Neonatal Care (Leave and Pay) Bill

Edward Argar Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 15th July 2022 Commons Chamber

[Edward Argar (Charnwood) (Con)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East (Stuart C. McDonald) on introducing this hugely important Bill. It has been about four and a half years since I last spoke from the Back Benches; it feels a little unfamiliar, but it is right that I am doing it on a sitting Friday for private Members’ Bills. One of the great benefits of having recently become an ex-Minister is that I have the opportunity to speak in debates like this one and put my support behind such excellent private Members’ Bills.

It is perhaps somewhat surprising, but I welcome the fact that the Scottish National party is helping to implement a Conservative manifesto commitment for us. I do not think that that would happen very often, but it is a testament to this House’s ability to come together around issues that really matter. When people watch proceedings of this House such as Prime Minister’s questions, they often see the combative nature of politics. I encourage many more people to watch sitting Fridays, when the House comes together to deliver outcomes and legislation that genuinely make a difference to people’s lives. That is one reason why I am very pleased to be here today.

Another reason is the persuasive skills of my hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Rebecca Harris), who does an amazing job of encouraging all Members who are able to come in on a Friday to contribute to important debates such as this one. I welcome my hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough (Jane Hunt) to her place on the Front Bench; I very much hope that she will be there for many years to come.

The context of the Bill was ably set out by the hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East. One in seven babies requires neonatal care of some sort, and 50,000 babies a year require neonatal care in hospital for more than a week, so the need is stark. The hon. Gentleman mentioned a number of other factors—for example, the need to look at the support and accommodation available to families in hospital settings, including simple things such as catering facilities. I encourage my successor in the Department of Health and Social Care to bear that in mind as we look to build new hospitals and upgrade others.

The Bill goes to the heart of what is hugely important to these families, too many of whom are asked to choose between their livelihoods, work and obligations, and their time with their child. This debate reminds me of the debates we had on what is now the Parental Bereavement (Leave and Pay) Act 2018, which those who were Members of the House back in 2017 and 2018 will remember. In those debates, we talked about the fact that many businesses do the right thing and make support available, even though they are not compelled by statute to go as far as we will hopefully move towards today, but some do not, which is why it is right that we legislate through this Bill to put that right and fill the gap.

The Bill reminds me not only of those debates, but of our debates on the children’s funeral fund, for which the hon. Member for Swansea East (Carolyn Harris) campaigned. I was the Minister who put that in place. Again, that provision is hugely important. The two measures that I have outlined are in place for when the worst happens. Thankfully, today we are talking not about the worst happening, but about babies who need more neonatal care in hospital. However, there is a common theme that runs through the pieces of legislation that are already in place and this Bill: giving parents the time and space to be parents, to be with their children and to process what is going on, without at the same time having to worry constantly about what is happening to their job or their family finances.

[Christina Rees (Neath) (Lab/Co-op)]

I thank the hon. Member for all the help he gave me when he was a Minister; I am really grateful. I pledge my support to the Bill, because during lockdown I was blessed with two grandsons, and the provisions in the Bill would have made a huge difference to my daughter Angharad and her husband Ciaran—who we call “Shaky”, but that is another story!

[Edward Argar]

It was a pleasure and a privilege to work with the hon. Lady on a number of issues during my stint in the Department of Health. That goes to the heart of what I said about how much we can achieve in the House—how much is often not seen outside the House—by working across the Chamber, making changes that are often small but that genuinely make a huge difference to people’s lives.

We have heard that there is already a degree of statutory support available, such as the ability to request flexible working, which is welcome, but it does not go far enough and it does not address the challenge of businesses that choose not to do the right thing, not to be flexible and not to support such families.

I hugely welcome what the hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East has brought before the House. Of course there are details to be worked out, and I hope that can be done speedily and efficiently in Committee. I am happy to volunteer to the hon. Gentleman that if I am still on the Back Benches when the time comes—in anticipation of a possible longer stint on the Back Benches—I would be happy to serve on the Committee for this important piece of legislation. It is hugely important: no family or parent should be forced to choose, or feel forced to choose, between having the space to be with their child in neonatal care, and their livelihood and job, yet there are currently parents who have to make that choice every day. That cannot be right, which is why I hugely welcome the hon. Gentleman’s Bill. I look forward to supporting the Bill today and, should he so wish, to serving on the Bill Committee to help ensure that we get the legislation on to the statute book as quickly as possible.

Employment (Allocation of Tips) Bill

Edward Argar Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 15th July 2022 Commons Chamber

[Edward Argar (Charnwood) (Con)]

I very much welcome the Bill from my hon. Friend the Member for Watford (Dean Russell). As you will know, Mr Deputy Speaker, he is nothing if not persistent once he has a cause to pursue. I recall that he introduced this Bill in 2021, and as it did not proceed into law at that stage, he is back again and determined to get it through the House on this occasion. I am very happy to be here today to support him in that endeavour.

A lot of the speeches have focused on the hospitality industry—restaurants, bars and similar—but of course, as has been mentioned, this issue is drawn more widely than that and goes across the broader service industry of hairdressing, barbers and so on. A whole range of services are impacted by the issue that my hon. Friend is highlighting today.

Many of our constituents will be unaware, and would be surprised were they made aware, that there is no law—no statute—that directly addresses this issue, and that tips or service charges paid through the business are legally the property of that business. Therefore, it is down to the good will of that business or the approach of that business to ensure that tips get to the staff for whom they are intended. There is no statutory protection of that currently.

Yet as my hon. Friend and my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington (Felicity Buchan) have said, when any of us or any of our constituents go to a restaurant or the barber and pay a tip, we do it because we want to reflect to the members of staff who have provided exceptional service or courteous and friendly service to us that we recognise that service and want to reward them directly for it.

I take the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington, which is absolutely right, that this is not just about those who are front of house with whom we interact, but about the people in the kitchen, those doing the washing up, and a whole range of others who play a key part in the experience we have enjoyed. It is right that tips are distributed fairly among those who have played a role in our experience. None the less, we expect those tips or service charges to go to those people who have done the work for us, so I very much welcome the Bill.

My hon. Friend the Member for Watford was absolutely right to highlight throughout his speech the word “fairness”, and the Bill goes to the heart of that. It is about fairness to those who are providing the exceptional service and fairness to consumers who believe that the tips and service charges they are paying will go to those individuals. At this point, I should of course pay tribute to the campaigners and to the staff who do the amazing job. I also pay tribute—as the hon. Member for West Ham (Ms Brown), who is not in her place at the moment, highlighted—to Unite the union and others who have been pressing this issue.

When I first entered the House in 2015, this was one of the issues running hot in the news. At that stage, the evidence suggested that about two thirds of employers took some form of deduction from tips or service charges, and sometimes as much as 10%. Of course, there has been progress since then, which is very welcome. However, during the pandemic, people developed behaviours—I do not think they have changed subsequently —of paying for things less with cash and more with cards, therefore putting any tips or additional money through the business in that way. I think the Bill is very timely, and it is the right thing to do.

As has been set out, the Bill creates a legal obligation essentially to allocate tips fairly. Rightly, it does that through a statutory code of practice. That is the right mechanism because it allows for a degree of flexibility and the code to be developed in slightly slower time. There will be complexities, which hon. Members have highlighted, relating to businesses and how to define particular elements, so that is the right approach in such a complex landscape.

The other point highlighted is about people—staff and consumers—being aware. Transparency is vital in this space, so I welcome the inclusion, in the opening remarks from my hon. Friend the Member for Watford, of a written policy that gives people transparency and an understanding of what they can expect, but also—

[Jill Mortimer]

Does my hon. Friend agree that that is one of the greatest problems with this? Relatively recently, we have always had on bills an optional service charge that is anything but optional. Many people pay it without even really looking at it or considering it, and no one knows if the money goes where it is intended to go and should go. The Bill will make the very important change that we need.

[Edward Argar]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. That goes to the heart of transparency and openness to the consumer but also to those working in this context. My hon. Friend the Member for Watford, in drafting and presenting the Bill, has, as ever, been diligent. He has set out the route to an employment tribunal, which will be an option, and given those tribunals the remedies they need to make redress, should they find a particular employer has not complied with both the spirit and the letter of the Bill and the code of practice.

From my understanding of the Bill, this is hugely important. The Bill has only 15 clauses, but they are important and tightly drafted. It addresses not just the passing on of tips and service charges without their being top-sliced and deducted, but the vital need for fairness in how they are distributed between staff.

I am absolutely delighted to support my hon. Friend’s Bill. It is about fairness to consumers, but most importantly fairness to the staff who day in, day out provide all of us with exceptional service. They have been through a challenging time. It is important that we recognise this in statute. I suspect many businesses do the right thing and it is always a shame when one has to legislate, but it is right, just as with the previous Bill we debated, to do the right thing by those who provide exceptional and courteous service to us. It is about the kind of society we wish to see and the approach we wish to see within that society. I welcome my hon. Friend’s Bill. He has my complete support and I very much hope that it will have a smooth and swift passage on to the statute book.

Parental Bereavement (Leave and Pay) Bill

Edward Argar Excerpts

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

[Patricia Gibson]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his kind words. What the Bill has shown, across this House, is the best of what the House of Commons can be. It is unfortunate that we cannot work in a more consensual manner on many more issues. On an issue such as this, when it is about human beings, compassion and feelings for our fellow man, this House has come out today looking much better than it often does. I thank the hon. Gentleman for his words.

To face the death of a son or daughter with no entitlement to paid leave under the law is a terrible injustice that generations of people before us have suffered. I am proud to say that, today, we will correct that. The Bill sets out a minimum leave period of two weeks. I know that that is not very long, but given that currently there is no entitlement at all, it offers a start and provides legal recognition that the response to such a life-changing event can no longer be—and should no longer be—a matter of discretion for employers. This is one of those days when, whatever criticism people make of the House of Commons, either justified or unjustified, we can feel that we are making a real and practical difference to people’s lives as they face the worst circumstances imaginable—the death of their child.

Let me turn to amendments 22 and 23. We know the trauma that accompanies the death of a child. The first reaction is shock and disbelief, especially in the case of a sudden death. A parent may initially refuse to accept the loss and try to continue as normal, blocking out the experience, which is a common feature of trauma. For some parents, going on as far as possible as though the death is not “real” will be a reaction that helps them cope. Keeping busy is a coping strategy that many use and one that, to a great extent, my own husband used when our baby was stillborn at full term. People cope with the devastation of losing a child in a variety of ways. As the hon. Member for Torbay pointed out, there is no right or wrong way to do this. That is why the amendments are important. If they are passed, they will provide a signal to bereaved parents. The Bill is saying, “We recognise the trauma of your loss and we recognise its life-changing nature, but it is important that you take your leave between these particular weeks, from this date to that date.” I do not believe that that is really what we wish to do; it is not the message that we want to send out, which is why flexibility is so important.

[Edward Argar (Charnwood) (Con)]

It was a pleasure to serve with the hon. Lady on the Bill Committee. She is absolutely right to highlight the importance of flexibility and also of respect that each person is an individual and that each family copes in different ways. In some tragic cases, there are also practical reasons why greater flexibility is needed. For example, if there is an inquest or an inquiry into a death, that may come significantly later, and that may be a period when leave is needed to cope with the trauma of that event.

[Patricia Gibson]

The hon. Gentleman makes an excellent point, and I was just about to move on to that. I agree wholeheartedly with his insightful remarks.

It is simply not appropriate or desirable to set an early time frame as to when bereavement leave should be taken. Some parents may feel the need for leave only when they have had time—it can be months later—to deal with the enormity of the loss, and when the reality of the loss has sunk in.

Much of the discussion around this Bill seems to be predicated on the loss of a child after illness. Yes, it is true, far too many families are devastated by watching a child ravaged by some terrible, unforgiving disease against which they have so few resources to defend themselves, but let us not forget that children die in a variety of circumstances. The sudden and unexpected loss of a child is no less traumatic. When a parent loses their child in dramatic and sudden circumstances, they will have had no idea that the last time they saw their child would be the last time that they saw them alive. Then there is some horrific accident—perhaps a car accident or some other type of accident—and in a moment, families are destroyed by grief and the cruel random nature of events.

We need flexibility not just to allow parents to grieve in their own way in their own time, but, as the hon. Member for Charnwood (Edward Argar) said, to deal with a fatal accident inquiry, which is what would happen in Scotland, or a coroner’s inquiry in England. There may be a court case; perhaps even a trial. We have to consider all of those circumstances. There may be a significant gap between the loss of the child and the burial. There is a whole host of reasons why leave for bereaved parents must be flexible. If it is not, I fear that bereaved parents, whose employers—a small minority of them—are not as sympathetic as they might be, may face losing their jobs as well as losing their child. Bereaved parents must have the full protection of the law. I urge the Minister to consider this carefully. I am sure that he will, because he is a reasonable fellow.

Amendments 24 and 25 seek to recognise that the loss of a son or daughter is traumatic and life-changing no matter how old, or what age, that son or daughter may be. I think we all understand that it is against the natural order of events for any parent to bury their own child. We have the opportunity to recognise that in this Bill. I am sure that everyone in this House, and beyond it, would agree that losing a son or daughter aged 17 is a tragedy that should not and must not be treated differently from losing a son or daughter aged 19, 21, 23 or 25—we can pick whatever age we like.

--- Later in debate ---

[James Cartlidge]

It is a real concern. This whole subject of the changing nature of work is fundamental, and it matters because it gives rise to this question: if someone has been “working” for one of these companies—possibly as a gig economy worker, but certainly in that grey area between employment and self-employment—and they suffer the terrible tragedy of bereavement, are we really saying, particularly if they have been working primarily for one company for many months, that they should not enjoy this right? That is a key question; it is what the whole Taylor review boils down to.

When we talk about the nature of someone’s work, most of us have an instinctive understanding of what employment looks like. The review puts it well:

“Ultimately, if it looks and feels like employment, it should have the status and protection of employment.”

In other words, those people should have these sorts of rights. That is incredibly important.

I shall not stray from the subject, Madam Deputy Speaker, but there are a whole load of issues, including auto-enrolment, relating to how we bring greater security to those who are caught up in a flexible and dynamic workforce in which the need for flexibility can sometimes mean that people are exploited. To all intents and purposes, they have given their employment to one firm, yet they have not been given the same security and rights that they would expect for having reduced their own freedoms. That is the exchange that underpins an employment contract.

I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton will be able to give further information on the extent to which the Bill will benefit those in the specific category of worker. They are not the normal self-employed—if someone starts a business, they would not expect to have the same rights—but the 1.3 million people whom we know of in the gig economy. If they have offered their work on a pseudo-employed basis for many months and then suffer bereavement, my view is that there is a strong case for suggesting that they should have the same rights as the employed.

Finally, on the amendments relating to the cut-off point, which is a difficult issue, the moral argument that was set out very well by the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran is very hard to argue with. Who knows precisely what the cost would be of her amendments and those tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay on the cut-off point—my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Worcestershire made an estimate, and I am sure it would not be many, many millions—but I want to understand the extent to which those who would suffer from the cut-off point because their child was over 18 would still be protected under the provisions on reasonableness. After I intervened on my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South (Chris Philp), he confirmed that his understanding was that they would be protected, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton, but I would be grateful if the Minister would confirm that someone would still be protected, even if their child was above the cut-off point, because that is very important.

In conclusion, this is a powerful Bill, and our proceedings are a classic example of Parliament coming together to deliver changes that appear small in terms of the legislation and the cost, but that will be enormously beneficial to those struck by a pain that is, for me, beyond understanding. I have nothing but the greatest sympathy for those who suffer bereavement. We should all be proud of this work. I hope that the Bill proceeds and encourage everyone in the House to support it.

[Edward Argar]

It is a pleasure to speak at this stage of the Bill’s progress. I very much enjoyed my time on the Bill Committee, and pay tribute to all my colleagues who served on that Committee. Indeed, it was also a pleasure and a privilege to speak on Second Reading of this Bill.

As many hon. and right hon. Members have said during the passage of this Bill, we are, to a degree, righting a wrong. Although many businesses do the right thing, as we would wish them to do, in looking after and supporting bereaved parents in the dreadful circumstances of having lost a child, there are some, as we have also heard, who have not done that. What this Bill does is not only to send a very clear message to all businesses but to provide a basic level of protection.

I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake). I think that this is his second private Member’s Bill and, like his previous one, it stands a very good chance of success. He is always someone to have in one’s corner when taking a cause through the private Member’s Bill process. I also pay tribute to my hon. Friends the Members for Eddisbury (Antoinette Sandbach), for Colchester (Will Quince), and, although she is not in her place today, my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Victoria Prentis) and, of course, the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Patricia Gibson), all of whom have spoken extremely movingly, at different points, about their experiences and why this piece of legislation is so hugely important.

Let me turn to the specific amendments before us today. I can understand why each of them is hugely important, but we must also be careful that we do not try to make the perfect the enemy of the good. The key must be to get this legislation through the House. Amendments 22 and 23, tabled by the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran, are essentially about flexibility, which was also highlighted in the amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay (Kevin Foster). She makes an extremely valid point. If I recall, there are organisations, such as Together for Short Lives and Cruse Bereavement Care, which have all made the same point about the need for flexibility. Individuals and families cope and grieve in different ways, at different paces and at different times. Some will want to go straight back to work, while others will want time to grieve quietly. Equally, as we have touched on in previous comments, if there is an inquest or if the death has been sudden and unexpected that may well also increase the need for flexibility, because no one will know when they may need that time off.

Although I entirely take on board what the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran said—I will be interested to hear whether the Minister will allude to this—it may be that the most effective way of addressing the points on flexibility is to feed them into the consultation, which is due later this year, and to use that as a mechanism to address them, rather than necessarily putting them in the Bill. I am entirely sympathetic to the points that she makes. I would be grateful if the Minister could say what he thinks is the best method by which to achieve that outcome.

We then turn to amendments 24 and 25, which were mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge), about where the cut-off point should be. He was absolutely right in what he said. The hon. Lady made an extremely powerful moral case for her amendments. My hon. Friends the Members for Thirsk and Malton and for Croydon South (Chris Philp) were clear that the reasonableness test would address the issue, but, again, I would welcome clarity from the Minister on his interpretation of that.

Finally, let me address amendments 1, 2, 12, 14 and others on the definition of what a parent is in the context of this Bill. I argue that that is one of the hardest parts of getting this Bill right—how do we define the scope of what is a parent. There will be biological parents, and there will be the partners of someone who is not the biological parent, but still feels the bereavement as acutely. I believe that, in Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton mentioned the case of Mandy Ruston who talked on Facebook about the fact that, while she was able to get support from her employer, her partner, a non-biological parent, was told by his employers to return to work.

It is extremely difficult, particularly in the modern age, for us to define who is a parent. Perhaps, rather than looking at a legalistic or biological definition, we should look at it in terms of caring responsibilities. The challenge is to try to find a legal definition for the purposes of legislation. This Bill goes a very long way towards doing exactly that. It is not perfect, but I have yet to see, in my short time in this place, any legislation that I believe is entirely perfect as it passes through this House, or indeed as it emerges at the other end. There are always things that can be tweaked to reflect the changing nature of society or changing circumstances as the world moves on.

Throughout the passage of this Bill, we have heard a number of extremely moving, thoughtful speeches and contributions. As Members on both sides of the House have said, all those contributions have been made in a spirit designed to allow the Bill to progress and to work together to come up with the best legislation we can. With that in mind, the key for all of us must be to get the Bill on to the statute book. Where there are issues that still need to be ironed out, we should not shy away from that and we should continue to look at them, but the key must be not to let that slow down or impede the passage of the Bill. We should get the Bill on to the statute book and then we can, as necessary, refine and tweak by regulation or through the consultation.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Richard Harrington)]

I thank colleagues on both sides of the House for the moving speeches that they have made. As you may know, Madam Deputy Speaker, I usually try to start my addresses to this House with a quip or a humorous comment, but I am afraid that today is not an occasion for that. This is a very serious Bill. I am the third Minister to have had the honour of working on it. That is not because no one can be bothered with it, but because it is very important. Every human being, let alone every Member of Parliament, will have every sympathy with it.

Colleagues have made it clear that the Government fully support the Bill, and I reaffirm once again that it very much has our backing. Despite the public reading, quite rightly, of the system of opposition—some say that it is opposition for opposition’s sake and some say that people are being partisan—this is a very good occasion when the reality is not that.

I was in business for most of my adult life before first coming to this place, and I did not really think about this issue. When I first started to consider the Bill, I remembered an occasion when it was brought to my attention that someone had had a bereavement. I just said, not because I am particularly humanitarian or perfect but as anyone would say, “Take as much time as you need.” I think that the vast majority of employers do say that. Before there was statutory sick pay, statutory holiday pay and so on, I am sure that a lot of employers, even in the 19th century, just did what they thought was the right thing—for example, the non-conformists building houses in Bournville and elsewhere. Employers always have been, and certainly are in the present day, far more responsible than just relying on the minimum in law. However, it is our place to make laws to provide that basic minimum—not to insult those who do the right thing but to provide a safety net, or catch-all, for the employees of those who do not. Quite clearly, there are those who do not, and they should be ashamed of themselves, frankly.

Not every employer is like BT or a firm with tens of thousands of employees. My hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge) mentioned that he had a business with only two or three employees. That makes things much more difficult and employers have to be much more flexible. Big firms can make proper arrangements, and often do indeed have them. I have come across many cases of companies that have very responsible policies on this kind of thing, far and above what the law would provide, because that is the right thing for their employees.

Oral Answers to Questions

Edward Argar Excerpts

Tuesday 1st May 2018 Commons Chamber

The Secretary of State was asked—

[Edward Argar (Charnwood) (Con)]

1. What steps he is taking to ensure that markets work in the interests of consumers.

[Nigel Mills (Amber Valley) (Con)]

6. What steps he is taking to ensure that the industrial strategy benefits consumers through increased competition.

[The Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Greg Clark)]

The industrial strategy makes it clear that a competitive UK economy in which firms compete on price, service and innovation is one that serves consumers best. Our recently published Green Paper, “Modernising Consumer Markets”, sets out proposals to ensure that consumers benefit from new technologies and, in particular, that consumers’ data must be used to benefit them and not to act unfairly against them.

[Edward Argar]

I welcome that response. In ensuring that markets work for consumers, it is important that they work for vulnerable consumers, including those with mental health issues or dementia. Will my right hon. Friend enlarge on what he is doing to ensure that the markets work for those sorts of consumers?

[Greg Clark]

It is important that providers of services take into account the struggles of people suffering from mental ill health or dementia. The Green Paper sets out proposals requiring that minimum standards be applied, especially for utilities. In that regard, I applaud the work of the Alzheimer’s Society, which has launched the dementia-friendly utility guide, in which several companies are participating. That will help to make sure that people who deal with vulnerable consumers can assist them with bills, booking appointments and suchlike.

Oral Answers to Questions

Edward Argar Excerpts

Tuesday 7th November 2017 Commons Chamber

[Claire Perry]

The hon. Lady will know that the Tees valley has been incredibly assiduous in campaigning in many ways to be a location for the deployment of the new technology. We are working actively with it and we would like to see some investment proposals coming forward.

[Edward Argar (Charnwood) (Con)]

In reaffirming the UK’s commitment to the Paris climate change deal, will my hon. Friend assure me that she had her colleagues will continue to pressure and persuade other countries that have not signed up to it or that might be reticent about its merits and about why they should be involved?

[Claire Perry]

My hon. Friend makes a good point: we are only as good as the partners that we are working with. Other countries, including India and China, have set progressive goals for their own countries involving very rapid decarbonisation. Paris remains fit for purpose and will not be renegotiated. We would like all countries, particularly the major OECD countries, to change their minds and get behind this groundbreaking agreement for the world.

Parental Bereavement (Leave and Pay) Bill

Edward Argar Excerpts

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

[Edward Argar (Charnwood) (Con)]

I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake) for introducing this Bill. He is a man of great integrity and when he takes on a cause, he follows it through. Those who support the Bill—all of us in this place—are grateful for that.

I also pay tribute to my hon. Friends the Members for Banbury (Victoria Prentis) and for Eddisbury (Antoinette Sandbach) and to the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Patricia Gibson), who, although she is not in the House today, has spoken very movingly on this issue. All those colleagues spoke movingly and with great dignity and courage in this place. In so doing, they have helped to move forward an issue of great importance.

It would be remiss of me not to highlight the hugely important work of my hon. Friend—indeed, my friend—the Member for Colchester (Will Quince). He has been hugely successful, and not only in securing the commitment in my party’s manifesto. The Opposition are united with us in their commitment on this issue, as are other parties. He has highlighted the issue tirelessly in the House and he has taken the campaign to the country and persuaded the country of its importance, and he has done so with great personal courage and dignity. We in this House and his electors in Colchester are lucky to have him.

As many hon. Members have said, the circumstances that this Bill addresses must be every person’s worst nightmare. We have heard, rightly, that many employers do a fantastic and compassionate job in such circumstances—we should pay tribute to them—but we have also heard, sadly, that there are some who do not. We heard an example this morning, I think from my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester, that to my mind was inexcusable. There will be others who, probably unintentionally and through no ill intent, place a burden on people in this situation. This Bill seeks to help to build the sort of society and the sort of compassionate approach that we all wish to see. It provides time and space for bereaved parents not only to make the tragic and necessary arrangements but to grieve and to try to begin coming to terms with what has happened.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton said, the Bill provides a degree of flexibility and choice for parents. As my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart) suggested, parents can choose not to take the two weeks’ leave immediately but to split it into parts if necessary, depending on the circumstances and whether it works for them.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle (Huw Merriman) said, the Bill provides one less thing for parents to worry about. They will not have to go to their employer to ask for leave, they will not have to worry about whether they might be pressed into coming back and they will not have to worry about making the case for leave. Although leave might be only a tiny thing in the circumstances, anything that reduces the stress and pressure is hugely welcome.

My hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton will correct me if I am wrong, but I welcome the fact that the schedule introduces proposed new section 80EE to the Employment Rights Act 1996, which will allow the Government to make regulations to extend the provision to include stillbirths, which is hugely important.

In response to questions raised by hon. Members in this debate, my hon. Friend rightly said that elements of the Bill could be clarified or considered further, but I hope it is not only a hugely important step in its own right but part of broader progress on the issue and on what we do to support people in such circumstances. My hon. Friends the Members for Colchester and for Eddisbury have made the case for building on the work to introduce bereavement rooms, dedicated space and facilities in hospitals and elsewhere. The Government have already invested £35 million, and there is more to do. I hope the Bill will help to stimulate those further improvements.

The Bill strikes the right balance between employers and employees. It reflects the compassion and the sort of society that all of us in this Chamber and in this country, regardless of the political disagreements we may have, would wish to see. The Bill’s time has come, and I am proud to support it wholeheartedly, as I am sure are all other hon. Members.

Magnox: Early Contract Terminations

Edward Argar Excerpts

Monday 27th March 2017 Commons Chamber

[Greg Clark]

I am grateful to the Chairman of the Select Committee for what he said. I can confirm that the governance and the management arrangements of the NDA are very much in scope. I put the terms of reference in the Library of both Houses of Parliament this morning. It is open to Mr Holliday to go where the evidence takes him—to use that phrase on this. The particular concern is over this contract, but if he feels that he needs to look at other aspects of the NDA’s management, he is absolutely free to do so.

[Edward Argar (Charnwood) (Con)]

I welcome the characteristic candour and openness with which the Secretary of State has approached the issue. Will he reassure me and the House that the scope of the inquiry will look not only at the NDA, but—as I think he just alluded to—at the role, if any, of UK Government Departments and the Scottish Government in the process?

[Greg Clark]

I will, indeed. The terms of reference that were published with my written statement this morning make it very clear that, as is absolutely right and proper, the inquiry applies to the NDA and Government Departments, from the beginning of the procurement in 2012 to the conclusion of the litigation and the termination of the contract.

Oral Answers to Questions

Edward Argar Excerpts

Tuesday 8th November 2016 Commons Chamber

[Greg Clark]

The hon. Lady knows that when it comes to energy, it is very important that we have regard to the costs that are incurred by consumers, whether they are private residential consumers or businesses. That is why these decisions have to be taken to contain the costs that would be on bills.

[Edward Argar (Charnwood) (Con)]

15. What steps his Department is taking to ensure the increased use of clean and reliable energy sources.

[The Minister for Climate Change and Industry (Mr Nick Hurd)]

The Government are committed to upgrading our energy infrastructure to make sure it is reliable, affordable and increasingly clean. The phasing out of coal and our commitment to new nuclear and new renewables through the next round of contract for difference auctions are key milestones in the energy transition that is under way.

[Edward Argar]

Tidal power represents one of the cleanest and most reliable types of green renewable energy. I am sorry to bring the Minister back to this topic, but may I again press him, due process notwithstanding, to make his decision on the future of the Swansea Bay tidal lagoon project as swiftly as possible?

[Mr Hurd]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on his persistence in pressing this point. I have nothing to add to the bureaucratic prose that the Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, my hon. Friend the Member for Hereford and South Herefordshire (Jesse Norman), has placed so elegantly on the record. We will look at the matter seriously.

--- Later in debate ---

[Greg Clark]

Our universities and scientific institutions continue to be the best in the world. We are opening the Francis Crick Institute this very week, which is an emblem of our leadership in this sector. As the hon. Gentleman will see as we discuss our industrial strategy in the weeks and months ahead, I am determined that reinforcing the position of scientific excellence and innovation will be central to our economy and to how we project the strategy forward.

[Edward Argar (Charnwood) (Con)]

T6. A key factor in the success of any industrial strategy is the ability of business and industry to access the communications and technical infrastructure they need to succeed. What steps is the Secretary of State taking to ensure such access?

[Greg Clark]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. If we are to maintain and build on our position of excellence, we cannot be complacent about supporting infrastructure, including digital infrastructure. In my view, it needs an upgrade.