Scottish Parliament, where we have a track record of taking action. Take, for example, the business pledge, whereby companies make commitments to say that they are investing in youth, do not have zero-hours contracts and do not discriminate based on someone’s age. There is clearly action in Scotland that can and will be taken to provide better employment conditions for people.

I regret that a number of parties in this Parliament blocked the devolution of employment legislation. If hon. Members are going to stand up in this Chamber today and say that they want better employment rights for people, that is fine—I would like to see better employment rights for people across the UK—but I do not want to come to another debate and make this point again and be stonewalled by the Government. If the Government are not willing to do it, then the Scottish Government will.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone. I thank the hon. Member for Glasgow South (Stewart Malcolm McDonald) for securing this important debate and for his excellent opening speech. Like him, I highlight the fantastic campaigns by trade unions, particularly the “Better Than Zero” campaign.

As several Members have set out, unpaid work trials have become a widespread practice in the hospitality, entertainment and retail sectors, but it is important that we place that development in the wider context of the so-called gig economy, as my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North East (Mr Sweeney) did. Characterised by increasingly exploitative working practices and conditions and insecure work, the gig economy affects millions who are struggling to make ends meet, making it harder for someone to say no to unreasonable and exploitative conditions set by employers.

That is the reality for so many, but it is being ignored, and even—dare I say it—encouraged by a Tory Government that represent only the wealthiest few. Everything about the current crisis of work is a consequence of an environment that is designed to reduce the burden on the employer at the expense of millions of workers.

In addition, more than £3 billion is lost in wages every year through unpaid work, with the continuing practice of unpaid work trials a key contributing factor. After a long campaign by the TUC and trade unions, and after attempts by Members—notably the hon. Member for Glasgow South—to introduce legislation have been repeatedly ignored, the Government attempted last December to set out when unpaid trial periods are acceptable. It was about time. As we have heard, a growing number of workers, particularly younger workers and those with learning disabilities, have been asked to work for free in recent years. Research by Unite has shown that, over the past three years, there has been a six-fold increase in complaints about unpaid shifts.

It is not only the trade unions and those who represent workers who say that the current system is not working. The Federation of Small Businesses has expressed concerns that unpaid trial shifts are shading into exploitation. Far too many employers have made people who are seeking work do a full-day trial shift, and in some cases employers have even demanded a full week of free work. That is not limited to small businesses; it includes large companies, as highlighted by my hon. Friends the Members for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Justin Madders) and for Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill (Hugh Gaffney), and the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon).

The TUC makes it clear that testing skills and abilities should be part of a structured recruitment process. Having worked in industry for 20 years before I came to Parliament, I support structured recruitment processes, which are far better than the old boys’ networks they often replace. However, there is absolutely no justification for employers demanding a period of free work as the price of entry into a job. In my view, and in the view of the TUC and other campaigners on this issue, employers who require candidates to do any productive work should be made to pay them at least the minimum wage—which, by the way, will be at least £10 an hour under a Labour Government. Why does the Minister think that productive work should go unpaid? Why will she not commit to a £10-per-hour minimum wage?

[David Linden]

I realise that this is probably an unpopular point to mention in this place, because the practice is rife, but does the hon. Lady agree that we need to have a conversation about the use of unpaid internships in this building? Often, people will work for an MP for several weeks and there is a possibility that they might get taken on afterwards. It is not quite an unpaid work trial, but there is still a culture, in this building and in other Parliaments across the UK, of unpaid internships.

[Chi Onwurah]

That is an excellent point, and I would welcome a debate on unpaid internships in this building. I myself offer living-wage paid internships. It also happens in other areas, such as the media, where the BBC and others offer unpaid internships. It is a barrier to entry into certain professions and a form of exploitation.

It is clearly bad employment practice to ask for real work and not pay for it. It also means that employers avoid paying taxes and making a relevant contribution. That leaves the taxpayer and the entire country out of pocket. Will the Minister commit to ending such tax avoidance by preventing unpaid trial shifts?

As the hon. Member for Glasgow East (David Linden) emphasised, without strong enforcement the new guidance is not worth the paper it is written on, but the organisations tasked with enforcement have faced huge cuts since 2010. The employment agency standards inspectorate has lost half its budget. That is why a Labour Government will invest in enforcement through a new Minister of Labour. How will the Minister prevent companies from simply choosing to ignore what are, after all, just guidelines?

Employers who require candidates to do any productive work should be made to pay them the national minimum wage. Will the Minister commit to these basic requirements when it comes to trial periods, and if not, why not? Workers deserve more. Ending exploitative unpaid trial shifts is just one aspect of redressing the balance in favour of workers, and that is why we will set up a new Ministry of Labour. If the Minister cannot match that, she should at least commit to ending unpaid trial shifts.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kelly Tolhurst]

I will carry on, because I want to give the hon. Member for Glasgow South time to wind up at the end.

HMRC investigators consider work trials on a case-by-case basis. They explore the precise detail of the arrangements, including what the worker is being asked to do and for how long. Where they come to the view that the arrangements constitute work under national minimum wage regulations, they will require the employer to repay any arrears and will impose a fine. HMRC has taken enforcement action where workers were expected to complete an unpaid work trial.

The Government are actively taking steps to tackle non-compliance with the national minimum wage, and to respond robustly to employers who fail to pay their workers correctly. We have doubled our investment in enforcement since 2015-16 and we now spend more than £26 million every year to ensure that employers meet their legal responsibilities. Employers who are found to be underpaying their staff must repay arrears and pay a fine of up to 200% of the underpayment, and may be eligible to be publicly named by the Department.

The hon. Member for Glasgow East (David Linden) mentioned that there had been only 14 prosecutions. As I have already outlined, the figure is actually more than 1,000 businesses in one year. The stat is not 14 but 1,000 in one year.

[David Linden]

On the issue of enforcement, does the Minister believe that the team in HMRC is adequately resourced?

[Kelly Tolhurst]

From the feedback I get from business, and from some of the work that I know is going on, I would say absolutely yes. We are enforcing and doubling investment, and we are making sure that HMRC investigates the case of every worker who complains. As the Minister with responsibility for the national minimum wage, that is exactly what I would like to carry on seeing.

I want to answer some of the questions that have been put to me during the debate. I also want to reassure hon. Members that workers’ rights are a big priority for the Government and particularly for me. In the advent of the Taylor review and the good work plan, we have seen a step change in a generation in terms of workers’ rights. We have announced that we will ban tipping, which will come further down the line, and we have laid legislation to firm up workers’ rights.

I thank the hon. Member for Glasgow South for securing the debate. It is essential that workers are paid the minimum wage. The Government have listened to concerns relating to work trials and issued new guidance, which, combined with robust enforcement, will help to ensure that workers are not exploited through unpaid work trials.

Leaving the EU: State Aid, Public Ownership and Workers’ Rights

David Linden Excerpts

Tuesday 11th December 2018 Westminster Hall

[David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)]

It is, as always, a great pleasure to see you in the Chair for this afternoon’s proceedings, Mr Hollobone.

I warmly congratulate the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Laura Smith) on securing this debate. In some respects it is timely, because the actions of the Prime Minister yesterday have perhaps moved us a little closer to a no-deal scenario, which would be catastrophic for jobs and our communities, although my argument is that that is not a new phenomenon.

The British Government have left key Scottish industries without support for decades, and are now set to subject our firms to a Tory Brexit race to the bottom. Communities in Scotland, whether those of Linwood, Ravenscraig or Methel, know fine well that British Governments simply cannot be trusted to protect jobs and people’s livelihoods. I welcome the opportunity to shine a bright light on the stark contrast between the privatisation-obsessed British Government and a Scottish Government who believe in a thriving, healthy public sector. Westminster, not the EU, sold off our public services.

Thanks to the Scottish National party, Scottish Water, the island ferries and our NHS have all remained in public hands. In sharp contrast to the increasing health privatisation by Westminster Governments, the SNP Scottish Government have kept, and will always keep, Scotland’s NHS in public hands. Unlike water suppliers elsewhere in the UK, Scottish Water has remained a statutory corporation that provides water and sewerage services across Scotland, and it is accountable to the public through the Scottish Government.

Caledonian MacBrayne is the major operator of passenger and vehicle ferry services between the mainland of Scotland and the 22 major islands of Scotland’s west coast. Glasgow Prestwick airport is also operated on a commercial basis, at arm’s length from the Scottish Government, in compliance with European Union state aid rules, and Highlands and Islands Airports Ltd is a public corporation wholly owned by the Scottish Ministers, which operates 11 Scottish airports that are vital to the social and economic welfare of the areas that they serve—some of the most fragile communities in our country. The reality, however, is that they are loss making and supported by subsidies from the Scottish Government.

The Scottish Government are also pressing ahead with plans for a national investment bank and a public energy company, supporting our position as a leading EU mixed economy. Last September, the First Minster announced plans to establish a Scottish investment bank, and we may hear more about that later this week. On a personal level, as someone who wants to see much more state ownership, I am genuinely delighted that the Scottish Government are on track to deliver their ambition of a public energy company by the end of the Parliament in 2021. Even better, there will be a public sector bid to run the railways in Scotland—long overdue, in my view. In Scotland, we have a good story to tell about our commitment to workers’ rights, protecting jobs and putting more services in public hands.

I now turn to the real threats to workers’ rights as a result of our exit from the European Union. History shows us that the EU has forced successive Westminster Governments to improve workers’ rights. Such rights must not be put at risk by a Tory Brexit race to the bottom. It is important that we reflect on them and take stock of just how much EU membership has improved workers’ rights. For example, the EU’s working time regulations were introduced in the UK in 1998, meaning that employees cannot be forced to work more than an average of 48 hours a week and should get a rest time of at least 11 consecutive hours. Equal pay between men and women has been enshrined in EU law since 1957, and the 1992 EU pregnant workers directive guarantees women a minimum of 14 weeks’ maternity leave.

Make no mistake: leaving the European Union and allowing the British Government to take charge of those rights is a deeply retrograde step that will lead to a bonfire of workers’ rights. That is why, even at this late stage, I appeal to Members on the Conservative and Labour Benches to join us to end the Brexit chaos. If they do not, or will not, they should not be surprised when Scotland unhooks the tow bar and takes us on a different path of independence.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)]

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Hollobone. As you can hear, I am going to battle through my speech this afternoon. My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow East (David Linden) has called me a “wee sowl”—all I can say is that interventions will be very much encouraged during my remarks. First, I thank the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Laura Smith) for securing this debate, which is timely, given the game playing that we have seen over the past couple of days by the Government.

Yesterday I was expecting to address the House on the deal, but we found out that the debate was cancelled. Another reason why the debate is timely is that yesterday I was going to make the argument I made during the EU referendum campaign—to remain and reform. I understand the Lexit argument that the EU can be seen as a capitalist club, but my view was then, and is now, that the answer to neo-liberalism is not to leave for more neo-liberalism and deregulation. I fear that that is happening and very much regret that successive UK Governments, but particularly Conservative ones, have had a disgraceful record on applying for EU social funds. It is worth reflecting on that.

The hon. Member for Barnsley East (Stephanie Peacock), my friend and trade union comrade, made a point about people in lower income brackets—the same ones who would have benefited if former UK Governments had taken a more proactive approach on EU social funds. I am thinking particularly of the one for food poverty. However, the UK Government did not apply, so France and Germany got €450 million from the EU to help with food poverty, and because the UK did not apply it got the same amount of money as Malta, which was €12 million. Like many others who have spoken, I have a concern that we could end up with the UK leaving the EU and signing trade deals that would make the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership look moderate.

The debate is timely also in relation to the current Government’s direction of travel on public sector delivery and the management of the economy. Already, Carillion, which was providing public sector services, has collapsed. I have previously warned here, and in written questions, about issues with Interserve, which looks like being the next Carillion.

We are also in the ludicrous position where the current Government are considering privatising veterans’ services. This must be one of few nations that would even consider that. We know the current Government’s approach to workers’ rights because of—to correct my friends in the Labour party—the “anti-trade union” Act, which is what we should call the Trade Union Act 2016.

The Government, following the passage of the 2016 Act, were forced to consider e-balloting, but almost three years down the line they have done nothing to help with e-balloting for industrial action ballots. That is relevant to the present debate because if the EU referendum had been conducted according to the same rules as a trade union industrial action ballot, it would not have been possible to prosecute Brexit. The result would have failed to comply with the 40% rule that the Government insist on applying to trade unions in industrial action ballots. I shall take a sip of water now, Mr Hollobone —if no one is keen to intervene on me.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow East has said, over the past few decades Westminster Governments have left key Scottish industries, and industries across the UK, without support. There is now a real fear that we face a Tory Brexit race to the bottom. In decades when Thatcherism, it has been said,

“swept like a wrecking ball through the mines, the steel industry, the car factories, shipbuilding and engineering and oversaw the demise of the communities which had built their livelihoods around them”

it was the Conservative Government who referred to miners as “the enemy within”. It was often felt that the same sentiment was directed towards many working communities. That Government’s attitude to many of those communities can be summed up by the classic Proclaimers song “Letter from America”:

“Bathgate no more

Linwood no more

Methil no more

Irvine no more”.

Let us not forget that the period from 1981 to 1983 was the worst recession since the 1930s, destroying one fifth of the industrial base and doubling unemployment. That was before war was declared on the miners. The Linwood car plant in Renfrewshire closed in 1981 with the loss of 4,800 jobs. Plessey Electronics in Bathgate closed in 1982. Leyland’s lorry factory in Bathgate closed in 1986 with 1,800 jobs lost. Ravenscraig steelworks closed in 1992 with the loss of 1,200 jobs. Various Clyde shipyards wound down or closed, including Scott Lithgow in Greenock in 1988.

[David Linden]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Chris Stephens]

I am relieved to find that someone wants to intervene on me.

[David Linden]

I am grateful to that wee sowl my hon. Friend; my question is in 22 parts so he may as well take a seat, to quote “The West Wing”.

In all seriousness, my hon. Friend is rightly listing the communities decimated by the horrific economic policy of the Thatcher Government. Does he understand that there is a clear correlation between many of the communities he named and voting yes to independence in 2014? They realised that the only way they could get fairness in a rejuvenated local economy would be through their own Government having the power to act.

[Chris Stephens]

As someone representing the constituency with the second highest individual number of yes voters in the 2014 referendum, I think my hon. Friend is right. The reason why the issue is important is that European Governments supported their steel industries against cheap imports. They supported their industrial base at a time when the UK did not. There are fears at the moment, with the current Government refusing to match Scottish Government funding for the Tayside deal to support Michelin workers who face job losses. It just goes to show that the “nasty party” tag is still alive and well.

The Scottish Government have had to intervene to help commercial shipbuilding on the Clyde, finding a new buyer for the Ferguson shipyard, and they have also intervened in relation to securing a new owner for the steelworks. For the first time, following a campaign and the amendment of the law, the Scottish Government have secured the power to allow a public-sector bid for a rail franchise in Scotland. It was Westminster that sold off public services, not the European Union, as my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow East described very well. It is the Scottish Government who are pressing ahead with plans for a national investment bank and public energy company.

Workers’ rights are a passion of mine. I was a trade union activist before I arrived in this place. It was the European Union that forced successive Westminster Governments to improve workers’ rights. The pregnant workers directive of 1992 guaranteed women a minimum of 14 weeks’ maternity leave, and that forced the then Labour Government to go further.

The European Court of Justice made it clear that any discrimination against a woman because of pregnancy or maternity leave is sexism and should be treated as such. It was EU law that provided that parents must be allowed 18 weeks’ unpaid leave from work to look after a child. The equal treatment directive led to UK law banning discrimination on the grounds of age, religion or sexual orientation. Indeed, that directive is helping many women, particularly in the public services, to make equal pay claims. I am grateful for that, and should declare that I am currently an equal pay claimant against my former employer—but I shall move swiftly on.

EU rules adopted in 2008 provide that temporary workers must be treated equally with directly employed staff, which includes the giving of access to the same amenities and collective services. We know from research that 41 of the 65 new health and safety regulations introduced in the UK since 1997 have come from the European Union. The Scottish National party takes the issue of tackling exploitative working practices extremely seriously, and we oppose the “anti-trade union” Act 2016.

My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow East is campaigning for the UK Government to stop discriminating against young people and ensure they get a real living wage. My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow South (Stewart Malcolm McDonald) is promoting the Unpaid Trial Work Periods (Prohibition) Bill, and I recommend the well-crafted and beautifully written Workers (Definition and Rights) Bill that seeks to simplify the status of workers in law and eliminate zero-hours contracts. I thank everyone who has contributed to this debate. SNP Members oppose neo-liberalism. We do not see Brexit as a way to enhance neo-liberalism, and if it turns out to be it will be a disaster for this country—it will be a disaster for the United Kingdom.

Parental Bereavement (Leave and Pay) Bill

David Linden Excerpts

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

[David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)]

The hon. Gentleman is making a good point about ensuring the Bill is as flexible as possible, and I support some of the amendments he has tabled. I support all the amendments made in Committee. One of my concerns—my hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Patricia Gibson) and I tabled an amendment on this in Committee—is that a person will not fall within the scope of the Bill if they have been with their employer for fewer than 26 weeks. The Bill is all good and well, but does the hon. Member for Torbay (Kevin Foster) share my concern that a person who has been with their employer for, say, 25 and a half weeks will not be covered? Would he support the Bill being extended to people who have been with their employer for fewer than 26 weeks?

[Kevin Foster]

Bereavement leave should be a day one right, and I am reasonably supportive of the hon. Gentleman’s idea, or at least of having an idea of how an employer should approach leave for employees who have worked for them for a very short period of time. I accept it is probably slightly different for people who have worked for their employer for a very short period of time, but I think we would all hope and expect an employer to behave reasonably, because clearly this is not something a parent will have planned. This is not a provision of which any parent wants to take advantage, far from it. I am sure every parent in the Chamber would hope they never have to take advantage of this provision. I am interested to hear the Minister’s response on how we set that limit.

Again, we do not want the ludicrous situation in which a person, for the sake of argument, has worked one day short of the limit—for example, the death happens at 11 o’clock at night and they would have been covered if it had happened at 1 o’clock in the morning. We do not want such a cliff edge. I will address another such issue in relation to other amendments.

I support the broad thrust of what the hon. Member for Glasgow East (David Linden) says, and it will be interesting to hear the Minister and perhaps the promoter of the Bill, my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton, outline how they feel it should work so we do not have cliff edges. The whole point of the Bill is to have a position that reflects the devastating impact on people.

I am conscious that I have been on this theme for a little while, so it is probably time to move on to the fourth theme of my amendments. I touched on cut-offs in my response to the hon. Gentleman’s intervention, and I am also concerned about the cut-off created by a child’s 18th birthday. My amendments 6 and 24, and amendment 21 tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole, would change the definition of a child so it refers not only to sons and daughters aged under 18.

I think we would all feel that losing a child is hard at any age. Sadly, in my own family, my grandmother Beryl lost her son Mike. Mike was 59 and, by that point, my grandmother was in her late 70s, but the impact on her was just as strong as it would have been had Mike been 12 and had she been 30. Of course, due to her age, she did not need to worry about time off work—she was already a pensioner—but the impact on her was just as significant. She had lost her son.

The law does not view a person aged over 18 as a child. The law rightly views them as an adult—they are able to make their own decisions and are able to participate in life—but the parent still views them as their child. Sadly, my grandmother outlived not only her son Mike but the two children of her second husband, Cyril, my maternal grandfather. Both my mother and my uncle died before my grandmother, both passing away in their 50s. The impact on my grandmother was quite profound. My mother was the last of the three to pass away, four years ago. My grandmother said, “Here’s me sat here at 85 with all the children”—as she viewed them—“gone.”

It makes logical sense that a child aged under 18 should clearly be covered by the Bill. That is unarguable, and it is absolutely right that the provisions also apply to stillbirths.

--- Later in debate ---

The next grouping of amendments that I want to discuss relates to the age and definition of a child, which is addressed in amendments 6 and 24. Nobody expects to bury their son or daughter, and it goes against nature for a parent to lose a child. That is true whether a child is of school age or grown up with children of their own, but there is something different about the loss of a child, because the number of years of life lost is greater—the number of years that they could have contributed to the joy of a family or enjoyed a family themselves. Things are slightly different if the child is younger, but I do not want to understate the loss of a child at any age; we all feel something innate and instinctive about such a loss. How we reflect that in law, or whether it should be reflected in law, has been debated with great care today, but my instinct is still that the age of 18, which is currently recognised in law as the age of adulthood, seems to be the right age if we need to draw a line and include some parameters.

[David Linden]

From evidence given to us by CLIC Sargent, we know that the NHS provides cancer treatment for young people up to the age of 25, so there is a bit of inconsistency in Government policy, and hon. Members should be mindful of that.

[Nigel Huddleston]

The hon. Gentleman makes a valid point. We need to factor in other considerations, which is why I said “if” we need to include a cut-off point. One argument in favour of restricting the age in the definition of a child is that the financial burden on the Exchequer may be considerably greater if we extended the definition beyond the age of 18. My hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South asked about siblings, and there is some logic to being careful about how far we extend the provisions. However, the Government will spend over £800 billion this year, and the estimated cost to the Exchequer of this legislation is around £3 million. We must be careful about saying, “That’s a drop in the ocean compared with total Government expenditure,” but it is true in this particular case.

If we do extend the definition to beyond 18, how much more would it cost? Five times more has been mentioned but, again, that means £15 million. Spending £15 million out of some £800 billion of Government expenditure to do something compassionate that is so widely supported is worthy of further consideration, so I ask the Minister to examine that carefully. I understand that the matter is subject to further consultation, so I encourage people to contribute to that debate.

As I said at the beginning, this is one of those topics that shows the House at its best. I will not delay proceedings further by repeating the comments made by others, but I will encourage those who have tabled amendments not to push them to a vote, as I think they have indicated, if that might jeopardise the overall vote.

I completely support the Bill. I have never had to go through, and hope never to have to go through, the anguish and pain of losing a child, as far too many of my colleagues and constituents have. It is right that we pass this law today to show that we stand with them, and with anybody who suffers this huge pain in the future, and to show that the Government are on their side.

--- Later in debate ---

[Richard Harrington]

My hon. Friend makes a good point, as is typical. He asked me whether I can be clear, and I can be clear that that is the case.

The definition of a bereaved parent will be the same in respect of both leave and pay for the Bill. We must not forget that this involves the two minimum rights, as I call them, of the leave that can be taken and the pay that goes with it. Those are the minimum rights, and I think many companies now fully exceed that. We have been clear all along that we want to introduce a system that prescribes clearly, based on the facts, who is eligible, for the benefit of employees and employers.

In some areas of employment law, legislation has been the right course of action. Legislation has set the principle, which employment tribunals interpret for particular cases, fleshing out how it should be applied. In this case, however, we do not want claims to reach an employment tribunal to establish whether an individual counts as a bereaved parent for these purposes, and it would not be right to expect people dealing with that tragic loss to muster the energy and time to follow that course of action. That issue came up on Second Reading and in Committee, and each time it became clear that the question who should count as a bereaved parent, which on the surface seems very simple, is not easy to answer.

The consultation seeks to get that right, so that when the regulations are published—this is not a case of regulations being published so that Ministers and not Parliament take control—they are correct. The regulations must be simple, but they must also be comprehensive and include all circumstances. That is a difficult balance to get right, but we are doing our best. I agree with the spirit of the amendment, but it is not appropriate to accept any measure that will effectively pre-empt the outcome of that consultation. We must allow the process to run its course.

[David Linden]

Can the Minister say when the Government will respond to that consultation? Have they set a timescale for that? We cannot just go on waiting for a consultation response—I would not be so bold as to say that that has happened before—so can he say when the Government will report back?

[Richard Harrington]

I fully accept the hon. Gentleman’s point, and we cannot allow this to go on and on. I think that it was Mrs Thatcher who said she was going to “go on and on”, but this is not one of those cases—well, it was not in her case either, as the hon. Gentleman will know. In all seriousness, I cannot give a direct answer, not because I do not want to, but because we must see how much information there is and process it. If I say “weeks”, perhaps he will hold me to that. I know that “weeks” could mean 5,000 weeks, but that is not what I intend. I hope that will give him a rough idea, but we cannot just hold the consultation one day, have a knee-jerk response and finish it, as I hope that he understands. There is no intention to stall. I have seen the spirit of the House today, and I hope that no one will think that this is a governmental stalling mechanism—far from it.

Amendments 3, 5, 20 and 23 consider the window within which leave and pay can be taken, and amendment 22 concerns the flexibility with which leave is taken. Given that this measure will join a fleet of others related to family-related leave and pay, we must maintain consistency. That is the genesis of the eight-week window and the ability to extend that through secondary legislation. We cannot have a situation in which the enabling framework is inconsistent with frameworks for other family leave provisions, thereby adding complexity and potential confusion.

Today, we have heard the view that the current eight-week window might not be enough. I have heard that message. That is one key element explicitly considered in the current consultation, and it is legitimate to ask people other than politicians for their views on this issue. The decision that leave could be taken at a later stage, while retaining a minimum timeframe of eight weeks in the Bill, is not unreasonable. We cannot accept any of the proposed amendments without waiting for the outcome of the consultation and then making a decision in view of the responses. Hon. Members and their constituents must engage in the consultation process, because we need the evidence base on which the Government can take responsible decisions. We need as broad a base of representative evidence as possible.

--- Later in debate ---

[David Linden]

What a pleasure it is to follow the hon. Member for Colchester (Will Quince), who made such a moving speech.

I will keep my remarks brief, because I want to ensure that the hon. Member for Hove (Peter Kyle) gets his important debate on votes for 16-year-olds. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake) and all members of the Bill Committee. I was conscious that the hon. Gentleman had a difficult task—indeed, he would meet me on a regular basis and try to temper me, as a new, naive young MP tabling all those amendments.

This is a good Bill, but it could have been even better. I understand the fragility of the private Member’s Bill process, and I continue to be frustrated about the way such Bills are dealt with—I think we will find that when we debate the subsequent Bill. While I understand that the process is fragile, I regret that we have still not done anything for employees who have been with a company or employer for fewer than 26 weeks, and that the Bill does not cover those who are self-employed or on zero-hours contracts.

I welcome the consultation that the Government are taking forward, but it is vital that we get clarity on when that will report back and how we will move forward. I spoke in Committee about my own circumstances, which were nowhere near as grave as those outlined by other Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Patricia Gibson), who has done a power of work on the Bill. I hope that the Bill’s Third Reading indicates the beginning and not the end of a process that will give enhanced employment rights to people who have been through one of the worst things that anybody can imagine, and that the Bill will receive Royal Assent.

National Living Wage: Under-25s

David Linden Excerpts

Thursday 3rd May 2018 Commons Chamber

[David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)]

I hope that you have made yourself comfortable for my four-hour speech, Madam Deputy Speaker, as I intend to take us up to half past 5. I can see some people panicking. They should not worry—I will not do that.

I am very grateful for the opportunity to raise the UK Government’s disappointing decision to exclude under-25s from the national living wage. Before I do so, however, it is important at the outset to make a clear distinction between the UK Government’s so-called living wage and the real living wage. The fact is that the UK Government’s living wage is a con trick, and at just £7.83 an hour, their con trick living wage falls desperately short of the real living wage, as set by the Living Wage Foundation.

The Living Wage Foundation takes into account the cost of living and other factors and recommends that living wage employers pay a minimum of £8.75 an hour, or, for London, £10.20 an hour—so straightaway we have an issue whereby the Government’s so-called living wage is not actually a living wage. However, the real issue I want to press the Minister on relates to the deliberate and discriminatory decision to exclude under-25s from being paid the national living wage.

[Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)]

Does my hon. Friend not find it ironic that if there were local elections in Scotland today, someone aged 16 could vote in them, yet they would not qualify for the adult rate of the national minimum wage?

[David Linden]

Indeed. My hon. Friend tempts me down the route of talking about taxation without representation. Perhaps we can return to that in the next four hours, but I shall press on with my speech for the time being.

At the moment under UK law, the only safety net that someone under 25 has is the national minimum wage. That means that if they are aged between 21 and 24, they can be paid just £7.30 an hour. Someone aged between 18 and 20 can be paid just £5.90 an hour, and someone aged under 18 can be paid just £4.20 an hour. Even worse, an apprentice can earn as little as just £3.70 an hour. I will return to the issue of apprenticeships later.

The Government and no doubt the Minister will be at great pains to tell us today that the reason wages are lower for under-25s is that they want more jobs to be created. They say that lower wages reduce youth unemployment, but I would argue that the economic evidence does not back that up. When we drill down into the research, we see that only two countries in the European Union have separate minimum rates of pay for over-25s. One, of course, is the United Kingdom, and the other is Greece, where youth unemployment is at 40%.

The Government like to say that the UK has hit record levels of employment and that they are doing good work to tackle youth unemployment. However, I want to convince the Minister today that the UK Government should take a different path and instead follow the lead of the Scottish National party Scottish Government. Our fair work agenda is not just warm words; it is concrete action to lift people out of poverty and into prosperity.

First, the SNP Scottish Government are a living wage employer and pay their staff a real living wage of at least £8.75 per hour. Secondly, we have the Scottish business pledge, which has attracted support from hundreds of companies that have signed up to nine key principles, which include paying a real living wage, not using zero-hour contracts and investing in youth. I want to focus particularly on that third principle of investing in youth.

At 16 years old, I decided to leave high school and begin my working life. I never went to college or university but instead undertook an apprenticeship with Glasgow City Council. Ten years on from completing that apprenticeship, I am immensely proud to have been elected as an MP, providing a voice again for my home community. However, one thing that I am not willing to do is come here and simply pull the ladder up behind me. Pay equality matters to me, not just because I am a young MP and a former apprentice, but because I believe, with every fibre of my being, that work is the best route out of poverty. The Prime Minister has said the same herself. She says that she wants to build a country that works for everyone. I presume that by “everyone”, she means people under the age of 25. That is why the Government must take action urgently to ensure that people are paid the real national living wage, regardless of their age.

The UK’s Equality Act 2010 rightly provides for a number of key protected characteristics. It prohibits discrimination on the grounds of gender, race, sexual orientation or disability. How, therefore, can we be in this ludicrous position in which people under 25 are paid less simply for being a particular age? We would not say that someone should be paid less because that person was a woman; we would not say someone should be paid less because that person was black; we would not say that someone should be paid less because that person was gay; and we certainly would not say that someone should be paid less because that person was disabled. The UK Government, however, operates a system under which employers are actively encouraged to pay under-25s less because they are younger.

[Chris Stephens]

Is it not another economic fact that those under 25 often face the same costs as those over 25—for example, rent or other housing costs, food costs, utility bills and the like?

[David Linden]

My hon. Friend has made a powerful and valid point, which I shall come to later.

I hope very much that when the Minister comes to the Dispatch Box, he will not trot out the usual lines, which fall apart when subjected to any scrutiny. Let me deal with one or two of them now. For example, Ministers tell us that younger workers have less experience and should therefore receive less pay. Unfortunately, younger workers do not get a discount on their shopping, fuel or rent when it comes to paying their bills. One area in which young people do qualify for help is housing benefit, but only after a recent screeching U-turn from the Government on their abhorrent policy of excluding 18 to 21 year-olds.

The discriminatory exclusion of under-25s from the national living wage takes no account of how people actually live. For example, by the time I was 25—which was actually not that long ago—I had already been married for three years. I owned a house, and I was a father. I urge Ministers to look at the actual data rather than rehashing old arguments, and to consider the economic case for including under-25s in the national living wage.

[Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)]

The point that my hon. Friend is making about experience is very important. When I was 18 I started work in a pub on the same day as someone who was 25. Neither of us had worked in a pub before, so we had exactly the same level of experience, but the 25-year-old was eligible for the 25–year-old’s minimum wage, while I was paid the 18-year-old’s minimum wage. Does my hon. Friend agree that that was just unfair?

[David Linden]

Absolutely. That is what drives the Scottish National party’s fair work agenda. It is about fairness, and about lifting people out of poverty. I thank my hon. Friend for her powerful intervention.

[Chris Stephens]

The example given by my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman) was indeed powerful. Is this not another powerful example? If a 17-year-old is working in a fast-food restaurant flipping hamburgers next to someone who is 37 and doing the same job, there is a massive disparity between their wage rates.

[David Linden]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. What he has said takes us back to the central point that a fair day’s work should result in a fair day’s pay.

If the Minister looks at the data, he will see that 2.5 million young people do not live with their parents. That is 2.5 million young people paying for shopping, rent and utilities. Statistics from the Office for National Statistics show that approximately 20% of mothers are under the age of 25. The discriminatory exclusion from the national living wage means that they must get by on poverty pay.

The current national minimum wage—and we should bear in mind that that legislation was passed in the last century—is not only a clear example of direct age discrimination, but an example of discrimination based on class. It flies in the face of the very concept of social mobility. How can a 22 year-old first-year apprentice on a miserable £3.70 an hour be socially mobile? That is what the law currently allows, as is stated on the UK Government’s website. That is what an employer who is thinking about employing an apprentice is encouraged to do.

A recent report by KPMG showed that one in five people are struggling to escape from low pay. For example, one in four women earns less than the real living wage. Put simply, that means skipping meals, living in debt and using payday loans just to get by. The fact is that there is a solid evidence base out there that makes the case for equal pay for under-25s.

[Kirsty Blackman]

Does my hon. Friend agree that there could be a positive impact on productivity? If people are having to work extra jobs and cannot afford to eat, they will be less productive, but if they were paid a living wage, they would do better work for their employers as a result.

[David Linden]

My hon. Friend makes a powerful point. If an employer pays someone under 25 the real living wage, that sends a message of real encouragement to the employee; there is clearly a productivity point here.

I commend and thank the Young Women’s Trust, which produced an excellent report last year entitled “Paid Less, Worth Less?” I have placed a copy of the report in the Library of the House this afternoon, and its testimonies make pretty stark reading. I will share just one today. It comes from Katie, a 19-year-old from Newcastle:

“I was a customer service apprentice in a small shop—only me, another apprentice and my manager worked there.

I had to do a lot—serve customers on the till, clean the store, display the products, update the online store, pack and post online orders and more.

I was paid £2.73 per hour, which went up to £3.30. I got paid on a Friday at the end of the month. The next week I was skint.

I remember one day I had 40p for dinner, so I got one doughnut from M&S.

My manager noticed and offered to buy me a McDonalds.

I felt so stupid.

A quarter of my monthly income was spent on bus fare getting to and from work. It was a struggle.”

It is sometimes easier for us in this House to focus on statistics rather than people, but Katie’s story succinctly and eloquently outlines the pay inequality that still exists in the UK in 2018.

Katie is not the only one. Only last week, following an oral question from me in this House, the Chancellor wrote to inform me that there are approximately 22,000 apprentices in the UK being paid just £3.70 an hour. Surely no self-respecting Minister thinks £3.70 is a decent hourly rate; I do not think any of us would be happy to turn up here and get paid just £3.70 an hour.

There are also particular sectors in the employment market where deliberate wage depression is a major issue and could have a major impact on the sustainability of business, particularly when free movement of people is restricted post Brexit. These sectors include retail and hospitality, which are often largely staffed by young people.

I would hope that the Minister would distance himself from the comments made by the Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media & Sport who back in January 2016 said younger workers would not get a pay rise because they are “not as productive” as older workers. It would take a particularly brave Minister to repeat that, especially on an election day.

Finally, the Minister might be worried about how businesses would react to under-25s being included in the national living wage. However, let me assure him that there is clear polling evidence from YouGov, on a sample of some 4,000 HR managers; they think that young people should be paid the same as older people for work. Some 79%—that is four in five—of employers think there should be equal pay regardless of age, as do 77% of small and medium-sized organisations. Some 80% of employers also said that young people make a bigger, or the same, contribution as older workers, and that on the whole younger workers came with a fresh perspective and injected some energy.

Most employers when asked said they would not cut back on hiring young people if the national living wage was extended to under-25s. Indeed, the New Policy Institute found in a report commissioned by Unison on the topic that, historically, raising wages for people under the age of 21 in the UK has not harmed their employment outcomes. So the evidence is clear and so is my message to the Government today.

[Chris Stephens]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the policy is a false economy, too, because if those under 25 were given the real national minimum wage rate, that would boost the economy as it would boost the spending power of those aged under 25?

[David Linden]

My hon. Friend is right: giving under-25s that spending power would boost the economy and could help kick-start the economy.

[Kirsty Blackman]

As an employer, I have taken on a number of young people on internships, and I have paid the real living wage, not the Government’s pretend living wage, regardless of their age. I found that they made a very valuable contribution to my office and a real positive difference. Has my hon. Friend got experience of doing similar?

[David Linden]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for leading me down that particular path, which I had not quite thought of. She will be aware, as will my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow South West (Chris Stephens), that I am going through the process of recruiting for the first ever John Wheatley intern—a young person will come to work in my office. I believe passionately that if we are to get more people into politics, we need to open up that process; it cannot just be the same people taking on political interns. When I started the process of advertising for that internship, I was conscious of the need to advertise it at the real national living wage. Last week, I set up seven or eight interviews, and I am sorry to have to tell the House that I got a phone call this afternoon to inform me that one of the young guys I was due to interview had sadly passed away. I want to take this opportunity to pay tribute to Scott, who is no longer with us.

The evidence is clear for equalising the national minimum wage to include the under-25s, and my message to the Government is also clear: if we want to build a country that works for everyone, we need to end this discriminatory pay inequality. The Government need to pay a real national living wage, and they need to pay it to the under-25s too.

--- Later in debate ---

[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?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

I am sure that if the Minister felt he had inadvertently misled the House, he would say so.

Question put and agreed to.

Oral Answers to Questions

David Linden Excerpts

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.

Unpaid Trial Work Periods (Prohibition) Bill

David Linden Excerpts

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

[David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)]

In the light of the information that my hon. Friend has given, will he place a copy of it in the Library of the House so that all Members can familiarise themselves with it? That is a very interesting point.

[Stewart Malcolm McDonald]

I am happy to place that information in the Library, although I rather suspect that it will find its way on to Twitter soon enough.

In closing—I do not wish to cheat the Minister out of his time—this is a Bill that makes work pay and that empowers people who, as the hon. Member for Midlothian (Danielle Rowley) said, need empowerment. This is supposed to be a Parliament of legislators that makes good law. I believe we have an opportunity today to make good law, so let us not filibuster, kill it or somehow ensure that it cannot pass. I realise that is looking tough, but stranger miracles have happened. I ask Members to get behind the Bill, and to get it into Committee. Let us make good law and protect people who need protecting.

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

David Linden Excerpts

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 ---

[Gavin Newlands]

Well.

I pay tribute to all Members who have shared their experiences of the tragic loss of a child, and who are using those painful experiences to make such a traumatic and tragic period just a little bit easier for those who follow them. Sadly, just under a fortnight ago, along with hundreds of others in Renfrew, I attended the funeral of little Layla Greene, who at just three years old was one of the latest victims of the scourge of childhood cancer. The Minister was obviously correct earlier on. Her parents had been told that she had weeks and months to live, so as a community we fundraised to help make memories for Layla and her family. Sadly, she was only to live for just one more week, but we will continue to fundraise in her memory.

Anything that we can do to reduce any unnecessary stress on families such as Layla’s is not only something that we should do but something that we must do. I speak to amendments 3 and 10 not only because I think they are the right thing to do, but because of my experience as both an employer and a friend. I obviously cannot speak as powerfully, or share deeply painful and personal experiences, as my hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran and others have.

Similar to my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow East, my interest in this issue stems from a close-run thing. My wife had to give birth to my oldest daughter six and half weeks prematurely, by emergency caesarean. We were the lucky ones because thankfully, they are healthy, but since then I have been interested in trying to advance these issues.

Having said that, unfortunately I have shared the pain of friends who have had to go through this experience. One of those friends was an employee. I struggled to separate my roles of friend and boss. I was somewhat constrained in the paid support that I could technically offer within the company’s employment regulations at the time. I could offer her as much unpaid leave as I saw fit at my discretion, but ultimately, that does not pay the bills.

In many ways, if we are honest, two weeks is a totally inadequate period of time in which to recover from the death of a child sufficiently to return to work. I tried to find ways around it, whether through holiday pay or sick pay, which from memory was £85 a week—it is not much more now. She was signed off for periods as well, although she did not want to do that. Financial distress is the last thing that anyone needs on top of the most traumatic experience of their life, so the premise of paid leave is a very good thing.

To address the flexibility issue raised in amendments 10 and 3, I would say that people deal with trauma in different ways. No one will ever forget such a traumatic experience, but I am told by my friend that after a time, it was possible to compartmentalise, to work and to concentrate on the job at hand. Others will go through periods of struggling to cope after returning to work and might need time off as a result. Flexibility about the period in which people can take any leave might suit a lot of parents in this situation.

As has already been outlined, another reason is to ensure that paid leave can be taken around significant dates. For example, my friends visit the grave marker at specific points every year. Anything that helps to make those difficult journeys that bit easier is to be welcomed.

The compassionate leave policy at my old employer has significantly improved, and that is the case at many employers in the UK now, but it is our job in Parliament to ensure that everyone is covered appropriately.

[David Linden]

In the light of what the Minister has said, and of the consensus and good will on both sides of the Committee—this is the first time I have served on a private Member’s Bill Committee, although I have served on Government Bill Committees before—I will not press amendment 3. I look forward to the Minister coming back with the consultation.

[Patricia Gibson]

As has already been said this week and last week, we are all treading very carefully on broken glass. We are terrified to do or ask for the wrong thing, in case it upsets the whole apple-cart. I draw comfort from the fact that the Minister is not saying no. From what I understand, he is saying not yet.

--- Later in debate ---

[Patricia Gibson]

I am really hopeful that we are still in the process of shaping the final Bill, and I draw great comfort from my sense that the Minister and everybody here wants this to be the best Bill possible. There is nothing to be gained by passing a Bill with which we and bereaved parents are not happy. In the light of that, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[David Linden]

I beg to move amendment 2, in schedule, page 2, line 25, leave out from “to” to end of line and insert—

“(a) at least two weeks’ leave, and

(b) at least one day’s leave for the day on which the child’s funeral takes place.”

This amendment would ensure that the minimum period of parental bereavement leave is two weeks plus an additional day for the day of the child’s funeral.

I will not detain the Committee for too long. Amendment 2, in my name and those of my hon. Friends the Members for North Ayrshire and Arran and for Paisley and Renfrewshire North, would provide two weeks’ paid bereavement leave and one additional day dedicated for the child’s funeral. I am particularly grateful to CLIC Sargent, which has lobbied me and countless other hon. Members to table the amendment.

When I spoke to amendment 3, I referred to the sheer range of circumstances faced by parents. Amendment 2 was tabled in the knowledge that if the death of a child is unexplained, for example, there can be a longer period between death and burial or cremation. In Glasgow, there have been delays in post mortems due to hold-ups with the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service.

Amendment 2 would give a bit more flexibility and acknowledge that the day of the funeral can be particularly stressful, busy and difficult. The funeral is in itself a milestone in the grieving process and should, in our view, be treated differently and more flexibly. To conclude, a number of charities, including CLIC Sargent, allow for an additional day for the funeral. On that basis I seek the support of the Committee.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

The point made by the hon. Member for Glasgow East is well made. What employer would ever refuse to allow a parent time off for their child’s funeral? Clearly, most employers will not; we know that through the research we have done. Nevertheless, we accept that we need to do more, because we accept that some employers are not reasonable and not compassionate.

I have great sympathy for the hon. Gentleman’s amendment. Clearly, in law all employees are allowed a day one right to take reasonable leave in whatever circumstance. These measures in the Bill are in addition to that basic right. We have said a number of times in this Committee that this is a signal to employers; it does not give all the answers for employers. People’s needs are different in such circumstances.

This is such a personal issue that we expect employers to be compassionate and considerate. We expect them to give the bereaved parents of a child time off for the funeral. Putting that into legislation would be difficult at this point, because of the fragility of private Member’s Bills. I politely ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw his amendment and, at this point, we will leave it at two weeks.

--- 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.

[Antoinette Sandbach]

I hear the note of concern in the hon. Gentleman’s voice, but I think my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester raised a valid point: a parent may well be in a better position in which they already have an entitlement to a paid day without it being taken out of their leave. I ask the hon. Gentleman to consider whether that is a valid argument that should be addressed.

--- Later in debate ---

[David Linden]

That is at the forefront of my mind, but as the hon. Member for North West Durham said, we seek to protect the very small number of people who could be exploited in the situation. On that basis, I ask the Committee to accept the amendment.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

--- Later in debate ---

[Patricia Gibson]

The hon. Gentleman tempts me to say what he is perhaps arguing for, although I am not: that those who do not have a significant other or spouse should be covered by this Bill, no matter what age they are. He is suggesting that they would have somebody else to make the arrangements for them.

It is perfectly possible for somebody to be over the age of 18 and to be responsible for themselves, but not to have a significant partner to take on that responsibility. That is a huge assumption. Many people live on their own; we know that single occupancy is rising, even amongst young people. It is at record levels. We cannot assume that people are always attached. I again draw the Committee’s attention to the example I gave, which is not beyond the bounds of possibility: a young man or woman serving as a British soldier in foreign lands facing a traumatic and awful death, and the impact that would have on the parents if that soldier were over 18 and did not have a significant other. These are the situations we need to think about if we are trying to get this Bill right.

Given the economic cost to the country of family breakdown, the Bill should cover people who are not married or in a significant relationship. The reason why it is called the Parental Bereavement Bill is that we are talking about parents and the unnatural experience of having to bury your child. That loss is not tempered if your child is older; I do not see a distinction there.

[David Linden]

In response to what the hon. Member for East Renfrewshire said, I should say that the national health service does not stop treating people at 18 for teenage cancer. There is an issue of consistency here. The NHS does not recognise at just 18. Is my hon. Friend aware of that?

[Patricia Gibson]

That is an important point. Maybe it is a failure in myself, but I do not understand why the issue should be about the age of 18 or financial dependency. This is ultimately a Bill about grief—about losing a son or daughter. The focus is on parents, not the financial circumstances or marital status of the person who is being buried. I cannot get my head round that. It is difficult to choose, but perhaps of all the amendments this one means the most to me because it is making a statement about the enormity of the loss of burying a child, and how that goes against the natural order.

--- Later in debate ---

[Will Quince]

I place on record my huge thanks to my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton. It is actually a bit of a surprise that the Government support my amendment, which I tabled relatively speculatively because there was a debate to be had. However, the fact that the Government have accepted the argument will be of huge benefit to the parents of the circa 3,000 children who are stillborn every year in this country. I hope that that number will go down year on year; the all-party group on baby loss is certainly working on that. I thank the Minister for his support and the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran for her amendments, which are in a similar vein to mine and would have largely the same effect. We are all on the same page, so I thank all hon. Members for their cross-party support.

Amendment 25 agreed to.

Amendments made: 26, in schedule, page 4, leave out lines 29 to 35 and insert—

“80EE Application in relation to stillbirths

In this Chapter—

(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 parental bereavement leave to bereaved parents of stillborn children.

Amendment 27, in schedule, page 4, line 37, leave out “, 80EE”.—(Will Quince.)

This amendment is consequential on Amendment 26.

[David Linden]

I beg to move amendment 4, in schedule, page 5, leave out lines 10 to 12.

This amendment would remove the condition that an employee needs to be with an employer for a continuous period of 26 weeks in order to receive parental bereavement pay.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 5, in schedule, page 6, leave out lines 15 to 21.

This amendment is consequential to Amendment 4.

[David Linden]

We are coming to the end, so I will not detain the Committee for long. The amendments, which I tabled with my hon. Friends the Members for Paisley and Renfrewshire North and for North Ayrshire and Arran, address how long someone needs to have been with an employer to fall within the scope of the Bill. I understand the position of the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton that employment eligibility provisions for bereavement pay should mirror those for paternity pay and leave. However, today of all days, when the Government’s response to the Taylor report has acknowledged that people are in precarious and short-term work, I would like to hear the Minister’s thoughts on reducing the eligibility requirement.

It strikes me that rather than introducing a provision that mirrors existing legislation, we have a unique opportunity not just to send a message, but to give ultimate protection, including to people who have not been with their employer for a continuous 26-week period. The Committee has already discussed cut-off points. We know that a number of things can happen to children; in the event of a sudden death, it would be a crying shame if the parent had been with their employer for 25 weeks and six days. I ask the Committee to accept our amendments.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

The hon. Gentleman makes a good case for why the circumstances he describes are different from most others. However, consistency is important from an employer’s perspective and certainly from a legislative perspective. Of course, grief cannot be measured in pound notes, but part of our responsibility when introducing legislation is measuring the cost. His amendment would mean our having to revisit the cost and impact for the taxpayer and the employer.

The hon. Gentleman put his case well. The proposal in the Bill is, in any case, a minimum signal; we would expect an employer to be just as sympathetic to someone in this situation in their first 26 weeks of employment as afterwards. We would expect employers to be sympathetic, and I ask the hon. Gentleman to be sympathetic to the most important task, which is getting the Bill through the House.

--- Later in debate ---

Ultimately, as my hon. Friend and I have said, the aim of the Bill is to make life a little easier for parents who have lost a child and are in the grieving process. We believe that providing them with a minimum of two weeks’ leave does that, which is why the leave entitlement in the Bill is a day one right. It is about providing parents with time away from work if that is what is needed. Again, it is important to recognise that the Bill does not prevent employers from providing their own enhanced bereavement support for employees if they are able to do so. I believe the argument for withdrawal of the amendment has been well made, and I urge the hon. Member for Glasgow East to withdraw it.

[David Linden]

I have listened to what the Minister and the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton have said. At this stage, after consultation with my hon. Friends the Members for Paisley and Renfrewshire North and for North Ayrshire and Arran, I will not press amendments 4 and 5. We may return to this on Report, but for the purposes of getting the Bill through Committee, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[David Linden]

I beg to move amendment 1, in the schedule, page 7, leave out lines 4 to 6 and insert—

“(1) Statutory parental bereavement pay is payable at an employee’s full rate of pay.”

This amendment would remove the power to set in regulations the rate of parental bereavement pay. Instead, the employee would be entitled to parental bereavement pay at their full pay rate.

We come to the last amendment in this Bill Committee. I know that, as my hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran said, we have all been walking on glass to try to get to this point, and I will be brief. Amendment 1 would set statutory parental bereavement pay at the full rate rather than 90%. I am particularly grateful to CLIC Sargent, with which I have worked closely on this amendment. If hon. Members have not already seen it, I recommend the document “Cancer Costs: The financial impact of treatment on young cancer patients and their families”. There is a copy in the Library.

Currently, as we know, the Bill makes provision for parental bereavement leave pay to be the statutory flat rate or 90% average earnings, whichever is lower. We know from reading the report that having a child with cancer costs parents and they often struggle to meet those costs, particularly for funerals. Therefore it is my belief, and that of CLIC Sargent, that they should be entitled to full pay. I am particularly keen to hear what the Minister has to say about that. I guess this is probably more of a probing amendment, but it is just to say that we recognise that the exceptionally traumatic circumstances of the death of a child are really challenging. We often focus on the emotional aspect of that time, but particularly in the case of families where a child has had a life-shortening or life-limiting condition, there are costs to be borne after that as well. On that basis I seek the support of the Committee for amendment 1.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I am grateful for the hon. Gentlemen’s submissions and the opportunity to debate this matter fully. As drafted, the Bill allows the rate of parental bereavement pay to be set in regulations at a fixed or earnings-related weekly rate. This secures the flexibility to change or increase the rate of pay in the future. Of course, the main aim of the Bill is to ensure that bereaved parents who need time away from work are able to take that time without fear of suffering detriment from their employer as a result. A survey has shown that businesses that responded already provide bereavement leave and most of these companies offer more generous terms than we are stipulating in this Bill, as we have said a number of times before.

As I was asked before, I will not revisit all the arguments I made before about trying to move this Bill forward as much as we can in its original form, to prevent the need for us to go back and revisit some of the calculations that inevitably have to be made to determine effects on the taxpayer and employers, which clearly are important considerations. In the interest of consistency and cost, and also continuity, in that we would like this Bill to continue its progress through this Committee and through the other stages that it needs to go through, to get through the House as quickly as possible, I politely and respectfully ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw his amendment.

[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.