Employment (Allocation of Tips)

Debate between David Linden and Kevin Hollinrake

Tuesday 14th May 2024 Commons Chamber

[David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)]

It is genuinely a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Watford (Dean Russell). I thank him and congratulate him on the private Member’s Bill that led to this code of practice coming to the Floor of the House. It is a small but significant step forward in improving workers’ rights. Regardless of our political differences—I suspect there are many—I have always found the hon. Gentleman to be kind, thoughtful and dedicated to public service, and I am very grateful for that. It is therefore no surprise that having won the equivalent of the parliamentary lottery, he chose to bring forward legislation that commands such cross-party support, and I thank him for that.

I will make reference to the briefing issued by Unite the union later in my remarks, but at the outset I declare my own membership of Unite, although I should be clear that I have no particular financial interests to declare.

One of the most frustrating aspects of the 2019 to 2024 Parliament has been the lack of significant progress on improving employment law more generally. Yes, there have been piecemeal bits of legislation, such as the Bills brought forward by the hon. Member for Watford, my hon. Friend the Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East (Stuart C. McDonald) and the hon. Member for North East Fife (Wendy Chamberlain), but they have all come forward as limited Back-Bench Bills. It is undeniable that a vacuum was created for these private Members’ Bills to move forward due to the sheer absence of the substantial Government employment Bill that many of us expected. Indeed, we were promised such a Bill on no less than 20 occasions by Ministers. It is now seven years since the Taylor review and still no action has been forthcoming from the recommendations of that report.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I am sure the hon. Gentleman would like to correct the record. A number of recommendations in the Taylor review have been implemented, not least the right to request predictable terms and conditions, which went further than the recommendations in the review. Will the hon. Gentleman acknowledge that fact?

--- Later in debate ---

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I thank hon. Members for their contributions to this debate in which we are seeking to ensure that the draft code of practice on fair and transparent distribution of tips is approved.

I will turn now to the specific issues raised. The shadow Minister talked about engaging with the sector, which is very important. I can tell him that we engage regularly with organisations such as UK Hospitality, the British Beer and Pub Association and the British Institute of Innkeeping on these matters and have been doing so for many months, as we want to make sure that their views are heard. The non-statutory guidance that we will be bringing forward should provide more help for those organisations to comply with the important provisions of this legislation.

The shadow Minister asked whether we would review the policy on a regular basis. We will obviously keep all these matters under review, and the guidance should help to inform the sector about requirements in terms of both employees and businesses. It is hugely important that we do so. He asked whether a person could take a claim forward to an employment tribunal for unfair dismissal. Clearly, employment tribunals are there to ensure that workers can assert their rights if they feel that their rights have not been respected, so we would definitely expect an employment tribunal to hear such a case.

The shadow Minister asked about tipping by digital apps. We see this as a new phenomenon and an interesting development, enabling the customer to be able to tip an individual using an app, QR code or whatever, and we will not stand in the way of that. Where a tip has been given directly to a member of staff, it is clear that that tip should be kept by the member of staff. The app is there to allow flexibility in the implementation of the code or the guidance, rather than allowing businesses to avoid their clear obligations.

The shadow Minister asked about payments and why they are paid the following month. I think it is reasonable to allow a business to be able to calculate the amount of tips that are received in a month and then pay those out to workers in the month following. We think that that is a reasonable balance to strike. He asks why we are taking another five months to put this legislation in place. Clearly, we want to ensure two things—that we get this right and that we respect some of the pressures that exist in the hospitality sector, which has been through a difficult time, with increases in the national living wage, the cost of living crisis and the covid pandemic. We are trying to make sure that we take the sector with us, rather than impose unfair new burdens on it. We do not think that these measures are unfair, because we know that the majority of businesses would adopt these kind of rules even without this legislation.

The hon. Member for Glasgow East (David Linden) seemed to imply that we on the Conservative Benches were going to use Brexit to improve workers’ rights. I am always keen to improve workers’ rights, and we have done so in this Parliament, but I remember his party clearly saying that Brexit would be a bonfire of workers’ rights and that certainly has not been the case.

[David Linden]

Does the Minister consider that workers’ rights have improved? If he does, why is it that trade union organisations across Europe recognise that the UK has some of the worst employment rights across Europe?

[Kevin Hollinrake]

Yes, those rights have got better. We have introduced legislation that covers the right to request flexible working, neonatal care leave, carers’ leave, protection to cover redundancy during pregnancy and return to work, the right to request predictable terms and conditions, the tipping Bill, and shared parental leave. All those things have been introduced, or supported, by this Government. We see those protections not as an opportunity to create a wedge issue, but as the right thing to do by our workers.

--- Later in debate ---

[David Linden]

Is the Minister seriously trying to tell the House that the former Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Grant Shapps), did not relish the opportunity to bring forward the Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Act 2023, seeing it as a wedge issue that would cause trouble with the Labour party? Come on!

[Kevin Hollinrake]

That is a refrain that we constantly hear from the SNP. To be fair to the hon. Gentleman, he did refer to ensuring that we worked alongside hospitality on the guidance, but apart from that, there was nothing in his remarks about the needs of business, and the legislation is about the needs of business. The strikes that affected this country, particularly at the end of last year and in the year before last, cost the hospitality sector around £3 billion. That is why we legislated as we did, and we feel it was the right thing to do.

The hon. Gentleman would do well to reflect further on the needs of business as well as the needs of workers. We believe that there is a balance to be struck, and he has got that balance wrong in Scotland. Hon. Members need not listen to me; just look at the numbers. The most recent figures for economic growth in Scotland over the 10 years from 2011 to 2021 show Scotland’s cumulative GDP growth at 7.2%, England’s at 14.9% and the whole of the UK’s at 12.9%. SNP MPs would do better to go back to their nation and constituency and drive economic progress forward.

My hon. Friend the Member for Watford (Dean Russell), who has done such good work in this area, talks about fairness. I know he stands up for fairness, and for Watford; I have seen the amazing montages of all the times that he has mentioned Watford in this Chamber. He deserves plaudits for his work. He says that he was lucky, but as the great Gary Player said, the harder you work, the luckier you get. The success that my hon. Friend has been an instigator of today is due to his hard work and determination. He talks about what we have done on communications, working with employer groups, employee groups and the hospitality sector. Yes, we do that—we work with trade unions, ACAS, UKHospitality, the British Beer and Pub Association, the British Institute of Innkeeping and others to ensure that the code of practice and the guidance that will follow will leave them fully cognisant of the requirements on the sector—a sector that is so important to our economy.

My hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire (James Gray) said he does not like giving tips. He is free not to give a tip if he does not feel it is appropriate, but most people would say that for good service, they would be prepared to provide a tip. The key point of this legislation is that that tip should be retained by the individuals who provided the service.

Terms and Conditions of Employment

Debate between David Linden and Kevin Hollinrake

Tuesday 14th May 2024 Commons Chamber

[Kevin Hollinrake]

There are cases where these opportunities are abused—I do not deny that—but the hon. Gentleman is operating on the basis that it is the exception rather than the rule. It is our view, which he may disagree with, that the vast majority of employers do not treat their employees that way. There have been cases where a court has upheld the right of an employer to fire and rehire. Where the employer tries to restructure the company to save jobs, through a salary reduction of a few per cent. for everyone in the workplace, that is better than the business going down. The hon. Gentleman must see that there are some situations in which it is the only option for an employer, which operates in the interests of the wider workforce. It was the right thing to do in those situations. His describing it as an “evil practice” is wrong and misses the point, although there are abuses of the system, as he describes.

[David Linden]

Unusually, I find myself disagreeing with my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow South West (Chris Stephens). Are there not scenarios in which the Government think that it is perfectly fine for somebody to be sacked and re-engaged? For example, when the Government led by the right hon. Member for South West Norfolk (Elizabeth Truss) were collapsing, Ministers resigned and were then reappointed afterwards. Sometimes it is in the Government’s interest to have that option, isn’t it?

[Kevin Hollinrake]

Well, there is no recourse to an employment tribunal in that situation, and there is certainly no uplift in the compensation that might be received.

I say to the shadow Minister that he should frame the order in its context. The majority of businesses in this country do the right thing by their employees, because they are run by honourable people and treating employees well is the right thing to do for business reasons. His approach of banning dismissal and re-engagement would cost jobs, as would having day-one rights in the area of unfair dismissal. Bringing forward a single category of worker would also cost jobs, and would create huge difficulties for many sectors. It is not just about the situations that arise in individual circumstances; it is about the fear of those situations arising for businesses when they are trying a new employee. That situation will strike fear into the hearts of many businesses across this country, and will cost jobs. The hon. Member for Glasgow South West (Chris Stephens) asked me how many people had appeared before an employment tribunal and then been reinstated. I do not know those numbers but I would be happy to see what numbers we can find for him on that basis.

This order will increase the deterrent effect of the code by adding the protective award for non-compliance with collective consultation requirements to schedule A2 of the 1992 Act. That will mean that where an employer is found to have unreasonably failed to comply with their collective consultation requirements, as well as unreasonably failing to comply with the code, the employment tribunal may increase the employee’s protective award by up to 25%. Subject to the approval of both Houses, the code and the order will be enforced before the summer recess.

The Government are committed to making the UK the most dynamic place in the world to work and to launch, grow and do business. The UK’s flexible labour market is key to economic growth and helping businesses to thrive. However, labour market flexibility must be balanced with appropriate safeguards. The House should be left in no doubt that this Government will always continue to stand behind workers and stamp out unscrupulous practices where they occur.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That the draft Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 (Amendment of Schedule A2) Order 2024, which was laid before this House on 22 April, be approved.

Draft Code of Practice on Reasonable Steps to be taken by a Trade Union (Minimum Service Levels)

Debate between David Linden and Kevin Hollinrake

Monday 27th November 2023 General Committees

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Kevin Hollinrake)]

I beg to move,

That the Committee has considered the draft Code of Practice on Reasonable Steps to be taken by a Trade Union (Minimum Service Levels).

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Nokes. It is good to see such a well-attended Delegated Legislation Committee.

The Government firmly believe that the ability to strike is an important part of industrial relations in the UK, and it is rightly protected by law. We understand that an element of disruption is inherent to any strike. However, strike action across our public services over the past year has highlighted the disproportionate impact that strikes can have on the public.

Taking that into account, earlier this year Parliament passed the Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Act 2023, which seeks to balance the ability of workers to strike with the rights and freedoms of the public to go about their daily lives, including getting to work and accessing key services.

[David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)]

The Minister makes the point that he understands that people have the right to strike, but he says that strikes should not disrupt others. How does he reconcile that view with the fact that under Boris Johnson’s Government, scores of Ministers resigned at once and the Government almost ground to a halt? How does he reconcile that with what he proposes to this Committee?

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I do apologise, but I did not quite get the hon. Member’s point. Will he repeat it so that I can understand it?

[David Linden]

Does the Minister not understand that in the dying days of Boris Johnson’s Government, scores of Ministers withdrew their labour from the Government? Why is it one rule for the Tories and one rule for the workers?

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I cannot speak on behalf of my colleagues, but I kept doing my daily job, as I am sure the hon. Member did.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kevin Hollinrake]

As I say, I do not think that it is a complicated situation. As I set out to the hon. Member for York Central, the employer has a responsibility to contact their employees and union members, but I am happy to give more detail on that if the hon. Member for Luton South wants further clarification.

[David Linden]

Can I ask the Minister for clarification? As I understand it, the Minister said in response to my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow South West that there will not be a need for the Government to introduce a code of practice or guidance for employers. But in response to the hon. Member for York Central, the Minister has just said that it will be provided. Which of the two is right?

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I do not think the hon. Gentleman was listening very carefully. I said that there was no need for a statutory code of practice for employers, but there will be guidance. We are debating the statutory code of practice for this legislation.

During the final stages of the parliamentary passage of the Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Bill, the Government committed to introduce a statutory code of practice to provide more detail on the reasonable steps that a trade union should take. In accordance with section 204 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992, the Secretary of State consulted ACAS and, on 25 August, published a draft code of practice, enabling trade unions, employers and other interested parties to contribute their views.

Following careful consideration of those views, a number of changes were made to the draft code, and the updated draft code of practice was laid before Parliament on 13 November. It sets out four reasonable steps that a trade union should take to meet the legal requirements under section 234E of the 1992 Act. Although the code does not impose legal obligations, it is admissible in evidence and is taken into account where a court or tribunal considers it relevant.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I am sorry, but I will not have time to conclude the debate if I take interventions, which use up a lot of time during speeches. It is right that I conclude the debate.

If the hon. Member for Glasgow South West checks Hansard, he will see what I said in response to his intervention, which was that there is no need for a statutory code of practice for employers, but guidance has been issued; it was published on 16 November. That is our view. I advise him to check Hansard. On his point about minimum service levels effectively requiring an increase in service levels, if he checks the guidance that we have put together for rail, it clearly stipulates 40% of the normal timetable. We are not expecting an increased level of service; we are just expecting a service.

To help to secure minimum service levels, it is vital that trade unionists take reasonable steps to ensure that their members who are identified in a work notice comply with that notice and do not take strike action during the periods in which it requires them to work. It will help to provide a greater level of assurance that trade union members who are required to work as part of a work notice will be encouraged to do so by the trade union, and therefore increase the likelihood of minimum service levels being achieved.

Ultimately, the code will help all parties to achieve minimum service levels where they are applied, and moderate the disproportionate impact that strike action can have. I commend the code to the Committee.

[David Linden]

On a point of order, Ms Nokes. I beg to move, That the Committee sit in private.

Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Bill

Debate between David Linden and Kevin Hollinrake

Consideration of Lords amendments
Monday 22nd May 2023 Commons Chamber

[Kevin Hollinrake]

All jurisdictions differ, and the way that minimum service levels are set differ. Some are set by the Government; we have done that, through consultation with stakeholders, and we will decide what the right level of minimum service will be. All jurisdictions differ somewhat, but the key point is that in many jurisdictions there are restrictions placed on the ability to strike.

[David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)]

On the issue of stakeholders and jurisdictions, may I turn the Minister’s attention to the devolved Administrations? The SNP Scottish Government have been crystal clear in their opposition to this tawdry piece of legislation. In the interests of the UK Government’s respect agenda when it comes to the devolved jurisdictions, why are they ploughing ahead with this Bill that drives a coach and horses through the fundamental human right to withdraw one’s labour?

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I will deal with that question in a second; it is covered by one of the Lords amendments that I will speak to, so I will address it when I come to the element of my speech relating to the devolved Administrations.

The Bill returns to us with a number of amendments made in the other place. I would like to be clear that, with the exception of our own Lords amendment 3, the Government consider the majority of the changes to be designed to make the Bill either less effective or entirely ineffective in achieving its aims. The Government will therefore be disagreeing with those amendments.

I will speak first to Lords amendment 3, which was tabled by my colleague Lord Callanan in the other place and provides clarity in respect of the matters to which an employer must not have regard in respect of trade union membership and activities when deciding whether to identify a person in a work notice. The amendment addresses a point raised by the Joint Committee on Human Rights in its report on the Bill.

Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Bill

Debate between David Linden and Kevin Hollinrake

Committee stage
Monday 30th January 2023 Commons Chamber

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I will make some progress, if I can—

[David Linden]

Will the Minister give way?

[Kevin Hollinrake]

No, I will not.

On the other points, the impact assessment will be available shortly. It is fair to say that we see the Bill as having a net benefit to the economy. Individual impact assessments will support secondary legislation.

To respond to the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner), we do not believe that the Bill reduces requirements for employers to adhere to health and safety and equality legislation. It is compatible with convention rights and international obligations—

[Kevin Hollinrake]

No, I am making some progress.

The Bill does not target union members, as clearly stated in proposed new section 234C(6) on page 4 of the Bill. In terms of devolution, we believe that minimum service levels are necessary across Great Britain, but we are of course keen to engage with the devolved Governments through consultation.

[David Linden]

rose—

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I give way one last time.

[David Linden]

I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. The Welsh Government and the Scottish Government have already made it crystal clear that they oppose this legislation; why is the Minister seeking to ram it though at the Dispatch Box in the House of Commons and completely ride roughshod over the devolution settlement?

[Kevin Hollinrake]

This legislation is subject to parliamentary scrutiny. This is the Parliament of the United Kingdom: it has every right to legislate. We believe this is needed across Great Britain, and industrial relations are clearly reserved to this Parliament.

Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Bill

Debate between David Linden and Kevin Hollinrake

2nd reading
Monday 16th January 2023 Commons Chamber

[Kevin Hollinrake]

In response to questions regarding the consistency of this legislation with the UK’s—

[David Linden]

I beg to move, That the House sit in private.

Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 163).

The House proceeded to a Division.

Covid-19 Economic Support Package

Debate between David Linden and Kevin Hollinrake

Wednesday 14th October 2020 Commons Chamber

[David Linden]

I agree with my hon. Friend, but I have to say that I did give the UK Government a degree of praise at the beginning of the pandemic, because it did seem that they were moving in a way that perhaps was not part of traditional Tory ideology, with a lot more state intervention and a lot more Government support. I think there were quite a few of us in this House who, while we would disagree enormously on the politics, welcomed the fact that the Chancellor was willing to be innovative and try new things.

One thing I would say is that nobody prepares us for a global pandemic. Politicians and people in this House have seen recessions and people have seen wars, but nobody prepares us for a pandemic. Yes, there has to be a degree of flexibility on the part of all of us in this House, but the thing I am most concerned about is that the British Government seem to have moved away from those creative, innovative solutions they had at the beginning of the year. We now find ourselves in the midst of a second wave, and all of a sudden that dynamism and creativity the Chancellor has been credited with seems to have gone away, because of the pressure that comes from people on the 1922 committee. I do not think that people on the whole are going to forgive that.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

Does the hon. Member agree with the Opposition that there should be multiple circuit breakers, and if so, is that what the policy will be in Scotland?

[David Linden]

I am not sure that the official Opposition are proposing multiple circuit breaks, to be fair to them, but it is not my job to defend the policy of the Labour party. However, what I will defend is the approach of the SNP Scottish Government, who are trying to do this in a balanced way, but we would like to see a lot more financial flexibility to do that. It would help if the UK Government gave us those financial powers. That is what I would say to the hon. Gentleman on that.

I want to come on to that very point, and highlight the work that the Scottish Government have done in supporting business during the second wave of the pandemic. The Scottish Government’s total package for businesses is over £2.3 billion. That is more than the consequentials received from the UK Government. As I mentioned to the hon. Member for Totnes (Anthony Mangnall), the Scottish Government are making an additional £40 million available to support businesses that will be affected by the new measures, and will work with affected sectors in the coming days. I am in no doubt of that. My city of Glasgow is one of those that have been under local lockdown restrictions, and the restaurants and bars in my constituency have had to shut down, but we have recognised when we have asked them to shut down, which is a way of trying to reduce the spread of the virus, that support must be coming.

The Scottish Government will continue to discuss with businesses how the support package we have offered can mitigate some or all of the employer’s contribution to the UK job retention scheme. We have put in place a £230 million “restart the economy” capital stimulus package to help stimulate the economy following the pandemic. We have announced details of a £38 million package of support for innovative early stage businesses. We have committed £2.2 million of funding to the Music Venue Trust, which will provide stability to grassroots music venues over the coming months.

What all this should highlight is that the UK Government’s financial plans have been and continue to be inadequate—excluding the self-employed, freelancers and artists; prematurely ending the furlough scheme; and refusing to make permanent the £20 increase in universal credit. Where we have had the power, the Scottish Government have spent £6.5 billion on tackling covid—above the Barnett consequentials—and they are doing all they can and all within their powers to support businesses across Scotland.

That is the issue at hand. There is only so much that the Scottish Government can do when the vast majority of Scotland’s tax and spending decisions are taken here in Westminster. The fact is that the Government cancelling the UK Budget simply demonstrates that Scotland remains an afterthought for the Tories. I would be more than happy to give way to the Chancellor if he can stand up and give some sort of clarity to Scotland’s Cabinet Secretary for Finance about what budget we are supposed to set when the Government have just gone ahead in this way.

Westferry Printworks Development

Debate between David Linden and Kevin Hollinrake

Wednesday 24th June 2020 Commons Chamber

[David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I do not intend to speak for more than about five or six minutes, if that is of help to the House.

The seriousness of these allegations merits a high-profile and far-reaching investigation, so I thank the Opposition for tabling this motion on the Westferry scandal. In contrast, the Government appear to just hope that it will simply disappear. I am still not entirely clear from what the Secretary of State said whether the Government will oppose the motion in the Division Lobby tonight. The motion before us certainly has the full support of the SNP, and we will vote in favour of it if the Government are daft enough to push it to a Division, which I must suggest to them would not look good.

I must confess that I do not like the all-too-frequent fixture in our politics of calling for ministerial resignations left, right and centre. However, in this case the conduct of the Secretary of State is seriously called into question when he himself has acknowledged that this decision was made unlawfully. In any other circumstance, this would already be difficult territory for the Secretary of State to try to wriggle off the hook, but the fact that this £1 billion housing development is linked to a Tory donor means it stinks—and it stinks, frankly, to high heavens.

Put simply, this is a classic Tory sleaze scandal that involves money and the Conservatives scratching one another’s backs. For a minute, let us put to one side the fact that the development’s owner is Richard Desmond, a multibillionaire and former owner of the Daily Express, and look solely at the fact that the development was originally denied by the Planning Inspectorate for failing to deliver enough affordable housing. That should not be overlooked, because the Government’s record on building affordable housing, let alone social housing, is absolutely woeful. We respect the fact that the impartial Planning Inspectorate rejected the application on reasonable grounds. Most of us can follow the logic on that.

Here is the nub of the matter, and why the Secretary of State’s position is so weak. The decision of the impartial Planning Inspectorate was overruled by the Secretary of State on 14 January, less than 24 hours before the introduction of a community infrastructure levy that would have cost the developer £40 million. Soon after the decision to approve the project was made, Richard Desmond makes a new £12,000 donation to the Conservative party. In the eyes of the public, the Secretary of State steps in and saves the developer £40 million in the community infrastructure levy, and then miraculously, the developer later makes a donation to the Conservative party. Surely no self-respecting Member of the House, not even the keenest December-intake Member, cannot see that that absolutely stinks.

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

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[David Linden]

I am very happy to, if the hon. Gentleman wants to defend this one.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I do not think any self-respecting Member of this House should twist an argument like that. It did not save the developer £40 million. That money would have been taken directly off the allocation for affordable homes. Has the hon. Gentleman read the document? Has he read the inspector’s report? That is exactly what it says.

[David Linden]

I have, but part of the issue is that so few documents are in circulation. That is the whole point of the motion before the House and that is what we are calling for. If the hon. Gentleman wants people to read documents, he will be in the Lobby with us to make sure that those documents are published.

To make matters worse, we have also learned that Mr Desmond, who is, let us not forget, a property developer, and the Secretary of State, who has a quasi-judicial role in the planning process, were sat together at a Tory fundraiser in November. This is the point that I was trying to intervene on the Secretary of State about earlier, because he glossed over that.

“What I did was I showed him the video”.

They are not my words but the words of Richard Desmond, who says that the Secretary of State watched a promotional video for the development of Westferry for three or four minutes and:

“It’s quite long, so he got the gist.”

In the course of the Secretary of State’s remarks, hon. Members were trying to intervene to ask whether he had watched the video, but I do not think that he was clear. I am happy to give way to him now if he wants to come to the Dispatch Box and put it on record that he did watch the video.

Plastic Bottles and Coffee Cups

Debate between David Linden and Kevin Hollinrake

Thursday 17th May 2018 Commons Chamber

[David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Leeds North West (Alex Sobel). I am pretty sure that when this debate is replayed on BBC Parliament it will probably be on after the watershed. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Wakefield (Mary Creagh) for opening the debate, and I thank the Liaison Committee for securing time for us to debate the issue.

Unusually, I want to pay tribute to the Parliamentary Private Secretary, the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake), who is currently in his spot as PPS. This week he met a number of children who had come down from Glasgow and who have been doing some fantastic work. The children were from Sunnyside Primary School, which is actually my mother’s old primary school, although it is much more innovative now. Those children are known as the Sunnyside Ocean Defenders, and they have really been making waves in Scotland with their campaign, #NaeStrawAtAw—I can clarify that for Hansard later.

The campaign expresses a desire to see a reduction in the use of single-use plastic straws, while also being mindful of people with disabilities still needing to access such products. I pay tribute to those kids, who came down here and challenged a huge number of MPs on this issue. Such issues are sometimes a bit popular, but these children are absolutely determined. That was reaffirmed to me later in the afternoon, when the group had a meeting with McDonald’s. The children are currently running a campaign called “Pretty Deadly”, which is about tackling the marketing gimmicks used by big companies, such as the balloons that they give away. I cannot think of many companies in the world that have a more iconic brand than McDonald’s, but the kids, quite rightly, really challenged the organisation, asking questions such as, “Why are you using these plastic balloons that blow away and sometimes end up in Norway or wherever?”

I was challenged not that long ago, during the Easter recess, when I went on holiday to Hammamet in Tunisia. This follows on from the point made by the hon. Member for Mid Derbyshire (Mrs Latham), who is no longer in her place.

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

May I pay tribute to the Sunnyside Ocean Defenders? Those young students were so passionate, engaged and knowledgeable. They were interested in not just plastic but many different things in the world that they wanted to improve, including the protection of polar bears. I remember clearly that they also wanted to ban wild animals in circuses, which the Department is very keen to do. I thank the hon. Gentleman for bringing those children down and pay tribute to them and their school.

[David Linden]

The hon. Gentleman is, as ever, incredibly kind, and I am sure that that will be a great encouragement to them. I thank him for passing on a personalised plastic bottle—a reusable one, I must add—to the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. The kids really appreciated that, so I am very grateful.

I want to touch on one or two concerns that I have—as you might expect, Mr Deputy Speaker—as we approach Britain’s exit from the European Union. Scottish National party Members believe that the SNP Government are leading the way on tackling waste, but that must not be threatened by the Government’s attack on the devolution settlement. We very much support the European Commission’s vision that all single-use packaging should be easily recycled or reusable by 2030. Devolution has been vital to ensuring that environmental policies and objectives are tailored to our ambition to meet those needs in Scotland, and I am concerned that any power grab from the UK Government could inhibit that.

I am conscious of time, and I promised not to ramble on, but there is one final point I want to make. I will finish where I started, by talking about the children of Sunnyside Primary. It is a school of conservation, and I am incredibly proud of that. Schools often have Latin mottos, but unusually, the motto of Sunnyside Primary is, “We do not inherit the Earth from our ancestors; we borrow it from our children.” When making decisions as legislators in this House, that should always be at the forefront of our minds.

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

Debate between David Linden and Kevin Hollinrake

Wednesday 7th February 2018 Public Bill Committees

[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 ---

[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 ---

[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.