Honda in Swindon

James Cartlidge Excerpts

Tuesday 19th February 2019 Commons Chamber

[Greg Clark]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his question. It is important to point to and acknowledge the reasons for the decision that have been given by the company. I have been clear that publicly the automotive sector has strongly advocated the need for supply chains to continue to be effective and uninterrupted. I work very closely with Ken Skates, my counterpart in the Welsh Government. We will make sure that we work together to ensure that the supply chain in Wales is part of initiatives we take.

[James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)]

I have a sense of déjà vu, because few days after the meaningful vote was lost, Philips announced the closure of the Philips Avant plant—the largest plant in my constituency. It said explicitly that it was not due to Brexit that production was being moved to the Netherlands. The key point is surely this: we know it is bad news, whatever the cause; we now have to get new inward investment and make ourselves competitive and attractive. Will we do that better if we trade on WTO terms, or if we have a deal with the EU, with tariff-free access to our largest market?

[Greg Clark]

My hon. Friend puts it extremely well. In a world of competitive investment, we need to deploy all the assets and strengths at our disposal. Internationally mobile investments are competed for by many other countries, so we have to get everything right. It seems to me that to have trading relationships that are the bare minimum of international arrangements is a handicap rather than an advantage.

Oral Answers to Questions

James Cartlidge Excerpts

Tuesday 20th November 2018 Commons Chamber

[Greg Clark]

I certainly will. It was a delight to be with the hon. Gentleman and others to celebrate the opening of Boeing’s first European manufacturing facility. It is in South Yorkshire because there is a thriving hub of advanced manufacturing there. The industrial strategy is all about reinforcing that.

[James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)]

I welcome the tax on tech giants that was announced at the Budget, but will my right hon. Friend liaise with the Chancellor to ensure that it does not have a wider detrimental impact on investment in our tech start-ups?

[Greg Clark]

I will indeed. It is important that the tech sector maintains the progress that it has made in recent years, and I will do everything I can, with the Chancellor, to secure that.

Economic Growth: East of England

James Cartlidge Excerpts

Wednesday 10th October 2018 Westminster Hall

[Peter Aldous (Waveney) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered promoting economic growth in the East of England.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Davies. The purpose of this debate is to highlight the enormous economic potential of the east of England and to put forward proposals for promoting growth, which can benefit people right across the region. In the past, East Anglians have perhaps been slow to come forward. We have hidden our light under a bushel, and thus the region has not secured the investment in infrastructure that is needed to transform what is already a highly successful economic region into a global leader. It is important that we now cast aside such shyness.

As we look beyond Brexit, the UK must strive to be the leader in a variety of fields. The east of England can help secure this goal, whether it is in the clean energy, agri-food, life sciences or information and communications technology sectors. The catalyst for this debate was the formation last December of the east of England all-party parliamentary group, which the hon. Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner) and I co-chair, and which last month launched its Budget submission, “Building together the foundations of more productivity, prosperity and inclusivity in the East of England”. Much of what I will say is based on the proposals set out in that publication.

What is the east of England? In some respects, it is an area without boundaries. It includes the counties of Suffolk and Norfolk as well as Cambridgeshire and what used to be Huntingdonshire, and it extends to parts of Essex and Hertfordshire, though owing to the post-war growth of London, it does not reach as far south as it used to. From the Minister’s perspective, I fear it does not include Watford—its inclusion would enable the region to claim a premiership football team, as the Town and the Canaries currently flounder.

The region is relatively flat—it is often described as the bread bowl of England—and made up of attractive villages and countryside, interspersed with popular market towns and larger towns and cities such as Cambridge, Norwich, Ipswich, Colchester, Peterborough and, on its southern boundaries, Chelmsford.

[James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)]

My hon. Friend is a fine bastion of our region and I congratulate him on securing this debate. The east of England is beautiful, but if we want to encourage tourism, people have to be able to get there. Does he agree that one of the fundamental challenges is our rail network in the eastern region?

[Peter Aldous]

My hon. Friend is spot on: infrastructure and communications, whether road, railway or digital, are hugely important to the region’s future. I shall briefly touch on that, and I am quite sure my colleagues will do likewise.

The east of England APPG held its inaugural meeting on 13 December 2017, when we were addressed by Lord Heseltine, who emphasised the need to think strategically and to consider how best to manage and spread economic growth across the whole region for the benefit of all people. The Budget submission has been supported and endorsed not just by MPs, but by business, local government and local enterprise partnerships. Signatories include British Sugar, Stansted Airport, AstraZeneca, Anglian Water, James Palmer, who is the Mayor of Cambridgeshire and Peterborough, the Haven Gateway Partnership, the New Anglia local enterprise partnership, the Hertfordshire local enterprise partnership and the East of England Local Government Association.

In arriving at our recommendations, we held evidence sessions and considered a range of innovative ideas as to how to promote and sustain economic growth, including proposals from Lord Adonis; Councillor David Finch, who is the leader of Essex County Council; and Mayor James Palmer, who is working up plans for much-needed infrastructure improvements through land value capture. The recommendations that we are putting forward should be regarded not as a wish list, but instead as a new way of working and getting things done—business and Government, both national and local, working together to secure investment that ensures the whole of the east of England realises its full potential.

It is important to highlight the enormous economic potential in the east of England. We are one of the fastest-growing regions, in terms of both population and economy. With a population of 6.1 million, the region is growing rapidly at a pace that is second only to London. In 2016, the east of England was one of just three UK regions to contribute more in tax than it received in public moneys. Despite this, public expenditure in the region was £8,155 per capita in 2017, which is less than the UK average of £9,159.

We are a frontrunner in attracting business. In 2017, the east of England saw the largest increase in business numbers of all UK regions. We are at the forefront of global excellence in innovation. The region is a centre for nationally and internationally recognised expertise in sectors such as life sciences, ICT, agri-tech and low-carbon energy supply. The corridor from Cambridge to Milton Keynes and Oxford has the potential to be the UK’s Silicon Valley. We are a jobs powerhouse—total employment is expected to rise by 7% over the next 15 years—and we complement and enhance the position of London as a world city.

Significant investment is already taking place in the east of England. By 2020, all trains in the area served by Greater Anglia will be brand-new, not second-hand hand-me-downs from other regions. Some £1.5 billion is being spent on removing what is probably the worst road bottleneck in the whole country: the A14 between Huntingdon and Cambridge. A further £300 million is being spent on schemes along the A47 from Peterborough to Lowestoft. The Norwich northern distributor road is open, and vital new bridges are being built in Great Yarmouth and Lowestoft—the latter is in my constituency.

There is a need to join up the dots and to think strategically, so that the whole region can benefit from those investments. There are also challenges that are best met at regional level, such as climate change and water resource management. We are not only a very dry region but a low-lying one, with a coast where the battle with rising sea levels has been raging for millennia. The recommendations in the APPG report provide the foundations to promote growth in three areas: transport, infrastructure and industrial strategy. I shall briefly go through them.

With regard to transport, we recommend that the

“Government should support England’s Economic Heartland and Transport East—the region’s two sub-national transport bodies—to become statutory bodies.”

By doing so, we will be better able to prioritise, fund and then deliver road, rail and air transport improvements.

On infrastructure,

“councils should have greater discretionary powers to encourage housing delivery…Further action is recommended to free-up finances to build affordable homes at scale”

through a variety of measures, including

“relaxing Housing Revenue Account borrowing…Ministers should explore innovative funding options that could help deliver infrastructure to enable new housing, either by direct council investment or by leveraging in other funding…Government should facilitate greater cooperation between developers, infrastructure providers, and local planning authority providers to improve housing delivery.”

The importance of digital connectivity cannot be overestimated. The need for a full fibre network to all homes and businesses across the whole region is incredibly important. It is an absolute must, if the region is to compete globally post Brexit. If necessary, greater powers should be granted to Ofcom to ensure that commercial operators do not just concentrate on the larger urban areas.

With regard to our regional industrial strategy, we should be focusing on our flagship industries: life sciences, agri-tech, ICT and clean energy. If necessary, Ofcom should be granted greater powers to ensure that commercial operators do not concentrate just on the larger urban areas. Our regional industrial strategy should tackle the productivity gap, which is a particular problem for the region. The local enterprise partnerships are key to developing and enacting an effective industrial strategy for the region, because local private and public sector leaders best understand the region’s opportunities and challenges and are best placed to co-ordinate the promotion of the various sectors to ensure consistency. The education strategy should focus on helping local people to develop transferrable and adaptable skills.

I have sought to provide a framework, albeit in an outline form, for promoting and spreading growth across the east of England. There is a great deal of flesh to put on the bones, and I anticipate that colleagues will do that by highlighting the opportunities and constraints in their areas. Now is only the beginning of this campaign. There are many proposals in the APPG’s report, and they deserve careful thought and implementation. I ask the Minister to signpost the roadway that we need to go down to ensure that the east of England is a global leader and that we enhance productivity and increase prosperity for all those who live and work there.

Oral Answers to Questions

James Cartlidge Excerpts

Tuesday 17th July 2018 Commons Chamber

[Greg Clark]

We have been very clear in commissioning the Matthew Taylor report; we have been in advance of any other country in the world in looking to make sure that as the economy changes we preserve the protections we have always insisted on for workers, and the hon. Lady should welcome that.

[James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)]

T6. In this glorious summer weather, it is easy to forget that this winter our constituents who still use heating oil saw very sharp price rises. Does the Minister therefore agree that not only should our constituents take advantage of this weather to fill up their tanks for what is likely to be a lower price, but we should encourage initiatives like community buying which can also help villages and other communities to buy their heating oil at a lower price?

[The Minister for Energy and Clean Growth (Claire Perry)]

Like me, my hon. Friend has a rural constituency, and many of us live off-grid and are at the mercy of these rises. We know that the market for heating oil does function: it has been reviewed and is considered to be competitive. But my hon. Friend will know that I have also set out an aim that we want to get all new properties built in areas off-grid off fossil-fuel forms of heating by 2025, as that is not only costly but very carbon-producing.

Oral Answers to Questions

James Cartlidge Excerpts

Tuesday 12th June 2018 Commons Chamber

[Greg Clark]

As the hon. Gentleman knows, through the industrial strategy, which has been developed in close collaboration with the Engineering Employers Federation, and through investment in research and development and skills, we are doing everything we can to take the opportunities arising.

[James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)]

Given the success of auto-enrolment, will the Minister outline what steps the Department is taking to ensure that as the country saves more, we invest more in British industry?

[Andrew Griffiths]

The hon. Gentleman will know that through the industrial strategy we are doing all we can to support British business and make sure it gets the investment it needs, particularly through the British Business Bank, which is looking to release £20 billion of patient capital to give our businesses the rocket fuel they need to grow.

Parental Bereavement (Leave and Pay) Bill

James Cartlidge Excerpts

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

[Kevin Foster]

My hon. Friend is right that a reasonable employer will behave differently from the type of person at whom the legislation is aimed. To be blunt, the legislation will target the sort of person who adopts the employment practices of Scrooge and Marley—an admittedly small number of employers—but I do not want the Bill to offer a get-out for people who may want to act inappropriately. We must ensure that Parliament’s intention is clear in the legislation that we pass.

[James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)]

My hon. Friend is making a powerful argument. As for whether employers will act reasonably, this is not necessarily just about the Scrooge-like employers who are literally uncaring. We potentially need to be more prescriptive for certain corporate environments, particularly those with high turnover or significant distance between the management and employees due to the number of people. In a smaller company, where the bond between the employees and an employer who values them is strong, the employer will go out of their way to help anyway.

[Kevin Foster]

My hon. Friend is right. In a small or micro-business with four or five employees, the relationship may feel more like a partnership, instead of a situation involving the boss and then four members of staff. I accept that we may need to be slightly more prescriptive for larger employers, but I do not want the legislation to become so prescriptive that it provides a way for someone who wants to get every last penny out of their employee to avoid the regulations. However, we need to be a bit more prescriptive to deal with some of the examples that have been cited.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kevin Foster]

Obviously my hon. Friend is right to say that a balance needs to be struck. On issues such as how much leave there should be, who this applies to and how it applies, we need to strike a balance against cost, particularly to small businesses. It is worth pointing out, as my hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge) rightly mentioned, that many small businesses are likely to be the most reasonable with their employees in any case.

My hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton is a great champion of small businesses in this Chamber. Sometimes we rightly talk about not wishing to impose this cost or that cost, but a lot of the time we find that some of the worst examples of poorer employment practice are in one or two larger employers, where a rigid rule is applied fiercely to try to squeeze the last pound out, whereas smaller businesses work more as a team. If we walked into the room and were asked to guess who the owner of a small business was, we would not be able to do so, as the business works as a collective. I can think of hotels in Torbay where the owner of a hotel that is worth millions can be found serving the spuds, as the hotel does silver service—they do literally every job in the hotel, as well as being the owner and manager. However, I accept that there is a balance to be struck.

[James Cartlidge]

rose—

[Kevin Foster]

Given that I referred to my hon. Friend, I had best let him intervene.

[James Cartlidge]

Surely the key point is the difference between rigidity and clarity. The fact that management and staff will know where they stand, as opposed to there being a general reliance on reasonableness, is surely a huge benefit that works to the advantage of both sides.

[Kevin Foster]

We are introducing the Bill to set out in law more clarity on what Parliament expects. We have touched on the fact that we should not create a set of rules that is too rigid, particularly on this 18th birthday issue. We do not want to end up with a bizarre situation in which a doctor putting on the death certificate “five minutes past midnight” means that the Bill will not apply, whereas it would apply had they put “two minutes to midnight”. I understand that we need to be specific, rather than relying on reasonableness, and we that we have to give some guidance. What each of us thinks of as a reasonable expectation in a particular moment will differ, as we are all individuals, with different views and in different circumstances. Some of our constituents rightly take the view that it is not unreasonable to wait a day or two for a reply to their email, whereas others who email at 11 pm will ask why they have not received a reply by 9 o’clock the next morning.

--- Later in debate ---

[Michelle Donelan]

I completely agree. The state and the taxpayer have a responsibility to contribute. If someone is given the amount of time they need to recover, the long-term benefit for businesses and the economy will more than pay back any financial cost.

The Bill is a modern and compassionate measure. It is surprising that most countries do not already make such provision. The Lullaby Trust says that the UK will lead the way with this legislation, and I hope that other countries will follow suit, because this is the right thing to do.

[James Cartlidge]

I have been looking for information about international comparisons, and the reason why there is not much of it is because no one else does this. It is heartening to think that we will be leading the way, and that will be in no small part due to those Members on both sides of the House who have fought so hard for these changes.

[Michelle Donelan]

I completely echo my hon. Friend’s comments. I pay tribute to my hon. Friends the Members for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake) and for Colchester (Will Quince), as well as everybody else in the House who has contributed to the Bill, including all members of the Public Bill Committee. The Bill commands cross-party support, as well as support from the public, who will note today’s debate and see that Parliament sometimes really is in touch with people and their needs.

I echo comments about the fact that when employers are very generous towards their employees, it fosters a sense of loyalty and respect among them. I am sure that employers’ ability to offer this additional support will go some way towards developing that even further. Some of the amendments relate to the amount of leave that can be given. I honestly think that we can never quantify the length of time that it takes to get over a loss—in fact, we never really do get fully over a loss, be that of a child or anybody else who is significant in our lives—so I question whether the time being allowed is enough, although it is a good start. The whole point is that the Bill is supposed to set out the minimum, and we might revisit this and look to increase the time through secondary legislation.

We have discussed when people can take leave. There is a strong argument that an eight-week period is too arbitrary and very strict, because of such things as inquests, anniversaries and the dates when it really hits home. We must also remember that the Bill offers statutory pay, and people who only get that might not be able to afford to take time within those eight weeks. They might have to save up or make provision as a result of debts or the unexpected bills that people have to pay when someone dies. They might also not be ready for those losses. We cannot expect that somehow their financial burdens will suddenly disappear—that can take time.

We have heard an interesting discussion about the age of the child. It is important to remember that no matter how old someone’s child is, they are still that person’s child. Whether someone is 18 or 40, the loss is still huge, and Members have mentioned their personal experiences of that today. There is an argument for increasing the age from 18. We might not be able to do that in this Bill, but perhaps we can look at the position again. I echo the comment from my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Michael Tomlinson) that the burden would probably not increase fivefold, because a lot of people will be retired by the time their child is lost. It is important to remember that not everybody will take up the offer, and some employers would offer their own scheme, so their employees would not be looking at the statutory benefit. We can explore this area more, and I think that further research and investigation needs to determine the cost to the taxpayer if the provision were extended.

--- Later in debate ---

[James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)]

My hon. Friend is making a very good speech. Some powerful arguments have been made on both sides about the 18 threshold. Is my hon. Friend at least reassured that, as I understand it, parents of those over 18 would be covered by the “reasonableness” provisions?

[Kevin Hollinrake]

indicated assent.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

[James Cartlidge]

It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Worcestershire (Nigel Huddleston), who made an excellent speech. I join him and others in congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake) on introducing the Bill.

While this has been a cross-party effort—I congratulate everyone who has contributed—I am particularly proud to be part of a cohort of heart-on-sleeve-wearing compassionate Conservatives who have done their constituents and their country proud by delivering change in an area that really matters to people. The cost of the Bill is tiny, as we have heard, but the cost to people who experience bereavement is immeasurable. I hope that I never experience such bereavement. Indeed, I regard myself as incredibly fortunate to have had four healthy children.

I rise to speak to amendments 22 and 8, and briefly to amendments 21, 24 and 25 on the cut-off point. On amendment 22, the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Patricia Gibson) and my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay (Kevin Foster) spoke extremely well about the way in which the period of leave will be taken and the need for flexibility.

I have four children, and I was a self-employed company owner. When I had the first two, the company was basically just me, so I did not really take leave. When I had Nos. 3 and 4, I was fortunate that the company had a few more staff, so I was able to take proper leave— Nos. 3 and 4 came at the same time, meaning there was somewhat more need for my support. That period soon ran into the selection process for my constituency and a lot of time pressure, so I was pleased to be in that position, but of course many people are not.

The consultation, entirely reasonably and rationally, says that in considering the structure of the time block for this leave, we will consider the existing arrangements for maternity and paternity leave. Whenever we legislate, it is entirely rational that we look at existing measures so that we do not reinvent the wheel. Page 13 of the consultation says:

“The Bill has mirrored existing provisions for family related leave and pay rights where possible and, in particular, Paternity Leave and Pay. But where the detail is left to be set in regulations, the regulations could be different to those for existing rights.”

This is the key point:

“Paternity Leave and Pay cannot be taken in separate blocks of a week: a father or partner is merely able to choose whether to take just one or both of the weeks available.”

I have been particularly moved by the arguments made today that underline why bereavement leave is very different from paternity leave, and why the circumstances could require extra flexibility.

The hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran gave good examples of why we might want flexibility. She talked about court hearings—I think there is a different phrase for inquiries in Scotland—and the fact that more flexibility might be needed in such circumstances. It is important that what we do in this place mirrors what happens in the real world.

In contrast, when I think back to being a new dad, it seems rational that paternity leave is taken in a single block, ideally when the child is born, when help is most needed. With my first child—my daughter—I well remember the intensity of those early days, when I prayed every hour that the baby would at some point sleep through the night. There is an early period of intensity that a parent sincerely hopes will reduce, which is why there is sense in taking the block together. That is a rational position. We have heard powerful examples from hon. Members about the need for flexibility on bereavement leave, however, so I hope that the Minister will respond to them.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

My hon. Friend is making some excellent points. It might not seem that we have best reason for taking this approach; as he rightly points out, the flexibility required in the circumstances of bereavement is entirely different from that needed in the case of paternity leave. However, the difficulty we are dealing with relates to processes in Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs and its ability to deal with statutory pay. The bureaucracies that support the decisions we make in this House should not necessarily drive our thinking, but they are a consideration to which we must pay due regard.

[James Cartlidge]

I thank my hon. Friend for clarifying the point. Indeed, I did note that from the consultation document, which referred to that fact that the benefit itself limits the flexibility. We all know how difficult it is to change systems, and we can well imagine the difficulty in the social security system, with employer software and so on, in giving out the benefit on the basis of sporadic days. However, there would still be merit in someone having the ability to take unpaid one-off days. I think most people would rather have that freedom, even if it is not possible for it to be covered by the statutory pay they would receive because of the limitations of HMRC’s and other systems.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

My hon. Friend makes a good point. Underpinning all this are the general principles and our expectation that employers would be understanding, sympathetic and flexible in how they deal with this situation. We are setting out the minimum requirements, but we would expect employers to show that compassion and flexibility when dealing with how people take the leave.

[James Cartlidge]

I am grateful for that intervention and do agree with it. If we were to have the single block but there was an exceptional reason to grant an additional day—or even that—at a future point, most employers would be prepared to do so. In most cases, employers will act reasonably as long as a reasonable request is made.

Amendment 8, which was tabled by my hon. Friends the Members for Torbay and for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Michael Tomlinson), is important as it touches on defining the employment status that someone must have to be eligible for these new rights. Proposed new section 80EB (1)(c) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 states:

“an employee who is absent on leave under that section is entitled to return from leave to a job of a kind prescribed by regulations”.

That prescription therefore relates to the type of employment, with the word “employee” being crucial. The issues arising from the Taylor review and the changing nature of employment have already been mentioned, and we have to discuss the extent to which these rights would be available to employees in those newly growing, ambiguous areas.

My hon. Friend the Member for Chippenham (Michelle Donelan) referred to the self-employed, but of course we are not talking about a homogenous group. Before the general election, when I served on the Work and Pensions Committee, we held an inquiry on the gig economy—this growing army of the self-employed. We heard evidence about cases in which people are, to all intents and purposes, employees. On this amendment, my question for the Minister is: in defining jobs and defining people as an “employee”, are we able to award these benefits—these rights—to those defined now as “workers”? I refer to those people in between employment and self-employment. Are we able to do that, or do we need to introduce separate regulations to do so?

That is an important point, so it is handy that I have a copy of the Taylor review. The Bill amends the primary piece of legislation to which it relates—the 1996 Act—and we are dealing with the important distinction between an employee and a worker. I remind the House that the 1996 Act states that an

“‘employee’ means an individual who has entered into or works under…a contract of employment.”

I will not go into the detailed definition in the report, but a worker is someone who has some form of contract.

--- Later in debate ---

[Antoinette Sandbach]

We heard similar evidence on the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee, and it is a real concern.

[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.

Dagenham Diesel Engine Production

James Cartlidge Excerpts

Friday 27th April 2018 Commons Chamber

[Jon Cruddas]

I support precisely what the hon. Gentleman has said; indeed, I was going to mention those 1,000 job losses and cover some of the issues he has raised in my remarks.

The number of 3,000 at the Dagenham plant sits alongside 1,500 UK engineers dedicated to the development of Ford’s latest and future clean powertrain technology. The total turnover stands at some £1.75 billion. Dagenham is a strong export story for this country, as 89% of these engines leave our shores, and customers include Jaguar Land Rover, Peugeot, Citroen and Fiat. In 2014, Ford invested £490 million in the next generation of clean diesel engines, specifically designed to meet the new Euro 6 emissions standards. The engines will also satisfy Transport for London’s ultra-low emissions zone. All Dagenham diesel engines will comply with the next phase of Euro 6 emissions standards—these will include “real driving emissions” requirements, not factory-based testing. Put simply, the plant is at the cutting edge of diesel technology and produces engines that comply with the most stringent emissions standards on the planet.

Today, however, there is a crisis of confidence in diesel vehicles and diesel technology, with many arguing that we are witnessing the demonisation of the technology. In the current climate, there is little or no separation between old and new diesel technology: between dirty engines and state-of-the-art diesel technology. If this is allowed to continue, it will have disastrous consequences. Yesterday, it was widely reported that the number of cars built in UK factories in March fell by some 13%. The current debate—or, rather, panic—lacks both facts and nuance. The danger is that this will lead to unfair criticism of the engines built in Dagenham; will threaten many thousands of high-quality jobs in my constituency, and in others across our economy and our country; and will undermine the managed transition to 2040 and a world beyond the combustion engine.

So today I speak up on behalf of Dagenham diesel engine production. Over the past months, I have been in talks with the company, the unions the Mayor’s office and council leaders, and we all stand united on the need for new arguments for modern diesel—to push back against some of the current hostility to this technology—and to make the case for the Dagenham plant and the managed transition to 2040. This is not about defending the indefensible in terms of the older engines, which, paradoxically, the present debate might simply ensure stay on our roads for longer; it is about arguing for the most efficient modern diesel technology. Today I am just asking the Government to join this new partnership to push back against the demonisation of diesel.

In truth, Volkswagen has not done us many favours. Diesel appears to have become a dirty word since it emerged that Volkswagen had cheated regulators and misled customers by using software to suppress nitrogen oxide emissions during testing. In 2015, VW admitted it had fitted “defeat devices” in some 11 million of its cars worldwide, with about 1.2 million of those being in the UK. This cost Volkswagen £22.5 billion. What worries me is the collateral damage now being played out across the whole sector.

Today, there is a real danger that Britain’s auto industry is on a cliff edge, with collapsing sales of diesel and the loss of thousands of manufacturing jobs and dealerships. Consumer confidence is vital and Government have a key role to play in that. In Dagenham, for example, plans to recruit for 150 new jobs in 2017-18 were shelved due to the fall in demand. Over the past few weeks we have heard more bad news, with Vauxhall revealing plans to slash UK dealerships, Nissan preparing to cut hundreds of jobs due to falling demand, and, as we have heard, Jaguar Land Rover cutting 1,000 jobs as it seeks to offset falling diesel sales. European diesel share continues to decline, now at 33% of sales compared with 50% in 2011.

[James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing the debate, which is very relevant to me. In my constituency, we have a large company called Delphi Diesel Systems, and we will lose 500 jobs in Sudbury. It points to precisely what he is talking about—the forecast falling demand in Europe because of the much tougher measures that are being introduced. To an extent, I accept some of that, but my concern is that if that is going to happen, we need to see the strongest possible strategy from the Government—much of which we will see, I think—to support the new technology and ensure that investment goes into plants such as his and mine and those all around the UK.

[Jon Cruddas]

That shows the cross-party agreement on some of the points I am making today. The trouble is that in the UK, Germany, France and Spain—the markets where anti-diesel rhetoric is highest—diesel consumption is declining fastest. Sales of diesel cars have slumped as regulators and politicians announce plans for bans, levies and additional taxes in many cities.

In truth, we in Dagenham fear that diesel has become a bit of a political football. In 2001, Gordon Brown introduced a new system of car tax aimed at protecting the environment—a sliding scale to make it cheaper for cars with lower CO₂ emissions. That helped stimulate a dash for diesel after its introduction in 2001 and its extension in subsequent years. There are now some 12 million diesel cars on British roads, while back in 2000 there were only 3 million.

In recent years, diesel has accounted for around half of the new car market. In 2000, by comparison, only one in seven new cars was a diesel model, yet following a 2017 BBC report on the dangers of diesel, the Environment Secretary jumped into the debate to make political capital:

“The dash for diesel was pursued under a Labour government…This is yet another example of a Conservative government having to clean up Labour’s mess…We are taking action…ending the sale of new diesel and petrol cars and vans by 2040.”

Political game playing should have no role, given the challenges facing the sector, as reflected in the comments made by colleagues across the House today.

Since the 2015 VW revelations, cities have taken the lead over national Governments. Berlin banned the oldest, highest-polluting diesel cars from its centre, Paris, Madrid, Mexico City and Athens have said they plan to ban diesel vehicles from city centres by 2025, and Sadiq Khan ordered the replacement of the capital’s diesel bus fleet and enforced a £10 toxicity charge, or T-charge, on the highest-polluting cars as of October. The measures are part of a wider plan to create an ultra-low emissions zone in central London from April 2019. I do not dispute the push back against older diesel vehicles—it has to be the right way to proceed—but the danger is that we throw the baby out with the bathwater and fail to challenge the wholesale demonisation of the technology.

Higher Education

James Cartlidge Excerpts

Monday 23rd April 2018 Commons Chamber

[James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)]

In the remarks of the hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner), whose passion I admire, my colleagues will have been struck by her use of the phrase “ideologically driven, free market privatisation”. Those with particularly good memories will have heard those words some years ago. I refer, as I am sure you will know, Madam Deputy Speaker, to the Second Reading debate on the Education (Schools) Bill on 19 November 1991. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke), now the Father of the House, introduced that Bill, which established performance tables and Ofsted. The shadow Labour spokesman, Derek Fatchett, the former Member for Leeds, Central, said in winding up:

“We shall vote against it this evening. We shall campaign against it and ensure that parents throughout Britain see the Bill as deeply damaging, because it is an ideologically driven privatising measure.”—[Official Report, 19 November 1991; Vol. 199, c. 232.]

The exact same wording was used to describe the creation of Ofsted, which is now a part of the warp and weft of the education system and on which my constituents rely. Parents in our constituencies rely on it to look at standards in those schools, which in itself drives up our standards. So the hon. Lady has got the wrong end of the stick, because the OfS is there to do the same thing.

We have to ask ourselves a simple question: what is the purpose of higher education? It is to deliver the best possible quality of education for our young people, so that they can stand on their own two feet and make the most of their talents. Some have an obsession with whether it is free—I agree there are concerns about the interest rate and the level of debt—but the purpose of education is what people get at the end of it and what it does to help them make the most of their lives. I want us to establish an OfS that drives up standards by bringing the same transparency that has applied from Ofsted, empowering students just as Ofsted empowers parents. It is a simple principle: driving up standards through competition. Labour Members do not understand it, which is why they are making the same mistake as they did in 1991, ranting about privatisation and ideology. They are the ones with the ideology: they are anti-quality and anti-aspiration.

Office for Students

James Cartlidge Excerpts

Tuesday 27th February 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mr Gyimah]

The same due diligence was carried out by the same advisers on all the candidates. As I said in response to an earlier question, the due diligence could have been more comprehensive and extensive.

[James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)]

Throughout the general debate we have in this country on higher education, there is typically a focus—perhaps understandably —on finance. Does the Minister agree that we need to be equally focused on outcomes and on the quality of the degrees that graduates obtain? Can he assure me that the inception of the Office for Students will help us to achieve that focus? What really matters is that our graduates have the best quality education.

[Mr Gyimah]

My hon. Friend makes the important point that, for many students at university today, the important thing is that they are getting value for money, that they get what they pay for, and that their degrees are worth the paper they are written on. That is what the Office for Students, which this Government created, is set up to do. There are lessons to be learned but, as we have these discussions, it is important that, in the big picture, we do not forget what the Office for Students can do and what it can deliver for our students.

Oral Answers to Questions

James Cartlidge Excerpts

Tuesday 30th January 2018 Commons Chamber

[Greg Clark]

Retentions and project bank accounts have been the subject, in response to those and other concerns, of a consultation on specific measures, which closed very recently. That came out of the recommendations that were made. Part of the taskforce that we have established includes these representative bodies, and they know that they have my commitment to take all the necessary actions to learn the lessons and protect any future concerns against things that could be learned from this case.

[James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)]

2. What steps he is taking to ensure that low-paid workers are remunerated appropriately.

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

The national minimum wage and national living wage rates are recommended to the Government by the independent Low Pay Commission. To ensure that workers are paid fairly and that non-compliant employers are caught, the Government provide £25.3 million to Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs for minimum wage enforcement —that is an increase from £13 million in 2015-16. Last year, HMRC secured arrears of wages for 98,000 workers, totalling £10.9 million.

[James Cartlidge]

I thank my hon. Friend for that answer and welcome him to his deserved new position. I very much welcome the national living wage as a way of boosting the wages of our lowest-paid workers. Does he share my surprise that there are those who criticise its generosity, given that the only international comparator is The Economist’s Big Mac index, under which we have the most generous minimum wage in Europe aside from that of its richest country, Luxembourg?

[Andrew Griffiths]

I completely agree with my hon. Friend on that. The next increase to the national living wage is to be a whopping 4.7%. The introduction of the national living wage was the biggest pay rise for low-paid workers in nearly 20 years. The latest increase will benefit more than 2 million people and is set to cover 3 million by 2020. The average earnings of a 25-plus, full-time worker have increased by £2,000 since 2016.