Exclusivity Terms for Zero Hours Workers (Unenforceability and Redress) Regulations 2022

Justin Madders Excerpts

Thursday 20th October 2022 General Committees

[Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair this morning, Mr Robertson. I welcome the Minister to his place—I think this is our first formal engagement. I am grateful to him for setting out the context for the regulations.

The precarious nature of work is at the forefront of many people’s minds at the moment. We are all determined to address that and, for that reason, we do not oppose the regulations. We welcome any step, however modest, to tackle the problems in the country’s labour market, and by any measure, today’s proposals are pretty modest in scope. I note that the statutory instrument is numbered 000; I do not know if that is a drafter getting a little bit carried away, but I am sure that it is not the correct number for the regulations.

As we have heard, the regulations are not just about zero-hours contracts but about some of the most low-paid people in society. We cannot separate what is in the regulations from the wider context of our current situation. The regulations may be presented as part of the Government’s post-covid plans to “build back fairer” or framed as part of the battle against one-sided flexibility, but we need to stop for a minute and consider the two key contextual issues that are unavoidable in today’s debate. At the forefront of our minds should be the experience of the Exclusivity Terms in Zero Hours Contracts (Redress) Regulations 2015, which are in many ways the progenitor of today’s regulations, alongside the Government’s continued failure to deliver on their own commitments to improve worker’s rights.

A departmental press release from May this year said that the regulations

“will give workers more flexibility over when and where they work”

and will

“help increase businesses’ confidence to create jobs”.

It is very difficult to see how the our current circumstances will create much business confidence, but even in the very best of times, these measures are only one small step to tackle the imbalance between too many employers and employees across the country. If the Government are serious about tackling the imbalance associated with low pay and insecure work, more will have to be done.

The draft regulations are unlikely to deal with some of the core issues affecting those in low-paid work, such as being compelled to accept any shift offered at short notice, and having no remedy if one is cancelled at short notice. Workers on zero-hours contracts still feel worried about losing favour with their employer if they refuse work, despite having had protection from exclusivity clauses for well over seven years. Despite the Government promising to address these problems since their acceptance of the Taylor review in 2018, flexibility still rests primarily with the employer.

Is it not a sad indictment of our current labour market that the principle of someone being able to take up another job alongside another low-paid job is being championed as a major step forward towards a fairer labour market? Can we not do better? Do hard-working people not deserve the right to more predictable contracts? For the record, that was a Conservative manifesto commitment in 2019. Do they not deserve a fair notice period for their shifts, enabling them to plan their life, their caring responsibilities and even, God forbid, their social life? So while we welcome the regulations as a step to provide some extra security, we have to accept that this is just a small step when huge leaps are required.

The campaign group Zero Hours Justice has kindly provided a briefing for Members on today’s legislation. I have found that group’s work and its intimate understanding of the 2015 regulations to be useful and relevant. As I mentioned earlier, it has been more than seven years since the original regulations were introduced, so we have to ask what the results of those regulations have been. Given the casework that Zero Hours Justice continues to receive, we can be clear that the regulations have not ended the feeling of compulsion towards accepting shifts and the insecurity that that brings. It has reports from many people, including one who talked about

“getting hours at the last minute and having to make urgent arrangements for childcare or other caring responsibilities or cancel social plans.”

One airport worker reported that they would

“often only get one hour’s notice before a shift”.

Another said:

“Spending time with my family was really difficult as I never knew if I would be working or not”.

There was a common fear of refusing hours in case doing so resulted in fewer hours being offered, or bullying and harassment by the employer or manager. A worker told Zero Hours Justice that:

“If I said I couldn’t work one day, I was told I was not working for the rest of the week. I was told I wasn’t wanted at all that week.”

Those are some of the real challenges people on zero-hours contracts face. What is the Government’s response to deal with those challenges?

It would be remiss of me not to ask the Minister to provide us with a view on whether the original regulations have in fact been a success. It is striking that the post-implementation review of the original 2015 regulations commented that no formal disputes involving the regulations had been recorded in the tribunal system. There may be many reasons for that, but the explanations proffered by stakeholders who were surveyed paints a worrying picture. A major concern is that the 2015 changes were not adequately communicated by the Government to employers and employees. As workers can only assert their rights if they are aware of them, good pieces of legislation can fail to deliver on their promise if communication is inadequate. How does the Minister intend to remedy that situation with the regulations before us today?

Of course, the problems could be much more systemic. Are the costs, or even just the perceived costs, of tribunals too high for workers to take their cases forward? I note that recently, in a response to a written parliamentary question, the Minister stated that the median cost for obtaining legal representation for a tribunal claim was £2,500. To put that into the context of today’s regulations, that is more than four months’ pay for someone seeking to enforce their rights under these regulations. I am sure the Minister can see why that might prove to be a serious barrier to justice. What can be done, either financially or through greater information and representation, to ensure that those who wish to seek legal redress under these regulations are able to do so?

I also suggest that requiring workers to undertake the calculations mentioned in regulation 5 in particular will require some serious heavy lifting in terms of public information being transmitted to workers so that they know whether they are covered by these regulations. It is not a straightforward calculation; it is not that easy to say what your average earnings will be without reference to some calculations. How many people will actually benefit from these regulations? We know from what the Minister said that around 1.5 million workers are currently earning below the lower earnings limit, but how many of those have exclusivity clauses in their contracts? If the Minister is able to answer that, that would be useful.

Ultimately, this instrument ought to be viewed in the context of half a decade of failures to deliver on promises to Britain’s workforce. It has been over five years now since the much-lauded Taylor review reported and over four and a half years since the Government accepted many of the report’s findings, and we are now coming up to three years since the Conservative party committed in their manifesto to tackle abuses of employment law and to implement genuine flexibility. We have been taunted time and again with the promise of an employment Bill that looks like it is not going to see the light of day. The Minister will probably not be aware that I took every opportunity to ask his predecessor when we could expect to see the employment Bill, so I will ask the same question of him. Sadly, I expect the same answer as his predecessor gave—the timeless classic, “When parliamentary time allows.” If we hear something different from the new Minister, that would be welcome.

Looking at the rest of the Taylor review, it is important in the context of these regulations to see that it also recommended that workers on zero-hours contracts who have been in post for 12 months should have a right to request a contract that better reflects the hours they work. That recommendation was accepted by the Government in their “Good Work Plan”, which was published in 2018. The Low Pay Commission also recommended a stronger “right to switch” to stable hours, as well as a right to reasonable notice of shifts and shift cancellations. Consultation on notice of shifts and shift cancellations took place between July and October 2019, but the response to that consultation is yet to be published. If the Minister can update us on progress in that respect, I will be grateful.

It is not just the limitations of the current legislation and the wider context that are disappointing; there are a number of specific points in the regulations themselves on which I would be grateful for clarification. First—the hon. Member for Glasgow South West asked about his, but I do not think was fully answered by the Minister—why have we chosen to go for the lower earnings limit? Why has that threshold been chosen rather than another? In the consultation, several ways to decide the beneficiaries of this legislation were put forward. Suggestions ranged from using objective measures, such as only accepting exclusivity clauses for the protection of intellectual property or for health and safety reasons, to other earnings-based approaches. In their response to the consultation paper, the TUC suggested that the Government should consider or, at the very least, explain why they do not wish to adopt the same approach laid out in the European Union's directive on transparent and predictable working conditions. In particular, it stated that the Government should consider ensuring that

“an employer neither prohibits a worker from taking up employment with other employers, outside the work schedule established with that employer, nor subjects a worker to adverse treatment for doing so.”

I know that the current vogue in the Government is automatically to dismiss as undesirable anything that comes from Brussels, but there is much to commend in that approach and I would be grateful if the Minister explained to the Committee why he chose not to take it.

It is disappointing that a threshold of even the national minimum wage or the national living wage has not been adopted, which would have extended support to many more workers than the lower earnings limit. Indeed, in the consultation carried out for the 2015 regulations there was a suggestion that exclusivity clauses would be banned for anyone earning less than £20 an hour, which is obviously a significant way away from where we are today. The true cost of that choice to workers was clearly highlighted in the consultation, in which it was stated that earnings-based thresholds become targets to exploit.

The fact that the Government still actively chose the lowest reasonable income-based threshold tells us that there is far more to do in this area, and that is compounded when we look at the implications for those claiming universal credit. It is a legal requirement that those working less than 35 hours on the minimum wage, which is currently £332 a week for those over 23, be actively seeking additional work as a condition of receiving their allowance. What assurances can the Government give to those earning above the current lower earnings level of £123 per week but below the universal credit threshold of £332 about exclusivity clauses that may remain in their contracts? Will they face sanctions if they are unable to take additional work? Will the Government consider extending the scope of the regulations to cover those people as a result of what may well be some difficult conversations?

What steps will be taken to protect those who may earn below the lower earnings limit but may not be covered by the regulations because they are classed as self-employed? I am not talking about people who are genuinely self-employed, but those who are working in the gig economy and are often placed on highly restrictive contracts that do not offer the genuine freedom that self-employment provides. I think we all know the kinds of contracts that I am talking about.

Speaking of the effectiveness of the regulations, it would also be useful to have an assessment of how effective previous measures have been. As I have said, it is unclear what impact the 2015 regulations have had. While there are clear differences between workers on low pay and those on zero-hours contracts, they share the insecurity about accepting other sources of income, which the instrument is designed to challenge. It would be reassuring and helpful to hear how the Minister will evaluate both today’s regulations and the previous ones.

The Minister mentioned the follow-up regulations, which will enshrine the right of legal redress. As we know, due to the implementation of the compulsory extra hurdle of ACAS conciliation that the Government have introduced, those rights do not become live until the early conciliation process is enshrined in law, so I would be grateful if the Minister gave us an assurance, and ideally a date by which the Government are committed to introducing those regulations, so that the rights that we are considering today become enforceable.

Finally, I wonder why we have taken so long to get to this point. I refer not only to the commitments made by the Government but to the Taylor report. We are seven years on from the original regulations, the review of which took place over 18 months ago. That it has taken us until today to get to where we are now seem like slow progress, but overall this is a welcome first step. In today’s climate, though, and given that the Government were elected on a promise of delivering more wide-ranging labour market reforms to create genuine fairness and flexibility, much more needs to be done.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dean Russell]

I appreciate the intervention and the diligence with which the hon. Gentleman follows Government process and Conservative manifestos. Of course, there is still a desire to introduce an employment Bill, but a lot of the activity that would have been in such a Bill is coming forward. A neonatal private Member’s Bill is currently in play, and there is some really great work going on in that space. I hear him and will feed back the comments, but we are forging ahead in a positive way. I too was disappointed that the Queen’s Speech did not include an employment Bill, but we remain committed to delivering our as many of our commitments on employment as parliamentary time allows. As I say, numerous private Members’ Bills on employment rights have been introduced as a result of PMB ballots in the Commons. Wherever possible, there is a keenness to support those that are aligned with the goals of the Government..

The hon. Members for Glasgow South West and for Ellesmere Port and Neston both asked why the draft regulations are not being extended further, and I understand their views. Ultimately, the intention is to ensure that low-paid workers who are not able to secure the number of hours they would like from their current employer are able to seek additional work elsewhere. The lower earnings limit is set each tax year by the Government and is an established marker of a low-paid worker. Using the lower earnings limit will also ensure that the threshold remains relevant. Setting the threshold at the level of the lower earnings limit balances the needs of various businesses while protecting the most vulnerable workers and enabling them to boost their income where required.

[Justin Madders]

I am grateful to the Minister for providing some explanation. Can he say a bit more about why the needs of those businesses mean that the level is set at where it is now?

[Dean Russell]

Obviously they are wide-ranging, but a good example would be that if someone is working in an company where the information that they are working on is sensitive and there is a major competitor, that would be a challenge for exclusivity. A company would not want that worker to go and work for a competitor.

[Justin Madders]

I suggest that the general confidentiality duty in contracts of employment ought to cover those sorts of situations. I urge the Minister to look again at that as a reason not to extend the scope.

Ban on Fracking for Shale Gas Bill

Justin Madders Excerpts

Wednesday 19th October 2022 Commons Chamber

[Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)]

I will start with words from page 55 of the Conservative party manifesto, because it is very clear and it is there in black and white. It says:

“We placed a moratorium on fracking in England with immediate effect. Having listened to local communities, we have ruled out changes to the planning system. We will not support fracking unless the science shows categorically that it can be done safely.”

I read out those words because they should mean something. They should mean something to everyone on the Government Benches, who were elected on those words. If they do not mean anything to Conservative Members, I am sure they will mean something to the people who voted them in and who will be watching very closely how the vote today, because the science has not categorically shown that it can be done safely.

I thank the Tory Whips for making this a confidence vote in the Prime Minister, because after the week that she has had, I think that is more likely to lead to Back Benchers voting with us than against us. But if they are not persuaded by that, I hope they do not fall for the spin that we have heard about our needing fracking to deal with the rising cost of energy, because it was not so long ago that the now former Chancellor said that

“those calling for the return of fracking misunderstand the situation.”

He also said:

“Even if we lifted the fracking moratorium tomorrow, it would take up to a decade to extract sufficient volumes—and it would come at a high cost for communities and our precious countryside. Second, no amount of shale gas from hundreds of wells dotted across rural England would be enough to lower the European price any time soon. And with the best will in the world, private companies are not going to sell the gas they produce to UK consumers below the market price. They are not charities, after all.”

Well, even a stopped clock is right twice a day, just as a discredited former Chancellor can be right about something. He was certainly right about that.

I will say a few words about consent. The dictionary definition of consent is

“permission for something to happen or agreement to do something.”

Let us be clear that that is not the same as getting a payment in lieu of consent, and it does not mean having a refined planning process to create the illusion of consent. I am afraid the Government amendment does not take us to a place where I am convinced that we will have genuine consent, and whatever is said from the Dispatch Box does not really mean anything when Cabinet Ministers are falling on a daily basis. Let us be clear that consent is not the same as consultation, and the amendment talks too much about consultation rather than consent. Consultation is not as robust and definitive, and it is certainly not what people would expect.

The Business Secretary said last month:

“Compensation and consent become two sides of the same coin.”—[Official Report, 22 September 2022; Vol. 719, c. 796.]

I would say that they cannot possibly be two sides of the same coin. Compensation is payment in recognition of a loss, which does not in any way mean that people have agreed to suffer that loss. If the Government really do want to get consent for fracking the countryside, they should put it in their manifesto and call a general election. We will see whether they get that consent.

--- Later in debate ---

[Graham Stuart]

The right hon. Gentleman was so excited to repeat something I had already said multiple times. Colleagues on this side of the House are perfectly clear. They are not going to surrender or allow the Labour party to become the Government for a day by seizing control of the Order Paper.

[Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

It had better be a point of order.

[Justin Madders]

I think it is, Madam Deputy Speaker. It is really important that Members know what they are voting on—

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Order. Members know what they are voting on.

Shale Gas Extraction

Justin Madders Excerpts

Thursday 22nd September 2022 Commons Chamber

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I think I have made it very clear that the companies will have a deep responsibility to develop packages that make the extraction of shale gas attractive to local communities. It is very important for them to succeed in that.

[Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)]

The people of Ellesmere Port have already signalled their opposition to fracking. A planning application was submitted a number of years ago, the local authority rejected it, there was an appeal, many residents gave evidence against the application and after three years it was finally decided that it would not be accepted. Chester zoo, a big employer in my constituency, said today that it was opposed to fracking, and many of my constituents are repeating their objections. There is no local consent in Ellesmere Port and Neston, so will the Secretary of State send the fracking companies the message that there is no point in their coming to ask, because they will not get our agreement?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

Ask, and it shall be given; seek, and ye shall find. It is absolutely important that we try to get local consent, and that will require the drilling companies to be innovative in the packages that they come up with. We should not be ashamed of paying people who are going to be the ones who do not get the immediate benefit of the gas but have the disruption: that is a perfectly logical thing to do.

Fire and Rehire Tactics

Justin Madders Excerpts

Wednesday 15th June 2022 Westminster Hall

[Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair this afternoon, Ms McVey. First, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Mr Dhesi) on securing today’s debate and giving us an opportunity once again to highlight why the abuse of fire and rehire really needs a legislative response from this Government—not warm words and future promises but real, concrete action to tackle this national disgrace.

My hon. Friend made a number of very important points and he was right: this Government seem to have shown more interest in saving the Prime Minister’s job than in saving those of their own constituents. As has been mentioned, the fact that there is not one Tory Back Bencher here today shows people everything they need to know about where employment rights sit in this Government’s list of priorities. My hon. Friend was exactly right when he said that the Government’s pledged action will still mean that workers can be dismissed for failing to agree to worse terms and conditions. That is really the nub of it—that is what we need to put an end to.

All the Back Benchers who spoke today put the case very well, but I want to draw attention to some of the contributions—in particular, that from my hon. Friend the Member for Bury South (Christian Wakeford). He was right when he said that everyone, even the Prime Minister, knows that fire and rehire is wrong. My hon. Friend said that it was levelling down; I agree. He was also right when he said that it does not make sense economically, either. I am pleased that he spoke about our party’s green paper on employment rights, because that fantastic document will transform the lives of working people. It contrasts sharply with the lack of ambition that we have seen time and again from this Government.

My hon. Friend the Member for Warrington North (Charlotte Nichols) said that this tactic causes misery for many people and the majority of our constituents want to see an end to fire and rehire, so the Government would be doing something that was popular with the public if they listened to what we are saying. My hon. Friend rightly said that it is not enough to expect employers to do the right thing, because they do not all play by the rules. I pay tribute to her work as a trade union officer fighting against this practice. I refer to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests in that regard. We should think for a minute how much worse the situation would be if we did not have trade unions willing to defend workers’ rights. Sadly, all we hear from this Government are negative stories about trade unions and how they want to reduce their power, rather than any support for their defence of working people. I agree with my hon. Friend that tackling this practice is about what kind of country and society we want to see.

My hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mick Whitley) spoke of his decades of industrial experience as a trade unionist. I thank him on behalf of my constituents, whom he has represented on many occasions, for the work that he has done to support them. He has shown time and again how a good trade union can really make a difference and work constructively with employers, to the benefit of everyone. I commend him for the direct challenge that he made to the Minister about where we are going to end up. I suspect that my hon. Friend will be disappointed, but we all live in hope.

My hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli (Dame Nia Griffith) made some excellent points about some of the wider issues in the workplace, and said that the fundamentals were about job security and people making financial commitments. We do not talk enough about the impact on people’s mental health of the uncertainty hanging over them. She was right that fire and rehire is often used as a pretext for cost cutting. If employers get away with it, they will try it again. She rightly highlighted the expansion of insecure work. Many young people, like the constituents she referred to, do not have any experience of a secure job.

As we have heard, fire and rehire is not a new development. It has been around for as long as people have had jobs. Just because something has happened for a long time does not make it right or acceptable. Even the Prime Minister seems to agree with that, although, as we have heard today, there is little evidence of him wanting to do anything.

Why, if this power has always been there, is it coming to the public’s attention much more now? Sadly, in the last few years we have seen a proliferation of companies, including many household names, adopting fire and rehire tactics as a first port of call rather than the last. British Airways, Sainsbury’s and Weetabix are just three household names that have used the tactics, and there are many more less public-facing companies that are doing exactly the same. Wabtec and Valeo in Yorkshire are two more recent examples.

Of course, P&O is the most high profile and possibly the most egregious example of how the scales of justice are tilted too heavily against the ordinary men and women in this country who just want to do a fair day’s work for a fair day’s pay. They do not want to have the arrangement just for a while, until their employer decides it wants to move the goalposts and takes away their existing terms and conditions, presenting it as a fait accompli.

The reason we need action along the lines suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Brent North (Barry Gardiner) in his private Member’s Bill, which the Government blocked, is that such cases have highlighted how employers price in the cost of riding roughshod over existing laws and conclude that it is a price that they are prepared to pay. They see their legal and moral obligations in the same light as they do the people who work for them—numbers to be counted, risks to be assessed and, in essence, just a barrier to making more money.

The Transport Committee said about British Airways that its use of fire and rehire was “calculated”. For too many employers, that is the case. Consultations are simply tick-box exercises, not that P&O even pretended one was necessary. Could the Minister update us on the progress in the P&O criminal investigation promised by the Prime Minister, or will that, like so many other Government promises, never come to fruition?

The genesis of fire and rehire is in the current workplace settlement, which places too much power in the hands of the employer and too little in the hands of the employees. This imbalance does not just manifest itself in this situation, but in a whole range of issues in the employment relationship. We could look at zero-hours contracts and the gig economy, or agency workers, as we have heard. Insecurity is baked into so many workplaces. It is little wonder that many people feel a sense of helplessness.

[David Linden]

I agree with the hon. Gentleman; he is outlining so many of the issues that we see in terms of workplace insecurity. It is quite clear, given the lack of an employment Bill, that this is not an area that the Government are interested in. Does he, as the Labour Front-Bench spokesman, agree with the Scottish TUC that it is important that we devolve employment law to the Scottish Parliament if Westminster will not act?

--- Later in debate ---

[Justin Madders]

Tempted as I am to get into the niceties of devolved powers, what I will say instead is that the people of this entire country need a strong Labour Government that will bring back employment rights for everyone.

As the hon. Gentleman mentioned, the scrapping of the employment Bill, which has been promised by the Government on no fewer than 20 occasions, is symptomatic of a Government that do not see this issue as a priority. Does the Minister accept that a code of practice, even a statutory one, will not be of any use if it comes after the event? Does he accept that it would simply be another factor for employers to bake into their calculations? And does he agree that it will not stop fire and rehire happening again in the future?

I ask all those who oppose the Bill introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Brent North, which was unfortunately blocked, to put themselves in the shoes of one of their constituents. That constituent might have worked for the same company for 10, 20 or even 30 years, giving loyal service and going the extra mile, and only asking in return for stable terms and conditions that remain constant throughout. But then, out of the blue, even though their job has not changed and they have performed their duties well for their employer, who is still turning a healthy profit, they are told that their contract is ending and that, if they want to remain employed by the company, they will have to work the same number of hours, doing exactly the same job, for 20% less pay than they receive now—and if they refuse, they are out of the door without even a redundancy payment. Is that not an injustice? Is that not an affront to the respect that someone who has served their employer for so long deserves? Is that not something that we in this place ought to be looking to end?

We often talk about the cost of living crisis and how wages have not kept pace with inflation for well over a decade now. The obscenity of fire and rehire makes that difficult situation even worse. We know that if someone is fired and rehired and gets a 20% reduction in their pay, they will not be able to get a 20% reduction in their mortgage or their rent, or in their other household bills. What does the Minister say to people who find themselves in that situation? What should they do?

The destructive combination of weak employment laws, opportunistic employers and an indifferent Government is currently allowing hard-won benefits to be stripped away, with a descent into weakening terms and conditions. It is a race to the bottom, which I am afraid has been accelerated by coronavirus. It is time that race came to an end. The Government say that they are on the side of ordinary working people and that they want to level up the country, but how can they do that if time and again we are shown that an employment contract is not worth the paper it is written on?

I wonder sometimes about the level of understanding in the Government about how modern workplaces operate. Some recent examples of their ignorance include starting a petition asking the Leader of the Opposition to call off industrial action commenced by an independent trade union; leaving notes on civil servants’ desks asking when they will come back in—Cabinet Ministers think that if someone if working from home, they are not really working—and, of course, the obscenity of security staff and cleaners in Downing Street being abused for pointing out that lawbreaking was going on. When it comes to employment rights, this Government are as clueless as they are vindictive.

We do not have to accept that this is the norm. We can return stability and respect to the workplace, we can reward loyalty, and we can end the cruel lottery of fire and rehire. We just need a Government committed to doing those things. But let us not stop at ending fire and rehire. I want to see this country becoming a leader in employment protections, not lagging behind the likes of Kosovo, Estonia and Mexico. Let us end the obscenity of British workers being easier and cheaper to get rid of than workers in just about all the rest of western Europe. Let us end the disgrace of this country always being at the head of the queue when a multinational is looking to make redundancies.

Let us end the mindset that as long as someone has a job, that is job done. It is not—security, prosperity and stability are all under threat from this lopsided legal framework. It is in all our interests that we have strong workforce protections. We grow as an economy and a country when we have secure employment. It is one of the cornerstones of a civilised society, and if this Government do not want to legislate to make that happen, then they should step aside for a Government who do want to.

[Esther McVey (in the Chair)]

Before I call the Minister, I remind him that the hon. Member for Slough (Mr Dhesi) will need a couple of minutes to wind up at the end.

--- Later in debate ---

[Paul Scully]

I will come to P&O Ferries now before I address the other points that Members have raised. The Government have been clear that the dismissal by P&O Ferries of 800 loyal seafarers without any notification or consultation was absolutely unacceptable. I was sat behind the chief executive—literally, not figuratively—during the Select Committee hearing. Like everyone else, I was appalled when I heard him say that he would do the same thing again. That was absolutely horrific to hear.

[Justin Madders]

As I asked in my speech, can the Minister provide an update on the criminal prosecutions?

[Paul Scully]

I will develop that in a second.

As I was saying, the chief executive of P&O Ferries admitted to breaking employment law. He demonstrated—not only in his actions on that weekend, but in the Select Committee hearing—absolute contempt for workers who had given years of service to his company. That was not just a case of fire and rehire, which is the subject of the debate; in the main, it was just fire, because the vast majority of those workers had no prospect of re- engagement. We have urged P&O to reconsider, but those calls have fallen on deaf ears.

Oral Answers to Questions

Justin Madders Excerpts

Tuesday 7th June 2022 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)]

The Minister says “when parliamentary time allows”, but the Government could have provided time by putting an employment Bill in the Queen’s Speech. On neonatal pay, flexible working and an enforcement body to protect workers’ rights, this Government promise a lot but deliver very little. Ministers have promised an employment Bill over 20 times, yet it still appears nowhere in the legislative programme. Is not the only job that this Government are interested in protecting the Prime Minister’s?

[Paul Scully]

Absolutely not. What we are interested in is jobs right across the UK—quality, highly productive, high-skilled, high-wage jobs. We will introduce all the employment measures to which we are committed in good time, when parliamentary time allows.

Potential for a Hydrogen Village

Justin Madders Excerpts

Tuesday 24th May 2022 Westminster Hall

[Hannah Bardell (in the Chair)]

I will call Justin Madders to move the motion, and I will then call the Minister to respond. As is the convention for a 30-minute debate in Westminster Hall, there will not be an opportunity for the Member in charge to wind up.

[Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the potential for a hydrogen village.

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Ms Bardell. Many Members in the north-west and north Wales have mentioned the genuine interest in, and support for, the HyNet project. Speaking as the Member for an area where industry consumes about 5% of the whole country’s total energy consumption, I am only too conscious of the need for us to change if we are to meet our climate commitments. Faced with that fact, the companies that are responsible for a lot of those emissions have been working together to address the future and are working on a whole series of projects that will contribute to our reaching net zero while also enhancing the local economy.

We were very pleased to have the HyNet project approved for the first industrial cluster last year. With our unbeatable combination of industry and geology, we believe that we can transition to a hydrogen-based economy with carbon capture more quickly than just about anyone else. Our current infrastructure can be easily converted to operate with hydrogen, and HyNet believes that it can capture up to 800,000 tonnes of CO₂ every year.

It is exciting that my constituents potentially have a big part to play in this endeavour, and it is hoped that the area of Whitby in Ellesmere Port will be confirmed next year as the location for a hydrogen village programme. The natural gas running through local pipes in the area would be changed to hydrogen from 2025, and Whitby has been identified as an ideal place to host the hydrogen village programme, largely due to its closeness to HyNet:

“The Hydrogen Village is a really exciting project where local homes and businesses would be able to reduce their emissions—while continuing to build the North West’s reputation as a leader in the hydrogen economy”.

It also means that we can back UK manufacturing jobs, but as always with these things, the maximum benefit will be found if we can take the maximum number of people with us.

That means not only showing people that it is a good thing for everyone if they are at the spearhead of a new way of heating our homes, and that they can play a big role in meeting our net zero targets. It also means ensuring that people feel that things are being done with their consent and agreement, rather than them being done to them. Of course, a big part of that will be communication, and I know that Cadent has already begun working on ways to advise residents about the project and will be opening a new shop in the town in July, so that residents can find out more.

Obviously, residents will have legitimate questions, and I imagine that they will want to know about the potential costs, their safety and the level of disruption they will face. From the information I have had to date, I think that all those concerns can be dealt with. With the rapidly increasing energy bills that we all face, I would hope that the cost issue will be a positive for my constituents, with at least a guarantee that they will not pay any more for their energy. I hope that there is scope for us to go further than that and be able to offer them a discount. It is early days, but the only inquiries that I have had so far from constituents are about why people have not been included in the trial, which demonstrates the positive spirit of the people of Ellesmere Port, their willingness to embrace the future, and their eagerness to play their part in tackling climate change.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for bringing this issue forward. Does he agree that we have a clear obligation to fully explore the use of hydrogen, which is more beneficial than carbon emissions, and that the proposed trial village in Whitby reflects the needs of an average community? Does he agree that such trials are imperative and essential for the drive for clean energy, and that they should be shared with all regions of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, so that we can all learn from them?

[Justin Madders]

I agree with the hon. Gentleman. Indeed, when we get to the carbon capture element of the project, we will be joined together, because the Irish sea will play a major part in the storage of carbon emissions.

Let me return to the trial itself. There will always be some people who, for perfectly legitimate reasons, will not want to get involved, and one can imagine that, for some, the fear of something new will be too much. It is fair to say that no amount of persuasion will encourage them to participate, and it is important that if people cannot be persuaded to take part, they are not forced to do so. The old saying is, “One volunteer is worth 10 pressed men,” and it applies to hydrogen as much as to anything else. I think the number of those who do not want to take part will be small, but if the past couple of years have told us anything, it is that an element of compulsion will not make those with misgivings change their minds; indeed, it often has the opposite effect.

I think take-up will be significant, based on the early response, and if the trial proves a success, there will be a national change because approximately 23 million homes and businesses in the UK rely on natural gas for cooking and heating. To put that in context, that represents a quarter of the UK’s carbon dioxide emissions, so we need to act on the whole of household infrastructure if we are to get to net zero. What better way to do that than an initiative that maximises support for UK jobs and enhances the principle of “make, buy and sell more in the UK”?

As much as that principle applies to anything, it applies to the 1.6 million boilers made in the UK each year, supporting jobs in places such as the north-west and the west midlands. Furthermore, a huge supply chain serves those manufacturers, and I am sure that building on that talent base is central to any levelling-up strategy the Government want to introduce. We also have tens of thousands of skilled gas engineers, which is why I welcome the support expressed by trade unions such as Unite and GMB whose members work in the sector and which support the move to hydrogen. I declare for the record my membership of both those trade unions.

UK boiler manufacturers truly are world leaders in the research and development of hydrogen-ready boilers. Critically, all have committed to sell hydrogen-ready boilers at the equivalent cost of a current gas-burning boiler. That commitment is key for households that are understandably concerned about the cost of converting to low carbon. We know, for example, that electric vehicles are substantially more expensive than traditional combustion-engine vehicles. That is one of the major barriers to consumer-led change, but we will not have to contend with it in this field.

I am aware that boiler manufacturers have written to the Prime Minister to confirm their commitment on that cost issue. Will the Minister say what consideration has been given to that commitment from boiler manufacturers to make in the UK and sell at the same cost as current natural gas boilers, which I hope he welcomes? What consideration has been given to comments by the trade unions on their view that it is not possible to achieve the large-scale workforce shift from boilers to heat pumps? Where is the hydrogen-ready boiler consultation? There was a commitment made to publish it last year.

Some people out there will say that we should not be doing this at all because it involves the wrong type of hydrogen, but the project has the potential to cut CO₂ emissions by at least 80%, which is a pretty good start. It will not deliver us to the promised land of net zero, but it is an important—I would say probably inevitable—stepping-stone for getting us there.

The Climate Change Committee, which is the Government’s independent adviser on climate change, has recommended that significant volumes of blue hydrogen be produced by 2030 to help the UK to meet its climate targets, help industry to cut emissions quickly and ensure that there is a market for green hydrogen once it becomes cost competitive. The committee’s analysis found that blue hydrogen could save up to 85% of emissions compared with unabated use of fossil gas.

The committee has also concluded that blue hydrogen is the right first step to take because the technology available now will help emissions-intensive businesses that cannot electrify their processes to get on the road to reducing their emissions this decade. Critically, that will help to preserve jobs in the UK’s industrial heartlands and in my constituency as we target net zero further down the road. We want to get our industry powered and our homes heated by green hydrogen, but if we take a hard-line approach and insist on going for the zenith of green hydrogen immediately—all or nothing—I fear that it will probably not happen at all, which means we will have missed the opportunity to reduce our emissions now.

In some industries, those technologies are just not ready to go at a competitive price, and if we do not take those first steps now, over the medium term we will see those industries and jobs move abroad, and they might continue to emit the same levels of CO₂ that they emit now. We would end up in a lose-lose situation. We would lose our chance to reduce emissions and lose the chance to preserve and increase the number of highly skilled, well-paid jobs that go with those industries. We know that there are voices out there that are only too ready to claim that protecting the environment costs jobs. We cannot give those voices any opportunity to gain strength. Our focus must be on delivering a just transition. Along with the need to bring people with us on the village itself, there is a wider need to bring the country with us and win the argument that, if we get the balance right, it will be a win-win rather than lose-lose situation.

Before I finish, I have a few further questions for the Minister about hydrogen more generally. Are the Government still on track to make a decision on heat by 2026? What will that decision look like? Will it unlock a hydrogen for heat industry in the UK, and unlock genuine choice for UK households in how they heat their homes in future? Can the Government match the ambition that has been expressed here about moving towards a hydrogen-based economy? Germany is investing 10 times the amount we are in the quest to deliver the same amount of hydrogen by 2030. I pose the question: is more support needed?

There could be more ambition in the number of hydrogen villages the Government can support. I do not see any benefit in the Government limiting the ambition to one hydrogen village trial. We will no doubt shortly hear about another one. Why not advance two schemes and double the learning? That would be in two different parts of the country, with two separate pieces of infrastructure. It seems the obvious way to go. The endless bidding wars and competitions that the Government specialise in do not always mean that the best projects succeed. They also mean that a lot of effort is expended on presentation, when we should all focus on delivery.

The potential of hydrogen is big enough to fit in two projects. If we do have a competitive process, I would be delighted if the Minister agreed to visit Whitby, possibly in July, to open the new customer centre, meet with Cadent and hear more about the hydrogen village project, as well as the many other innovative projects the company is delivering, not just to progress hydrogen for heat but in the wider hydrogen ecosystem.

I will conclude by saying why all this matters. I am sure we all want our planet to have a future, and I genuinely believe that we have the talent and innovation as a species to stop climate change overwhelming us. I am not so sure that we have the political will. It is through projects such as this that we will address that head-on and meet the challenge.

I want my constituency, because of where it is and because of its geology, history and industry, to be at the heart of this revolution, so that the people of Ellesmere Port can in future enjoy secure, well-paid jobs, on which they can raise a family, in a manufacturing industry that has enjoyed a renaissance, thanks to the advances we hope to make in carbon capture and hydrogen. I hope we end up living in a town where emissions have gone down but wealth has gone up, and that Ellesmere Port becomes a byword for innovation.

Oral Answers to Questions

Justin Madders Excerpts

Tuesday 29th March 2022 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)]

That was a pretty strong-sounding answer from the Minister, but let us see whether those fine words are put into practice. An audit undertaken two years ago found that 17% of organisations—more than 2,500—that should have published a modern slavery statement had failed to do so. Can the Minister tell us what action has been taken since then to ensure that they do?

[Paul Scully]

On 11 March 2021, the Government launched an online modern slavery statement registry, and we are now encouraging all organisations within the scope of the legislation to submit their statements to it. More than 7,000 statements have been submitted, covering more than 23,350 organisations on that voluntary basis.

Parental Leave and Pay

Justin Madders Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd March 2022 Westminster Hall

[Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mrs Miller. I congratulate the hon. Member for East Renfrewshire (Kirsten Oswald) on securing this important debate and on her comprehensive introduction. It is clear that she is a passionate advocate for the many people who want to see great improvements in parental leave and pay.

As the hon. Lady and other Members outlined, there are a number of different types of parental leave, but I will focus on shared parental leave. It was originally designed to encourage more fathers to take leave after the birth of their child by allowing new parents to share up to 50 weeks of leave and up to 37 weeks of maternity pay in the first year after the child is born. As we have heard in the debate, from our constituents and from leading employment and equality groups, however, shared parental leave just does not do what it says on the tin. The scheme is not working for parents, and take-up rates remain woeful. In February last year, data provided by the Minister in a written answer to a parliamentary question indicated that take-up in 2019-20—the scheme’s fifth year—was just 3.6%, which is far short of the Government’s 25% target. That is simply not good enough.

We now know that things got worse during the pandemic: the use of shared parental leave fell for the first time since the scheme was launched. A study by EMW Law found that just 11,200 couples applied to use the scheme in 2020-21, which was a 17% fall on the previous year, when a record 13,100 couples applied. EMW’s analysis found that 598,000 women took maternity leave in the last year, indicating that just 2% of women who took some form of parental leave actually used shared leave. That is right—just 2%. That is a damning statistic. It is not surprising, therefore, that the UK is ranked only 34th out of 41 OECD countries for its family-friendly policies by UNICEF. It is also not surprising that leading groups such as Maternity Action, the Fawcett Society, the National Childbirth Trust, the Royal College of Midwives, the TUC and the Women’s Budget Group have all called on the Government to urgently rethink the scheme.

The Women’s Budget Group, an independent organisation that monitors the effect of Government policies on men and women, has called the scheme complicated and said that, because leave was shared, the onus on taking parental leave still fell more on women than men, because men tend to earn more and their salary would be harder to sacrifice at a time when families have great costs. Earlier this month, a Royal College of Midwives motion at the TUC women’s conference called for a shake-up in parental leave so that it works better for both parents.

Ros Bragg, the director of Maternity Action, a maternity rights charity, said:

“Shared parental leave was brought in six years ago now and it’s clear that it’s not working—take up is woeful. Our advice lines are full of parents who want to share parental leave, but confusion around the rules means that they are completely baffled. Add that to the low level of pay on offer and the system seems almost designed to put parents off sharing leave, rather than encourage it.”

The organisation is saying the scheme is not working because the shift to more equal parenting that it was supposed to promote is not happening. That does appear to be the case. We just have not seen the transformation in the take-up of parental leave by fathers that we would have hoped for. The scheme certainly needs reconsideration.

I will give the Minister and the Government a compliment—something that is rare for me—because they have spent millions of pounds on promoting the scheme. However, I am afraid that what we have heard is that it is too complicated and it is poorly understood by both employers and parents. The low rates of pay are a disincentive and workers do not qualify—for example those in agency work, on zero-hours contracts and, of course, the self-employed. We should be very clear that all those groups of workers deserve the same parental rights as everybody else.

When faced with all this evidence, it is hard to conclude that the Government are serious about employment rights and protections. They are not doing enough to address the real barriers in the way of shared parental leave. There was a Government consultation on high-level options for reforming family-related leave and pay, including a right to neonatal leave, pay for parents of premature or sick babies, and proposals to encourage transparency around flexible working and parental leave policies. That was launched back in July 2019, nearly three years ago, and we still have not seen the Government’s full response to it. They have only published a response to the proposals on neonatal leave and pay. The rest—we are told—will be reported on in due course.

As we have heard, the greatly heralded employment Bill is still to materialise. I am sure the Minister will tell us once again that it will appear when parliamentary time allows, which is a frustration to many. It is clear that the policies we need to support families are not good enough. They are not available to all workers, and they are not working sufficiently for those who are able to access the schemes. Parents and families deserve better, frankly. If the Government are keen to see the societal shift to equal parenting that we want to see, and if they want to tackle the gender pay gap, I urge them and the Minister to look at Labour’s Green Paper on a new deal for working people.

[Mrs Maria Miller (in the Chair)]

Before I call the Minister, I should clarify that we are due to finish this session at 7.7 pm. I am sure the Minister will want to give the mover of the motion a couple of minutes at the end, if he is going to fill all that time.

Paid Miscarriage Leave

Justin Madders Excerpts

Thursday 17th March 2022 Commons Chamber

[Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)]

I thank the hon. Member for Lanark and Hamilton East (Angela Crawley) for securing and leading the debate and the Backbench Business Committee for granting it. I pay tribute to her campaigning on the issue, which has helped to put the matter firmly on the political agenda.

Understandably, it is sometimes difficult for us to talk about such issues, but as we have seen with the now annual baby loss debates, raising these subjects in an informed and sensitive way is a good way to challenge existing rules and assumptions and to make change happen. We know that any change of the type that we are talking about would help the thousands of parents who experience pregnancy loss every year. Of course it cannot reduce the pain and sense of loss that they experience, but by removing one barrier that they will face during the grieving process, I hope that it will prove to be of some use.

As hon. Members have said, pregnancy loss at any stage of pregnancy is a major source of grief and can have a significant impact on the emotional and mental health and wellbeing of women and their partners. We know that women who have experienced baby loss are at a higher risk of post-traumatic stress disorder, anxiety and depression. As we have heard, a survey carried out by the Baby Loss Awareness Week Alliance in 2019 found that 60% of parents who experienced pregnancy or baby loss said that they would have liked specialist psychological support for their mental health but were unable to access it on the NHS. We need to do better than that. We need to ensure that support is accessible to all women who have lost a baby and that the needs of their partners are also addressed.

Nearly two years ago, the Government introduced parental bereavement leave and pay for employed parents who lose a child under the age of 18 or who suffer a stillbirth from 24 weeks of pregnancy, but current legal provisions cover only those parents who lose a pregnancy from 24 weeks. There is no current entitlement to bereavement leave for a miscarriage, which is medically defined as a loss of pregnancy before the 24th week. If a pregnant person, their partner or a person receiving a surrogate loses a child before 24 weeks, only the pregnant person is entitled to leave, and that is only for the physical illness or sickness that they face.

In a recent debate on this matter, the Government pointed to other statutory provisions such as statutory sick pay for women unable to return to work because of ill health following a miscarriage, but, as we have heard from Members today, that is not adequate and does not provide the right support to women and their partners who experience pregnancy loss. Loss is loss whether it is at week 12, 18 or 24 of a pregnancy. The need to grieve will still be there.

However, looking at this on the basis that loss before 24 weeks is treated at the moment as sickness absence—putting aside whether that is the correct classification for such absence, and I think we can all acknowledge that a powerful case is being made that it is not—we all know that statutory sick pay is woeful. The rate is among the worst in Europe and it is not available to all workers. As we have seen during the pandemic, it is very hard for those on low wages, in insecure work, or the self- employed to access proper support when they are sick. Indeed, the Government have said they know sick pay needs to be looked at, so I hope the Minister can do so.

The Minister has previously suggested that in these situations annual leave could be used for miscarriage leave. The grieving process is of course not in any way remotely comparable to a holiday. For those suffering a loss, it is not something they would choose to do if they could avoid it, so I ask the Minister to think again about whether it is appropriate to ask people who have gone through such a traumatic experience to take a holiday. Is that the correct way to classify their grief?

The truth is that neither of the current statutory provisions is adequate. Bereavement is not an illness and it is certainly not a holiday. That is why Labour has committed to a right to introduce bereavement leave. We know that others support that. The chief executive of Sands, the Stillbirth and Neonatal Death Charity, said that miscarriage leave should be statutory. Indeed, as we have heard, in many places, it is: New Zealand and Australia have recently introduced paid miscarriage leave policies. Closer to home, following a public consultation, the Northern Ireland Assembly has legislated to introduce paid miscarriage leave by April 2026. As has been highlighted, Northern Ireland is leading the way not just in the UK but in Europe on this policy. Several companies including the Co-op and Channel 4 and trade unions such as the GMB have introduced miscarriage policies and periods of leave for all women who have experienced a miscarriage. We all applaud those employers for their forward-thinking policies, but can we all agree that the lottery of who you are employed by should not determine whether you are entitled to such leave? We should also reflect on whether Members, as employers, should be looking to make changes in this area. It is important that we recognise that, while there is some good practice out there, leaving it to employers to decide will lead to inequality and that, without statutory provision or legal rights to back up what is being asked for today, not everyone will receive the support they require.

We also know that there is considerable support among others for this change. Sixty-five organisations, representing 69,000 employees, have signed the Miscarriage Association pregnancy loss pledge, which

“asks that employers endeavour to create a supportive work environment, understand and implement the rules around pregnancy-related leave, have a policy or guidance in place and support people and their partners back to work.”

In a debate earlier this month, which has been referred to, the Minister agreed that those principles sounded like a “very sensible” approach “that employers should take”, but he also acknowledged that not all employers do that. If he acknowledges this support is not available to all, he must surely recognise that it is incumbent on his Government to do something to address that. We hope to hear him say today that there will be a commitment to equalising entitlement to bereavement leave to protect all parents from being forced to go into work when dealing with the loss of a baby, no matter at what stage of the pregnancy it takes place.

I think we can all agree that creating a supportive environment in these situations is important. Without it, parents may not want to disclose their pregnancy loss to their employer. That is a difficult conversation to have at any time with an employer. Parents can do without the added stress and anxiety of having to raise and possibly even negotiate a period of leave with their employer. To compound that feeling, they might have justifiable fears of workplace discrimination and so not raise the matter at all, with the result that they end up suffering alone, in silence, without receiving the support that they need at a difficult time.

I am sure we will hear the Government say they intend to bring in employment measures when parliamentary time allows, but, as the Minister knows, the scheduling of legislation is up to them, so the time is in their gift. In the last couple of years, we have seen dozens of Acts of Parliament and thousands of statutory instruments, so it is a question of priority. The 2019 Queen’s Speech had the promise of an employment Bill, but that was dropped by the time of the 2021 Queen’s Speech. I hope that does not represent a downgrading of the Government’s commitment to tackling the issue. Surely any Government committed to tacking and improving rights at work would want to do so at the earliest opportunity. As we will no doubt hear shortly in the statement on P&O Ferries, employment laws in this country are in desperate need of an upgrade.

To conclude, will the Minister set out when he will bring the employment Bill forward, and whether he will consider putting within it the provisions that we have debated?

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

I congratulate the hon. Member for Lanark and Hamilton East (Angela Crawley) on securing this debate, following the debate that we had in Westminster Hall, and I thank the Backbench Business Committee for allowing us to discuss this important and sensitive issue. It is so important that we hear the examples that she mentioned. We must give our sympathies to people who have lost a much-wanted baby at any stage of their pregnancy, including though miscarriage, and always reach out to them and support them. She spoke with much passion, as she always does on this issue, and I am grateful for her continued work to raise awareness of the significant impact of baby loss at any stage on those parents. I also thank everybody who contributed to the debate and supports the discussions around baby loss.

The hon. Member asked what the Government are doing to support people following a miscarriage. I am pleased to say that we have support in place for both employers and employees, to guide employers to do the right thing by their staff and to protect employees when they need to take time off. I have talked about how losing a baby at any stage is devastating and how those people need their employers to respond with compassion.

I want to set out briefly the wider work that the Government are talking forward on women’s health, including in the workplace, because this is integral to the strategy. In March 2021, we announced the establishment of England’s first women’s health strategy, led by the Department of Health and Social Care. Health in the workplace, fertility, pregnancy, pregnancy loss and post-natal support will be priority areas in that strategy. As we have heard, damaging taboos and stigmas remain around many areas of women’s health, and they can prevent women from starting conversations about their health or seeking support for a health issue, whether through medical help or help from their employers. When women do speak about their health, all too often they are not listened to. We are determined to tackle those issues. Women need to feel supported in the workplace, and those taboos are broken down through open conversation.

Our vision for the women’s health strategy, which was published on 23 December 2021, sets out an ambitious and positive new agenda to improve the health and wellbeing of women across England. We will publish the full strategy later this year.

The Government have an active agenda on work and health more widely. One example of that is our response to the “Health is everyone’s business” consultation published in July 2021, which sets out measures that we will take to protect and maintain progress made to reduce ill health and related job loss and to see 1 million more disabled people in work from 2017 to 2027. Those measures are part of the wider support system that I mentioned and are key steps in our effort to change the workplace culture around health and sickness absence. Changing that culture through opening up conversations in the workplace will benefit anyone who has health issues at work, including those who have lost a pregnancy.

So far I have talked about physical health, but for some people the feelings of grief and loss associated with a miscarriage are overwhelming and have an impact on their mental health. Our excellent national health service is there to support individuals when such feelings are particularly debilitating, or are likely to have a longer-term impact on their mental or physical health. We are expanding access to psychological and talking therapies within specialist perinatal mental health services, with 26 hubs due to open by April 2022. The hubs will offer treatment for a range of mental health issues, as well as bereavement services.

As part of the Government’s commitment to build back better, we published our mental health recovery action plan, which is backed by an additional £500 million this financial year to ensure we have the right support in place. That is in addition to the £2.3 billion of additional funding we are investing in mental health services by 2023-24. We also remain committed to achieving parity between mental and physical health services and reducing mental health inequalities. We are making good progress, with investment in NHS mental health services continuing to increase each year from £11 billion in 2015-16 to £14.3 billion in 2020-21.

I know that the hon. Member for Lanark and Hamilton East (Angela Crawley) is specifically interested in, and always speaks passionately about, a leave entitlement for miscarriage. Parental bereavement leave and pay may not be that entitlement, but it does two important things. First, it supports parents who have suffered that tragic unimaginable loss we have talked about. Secondly, it sets a statutory baseline for employers, sending an important message that the Government expect employers to support their staff following any type of bereavement. That bereavement leave is available to parents who have lost a child under 18 or who have suffered a stillbirth after 24 weeks. That definition of stillbirth is a clinical one.

Miscarriage is undoubtedly a very personal experience and some people affected may want to stay at home, while others may prefer to continue to work or alternatively need time off later. That is why the Government support employers and employees to have those conversations about what is happening in their lives and what support they need, giving them the flexibility to have that approach. Employers are best-placed to understand their own people and to develop a solution that works for the individual.

There are really good examples of companies treating their employees with compassion and going beyond the statutory minimum we set. That is valuable to the employer as well as to the employee. Increased loyalty to employees can improve the retention rate. There is a bottom-line argument for employers, because after investing time in people it seems daft to then not give them the flexibility to keep them within the workforce. Rewarding them well will keep them productive if they feel a valued member of the team.

We heard about the pregnancy loss pledge, which is an excellent example of exactly what I have been saying: encouraging employers to show empathy and understanding towards people experiencing pregnancy loss, and having a supportive work environment where people can openly discuss their needs following a loss.

In this difficult economic climate, the Government are mindful of placing extra statutory burdens on businesses, but for those businesses that can go further we strongly encourage them to do so. We fully expect that in time others will follow that lead. On flexibility, I can give the example of ASOS, which has life events leave. In recent debates we have talked about endometriosis, neonatal care, other caring responsibilities, menopause and now miscarriage. All those things fit partly within the women’s health strategy I was talking about, but in those life event situations it is absolutely incumbent on employers to value their people and show flexibility if they want the reward of their employees remaining productive and loyal in turn.

When it comes to helping employers to be sympathetic and supportive, one of our most important tools is guidance. We recently commissioned a significant update of the guidance on “Managing Bereavement in the Workplace”. That includes a new section on supporting employees after a miscarriage before 24 weeks of pregnancy and offers examples of best practice. The guidance can be found now on the ACAS website. Flexible working is integral to this issue. Yes, it is not a replacement for leave, but having access to flexible working arrangements can be a really important tool to support those in employment who experience a difficult life event. Changing a work pattern can provide individuals with the flexibility they need to balance their work commitments with their personal lives during such challenging times. Having a statutory right to request a temporary or permanent working arrangement could therefore be beneficial to individuals grieving a miscarriage.

We have taken forward our manifesto commitment to consult on making flexible working the default unless employers have good reason not to do it. That consultation contained measures that would increase the availability and support the uptake of flexible working arrangements, including whether to extend the right to request flexible working to all employees from the first day of employment. We have received 1,600 responses and we are going through them now. We will issue our response in due course.

[Justin Madders]

I just want to clarify: is the Minister seriously suggesting that someone who has had a miscarriage should make a flexible working application, which could take weeks or months to resolve?

[Paul Scully]

I am saying that it is one of the tools for employers to value their people, which is why we want to ensure that we can have a tailored response to people’s life events. I talked about miscarriage and we have also rightly talked about all the other areas, including women’s health and, indeed, men’s health, whether that is mental or physical. Flexible working can be at the heart of wraparound care for employees, but it is not the only tool.

Shale Gas Production

Justin Madders Excerpts

Tuesday 15th March 2022 Commons Chamber

[Greg Hands]

A huge part of the Government’s delivery on renewables in the past 12 years is down to my right hon. Friend, first as Energy Minister and then as Secretary of State at my Department. In both those roles, she drove forward a big increase and made some of the early, tough decisions on renewables, so I absolutely pay tribute to her.

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right on gas: the Climate Change Committee itself has said that the use of gas can still be consistent with reaching net zero in 2015, and—let us face it—it is vital for our energy mix today. She also made some strong points about how we keep local consent and local communities on board. In respect of all forms of energy, that is one of the central principles that the Government are keen to maintain.

[Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)]

The Government say that the policy has not changed, but I wonder why it is so hard to make a decision. Ellesmere Port had a public inquiry more than three years ago for a shale gas development and we still have not had a decision from the Minister as to whether that will proceed. Is not it time that the Government stopped trying to have their cake and eat it, actually made a decision and rejected fracking once and for all?

[Greg Hands]

The policy is clear and laid out in our 2019 manifesto. It is not possible for me at the Dispatch Box to comment on individual decisions as they may be being assessed by the Department, but the policy in 2019 is clear that there is a pause on future fracking developments.