Leaving the EU: Airbus Risk Assessment

Kevin Foster Excerpts

Monday 25th June 2018 Commons Chamber

[Greg Clark]

As I think I made it clear throughout my statement, I do not agree—unusually—with my right hon. Friend on this point. I think that businesses have a right to speak out if they pay taxes and employ people, and we are determined that they will be able to continue to succeed in the future.

[Kevin Foster (Torbay) (Con)]

Having visited the Airbus facility in Bristol, I am pleased to note the tone and nature of the Secretary of State’s remarks. Will he confirm that the aviation industry is increasingly working on a global basis—there are even direct flights from here to Australasia now—and that that will not change after Brexit?

[Greg Clark]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We want to be able to take advantage of increasing global opportunities, but to do so without losing the advantages that we have from what have been very successful trading relationships within Europe.

Energy Policy

Kevin Foster Excerpts

Monday 25th June 2018 Commons Chamber

[Greg Clark]

The figures are taken from the Hendry report—these are not Government figures; they were laid out there. The number of jobs created during the construction period would have been 2,260, but they would have been for the very limited period of construction. In terms of value for money, of course, the permanent jobs are what needs to be assessed.

[Kevin Foster (Torbay) (Con)]

Will the Secretary of State reassure me that he will continue to make these types of decisions based on clear analysis, rather than political convenience?

[Greg Clark]

It has to be the case that when we take decisions that have consequences for consumers and businesses that already face, in energy-intensive industries, high energy costs, we have to act responsibly both for households and the future competitiveness of those companies.

Retail Sector

Kevin Foster Excerpts

Wednesday 6th June 2018 Commons Chamber

[Greg Clark]

Across the country, from time to time, businesses will close. I am familiar with Grimsby, as the hon. Lady knows, and one of the actions we are taking, which I know she will support, is to have a town deal with Grimsby to make sure that we maximise the advantages locally. Freeman Street in Grimsby shows this phenomenon has been happening not just over the past 12 or 24 months; there has been a long-term change. Local dedication, based on knowledge of the local environment, is required to have the best prospects for a revival.

[Kevin Foster (Torbay) (Con)]

The Secretary of State rightly refers to the fact that towns have to look at change. Does he agree that in many cases it will be for local authorities to examine what the needs of a modern town centre are as a destination, rather than at what its needs were in the 1950s and 1960s, in a very different retail era?

[Greg Clark]

My hon. Friend is exactly right about that. Of course many of our towns acquired shopping centres and shopping malls to make them more attractive at that time, which again was a big change. There is constant change in what the offer and draw of town centres is, and local authorities are very active in thinking about how they can make their places as attractive as they can.

According to the latest market data for the last five years, covering the period from 2013 to the end of 2017, 191 retailers in this country have gone into administration. That compares with the 202 that did so in the five years before, so we have not had the sudden collapse that the hon. Member for Salford and Eccles was hinting at. During the last five years, the number of stores affected by those failures was 7,429, compared with 19,639 in the previous five years. So it is very important that we do not paint a picture of British retail undergoing some sort of experience that has never happened before; we need to make sure that its dynamism results in positive outcomes and not regard this as completely out of the ordinary.

The hon. Lady cited examples of closures and, as I said, they are hugely hurtful and worrying for everyone caught up in them. However, she conspicuously failed to mention the other side of the equation. If she reads Retail Week in any given week, she will see example after example of stores that are opening and of companies that are expanding. She could have mentioned that just in January the Co-op committed that it will open 100 new stores during 2018, creating 1,600 jobs. Lidl is investing £1.45 billion in expanding its UK presence, and Aldi is now the fifth biggest retailer in the UK and it aims to have 1,000 stores by 2020. Lest anyone think that discount retail means discount wages, Aldi has pledged to become the UK’s highest-paying supermarket by 2020.

Our tastes and habits are changing. Home delivery from stores was once considered a relic of pre-war and immediately post-war times, but now it is increasingly standard for all the big supermarkets; Ocado has recently joined the FTSE 100 on the back of its growth. We have more and better choice through online retail than ever before, as colleagues have said. ASOS is now the UK’s largest clothing retailer by market valuation, and this week the British Retail Consortium showed that total retail sales increased substantially in May. The hon. Lady does the retail sector and the country a disservice by claiming that we are seeing an annihilation of the high street. We need to be much more practical and positive about the prospects.

However, our habits are changing. We are buying more and more each year— retail sales are buoyant—but we are choosing to buy more of that online, which of course provides a challenge. In 2007, 3% of total retail sales were bought online, yet in little more than a decade—by May this year—that had grown to 16.9%. That is a revolution in a short space of time. In the past 12 months alone, online sales rose by 11.9%, and clothing and footwear sales online rose by 24.1%. The consultants Oliver Wyman forecast that 40% of non-food retail sales will be online by 2030. That is how people are choosing to buy so, just as happened when supermarkets challenged individual shops, retail will look very different in the future. If we choose to buy 40% of goods online, not all the shops we have been used to will exist as they do today. As the British Retail Consortium says:

“We have too much retail space…there will be fewer shops and their role will be different”.

It says that they will be based on convenience fulfilment or, most likely, fulfilling a desire for experience and local community concentration. Those are the changes that the sector anticipates and wants to participate in.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kevin Foster (Torbay) (Con)]

It is a delight to speak in this debate. Ironically, if I was not here, I would be back in Torbay, helping to present the “Love Your High Street” awards. One recipient was the Kind Grind in Lucius Street in Torquay and another was a bar called Peaky Blinders in Winner Street in Paignton; both areas are famous for independent shops. This is a welcome opportunity to debate retail, particularly given its importance for many communities up and down the country. Given some of the campaign leaflets that I see in my constituency, it is rather odd that no Liberal Democrat Members were present for the first two hours of the debate, but I shall move on.

Let me start with our town centres, and particularly the internet’s impact on them. No one is going to be able to roll back the digital tide. Most of us have in our pockets a phone with which we could order the entire contents of a department store, a do-it-yourself store and a supermarket literally while we are sat here, if we so wished. The internet has also brought services and products into areas that in the past would have found it difficult to access them. That does, though, present a challenge to our high streets. There is no longer a need to go to the town centre and in future people will mostly go there out of choice, particularly as technology becomes more and more simple. We can heckle and make party political points, but that will not affect the change. It is therefore even more important that we look into what we can do not only to make town centres attractive places for those who still depend on them for their goods, but places to which people would go out of choice to go into a local shop and have an experience.

One thing that came out of the Tesco burger scandal was that a lot of people reconnected with the desire to know where their food comes from and what it is. A lot of local butchers had a boost that they had not had for a long time as people realised that there was something about going to a shop and speaking to a local business that could tell them almost from which cow the joint or product they were buying came.

There is a real need to look into what we can do to shape town centres as places. Rates can be a double-edged sword. They clearly have impacts on businesses, and there is a debate for the long run about how sustainable the existing business-rates model is, given that it is based on an era in which that corner on the high street was the best place to be—hence the location of a lot of Victorian buildings that became banks—and a crinkly shed on the edge of town was not very profitable at all—

[Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Kevin Foster]

No, I will not, because the hon. Lady was not present for almost the first two hours of the debate.

The business rates system is now not all that appropriate, even though it was appropriate for the shopping patterns of the 1950s. Of course, if we look at it the other way around, by retaining business rates and taking the growth in them, councils can fund exactly the kind of regeneration that is needed in our town centres. So there is a double-edged sword for local authorities in respect of how business rates can be used in future. The existing structure is certainly not all there.

I could not agree more with my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Ben Bradley) about the need to tackle long-term derelict properties in town centres. I think particularly of one in Paignton called Crossways, which is a pretty poor example of a 1960s shopping centre. It keeps going only because of the car park there, the mobile masts on top of it and a lease that was particularly badly negotiated by one retailer, which is still paying even though it shut its shop in the centre some years ago.

The problem with the existing compulsory purchase rules is that yes, in theory a council can get hold of a property like that to push forward regeneration, but the rules are cumbersome. I fully accept that there needs to be protection for people’s private property, particularly their homes, but if commercial properties—no one’s home—have been empty for many years, there comes a point at which it would make sense to make it much simpler for councils to compulsorily purchase properties in order to deal with eyesores. That simplification could be subject to protections based on how long a property has been empty, rather than on values and costs. Some owners almost rely on the fact that their property is such an eyesore that one day someone—I am thinking particularly the taxpayer—might pay a significant amount to have it dealt with.

It is right that local authorities play their part. Torbay Council is starting to look at the future of planning for our town centres, particularly in respect of Torquay, where there is a debate about its size and what we can do to revitalise it by bringing in residences and expanding student accommodation, particularly around the language colleges. That could bring a second wave of life to the town centre. We also need to deal with older, poor-quality office accommodation which, if replaced by new accommodation, could bring jobs and employment back into the town centre and provide the stimulus of people who work in the town centre then shopping, eating and drinking in the town centre after work or on their lunch break.

There is a positive story to be told about the future of our town centres, but they will be very different from what we have seen in the past. People will not use them out of necessity, so they will need to be encouraged to use them out of choice. There will still need to be essential services, such as local post offices and a network of local banks, but we need to be conscious that just standing in the way of technological progress is a strategy that will be as successful as it was for the Luddites who tried to argue against industrialisation 200 years ago. The Government can make a difference through their business rate policy, by giving local authorities more powers and by making it clear that there is still a retail success story in the future.

Nuclear Power

Kevin Foster Excerpts

Monday 4th June 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call Mr Kevin Foster.

[Kevin Foster (Torbay) (Con)]

Thank you, Mr Speaker; obviously you are saving the best till last.

I welcome today’s statement and the Secretary of State’s commitment to a new generation of nuclear reactors. He will be aware of the close link in France between nuclear and the navy and civil nuclear power in terms of long-term careers for those who serve in the submarines providing the deterrent. Will he do the same with our industry?

[Greg Clark]

My hon. Friend makes a very good point. The engineering skills we need in the armed forces and their civil applications can lead to careers that cross both. I will make sure that his recommendation is followed through.

Parental Bereavement (Leave and Pay) Bill

Kevin Foster Excerpts

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

[Kevin Foster (Torbay) (Con)]

I beg to move amendment 1, page 2, line 11, in the schedule, leave out ‘parent’ and insert ‘primary care giver’.

This amendment would widen the provision to include those who are not ‘parents’ but were the main carer of the deceased child.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 2, page 2, line 11, after ‘parent’, insert

‘or grandparent where they were the primary carer of the child.’

This amendment would widen the provision to include grandparents where they were the primary carer of the deceased child.

Amendment 3, page 2, leave out line 22.

This amendment would remove the ability to set the period within which the leave may be taken.

Amendment 22, page 2, line 22, at end insert,

“, including arrangements for taking the entitled leave at different points within the period specified in subsection (6).”

This amendment would ensure that regulations on parental bereavement leave provide flexibility on when the entitled leave can be taken.

Amendment 4, page 2, line 25, leave out ‘two’ and insert ‘four’.

This amendment would increase the minimum time off from work from two to four weeks.

Amendment 5, page 2, leave out lines 26 to 28.

This amendment would remove any deadline for when the leave must be taken.

Amendment 23, page 2, line 27, leave out ‘56 days’ and insert ‘52 weeks’.

This amendment would extend the period of time within which parental bereavement leave must be taken from 56 days to 52 weeks

Amendment 6, page 3, line 1, leave out

‘“child” means a person under the age of 18;’.

This amendment would mean that parental bereavement leave would apply to a child of any age, not just those below the age of 18.

Amendment 24, page 3, line 1, leave out from ‘a’ to end of line 3 and insert

‘son or daughter of any age’.

This amendment would change the definition of “child”, for the purpose of parental bereavement leave, to a son or daughter of any age.

Amendment 7, page 3, line 11, after ‘absence,’ insert ‘save for remuneration’.

This amendment would make clear that the employee is not entitled to contractual pay for the leave.

Amendment 8, page 3, line 18, leave out

‘a job of a kind prescribed by regulations,’

and insert

‘the job in which they were employed before their absence,’.

Amendment 11, page 4, leave out lines 8 to 17.

This amendment would remove the power to make regulations providing for notices, or make provision for any consequences as a result of failing to give notice, or failure to keep records of notice or comply with other procedural requirements.

Amendment 10, page 4, leave out lines 8 to 10.

This amendment would remove the requirement to give any notice to take leave.

Amendment 9, page 4, line 8, after ‘about’ insert ‘reasonable’.

This amendment would create a requirement of giving a reasonable notice period before taking the leave.

Amendment 12, page 5, line 9, leave out ‘parent’ and insert ‘primary care giver’.

This amendment would widen the provision to include those who are not ‘parents’ but were the main carer of the deceased child.

Amendment 13, page 5, line 11, leave out from ‘employer’ to end of line 12.

This amendment would remove the qualifying period to make the pay element a day one right.

Amendment 15, page 5, leave out from the start of line 40 to the end of line 2 on page 6.

This amendment would remove the requirement to give notice, and how to give notice in order to receive parental bereavement pay.

Amendment 16, page 5, line 44, after ‘which’ insert ‘reasonable’.

This amendment would require the individual to give a reasonable amount of notice for taking bereavement pay.

Amendment 17, page 6, leave out lines 1 and 2 and insert—

“(3) Employers must accept notice given in writing, face to face, by telephone or through a third party on behalf of the bereaved parent.”

This amendment would remove the requirement to give notice in writing, allowing this to be given in conversation or through a third party on their behalf.

Amendment 18, page 6, leave out from start of line 48 to end of line 2 on page 7.

This amendment would remove the liability of HMRC to pay statutory bereavement pay.

Amendment 19, page 7, line 13, leave out ‘two’ and insert ‘four’.

This amendment would increase the payment for bereavement pay from a minimum of two to four weeks.

Amendment 20, page 7, leave out lines 18 to 21.

This amendment would remove the requirement for bereavement pay to be paid within at least 56 days.

Amendment 21, page 9, line 18, leave out

‘“child” means a person under the age of 18’.

This amendment would mean that parental bereavement pay would apply to a child of any age, not just those below the age of 18.

Amendment 25, page 9, line 18, leave out from ‘a’ to end of line 20 and insert

‘son or daughter of any age’.

This amendment would change the definition of “child”, for the purpose of parental bereavement pay, to a son or daughter of any age.

[Kevin Foster]

It makes a change to be called first in a Friday debate. [Interruption] Yes, or ever. I usually have to wait for at least three or four hours before being called.

First, let me make it clear that I fully support the Bill promoted by my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake), and I have no intention of attempting to make a monumentally long speech to talk it out. However, my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Michael Tomlinson) and I wish to test some of the provisions, particularly in the schedule. We do not propose amendments to the two main clauses; our amendments are only to the schedule, as we would like to hear a bit more about some aspects of it and to test the reaction of my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton and the Minister to some of our amendments.

This is a simple Bill; it has just two clauses, one of which is the title clause. However, the attached schedule requires further debate and scrutiny on the Floor of the House. I should make it clear that no employee in the country would ever want to benefit from the Bill’s provisions, as it addresses what would undoubtedly be one of the most difficult periods in anyone’s life; all parents and grandparents will want to see their children and grandchildren live long and happy lives. However, it is to be welcomed that the House is talking about this subject today, and we hope that the Bill will receive its Third Reading and head off to the other place. The Bill demonstrates how MPs can in this place draw on their personal experiences to make a difference for others who might have to deal with similar experiences. I accept that some of the issues we will be discussing today might have been debated in the Bill Committee, but, sadly, I was not lucky enough to be selected to serve on it, which is why I raise them on Report.

In the interests of brevity, I will talk about my amendments in groups, according to the themes they cover, rather than go through each one individually. Also, some of the amendments work in combination to offer distinct packages that address particular themes, and in these cases it would not make sense to pass one amendment but not another, as that would create odd law.

The amendments cover four distinct themes. The first deals with people who act as the parent but are not the biological parent, such as a primary carer who has picked up the reins when things go wrong; that is addressed by my amendments 1 and 2 and amendment 12 from my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole. The second theme is the issue of when leave may be taken, given that some people might wish to work in the immediate aftermath of losing a child but subsequently find that grief requires them to take time off at a slightly later date; not everyone reacts in the same way. This area is addressed by my amendments 3 and 5, amendments 22 and 23 in the name of the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Patricia Gibson) and amendments 15, 16, 17 and 20 from my hon. Friend.

The third theme involves the requirement to give notice and, given the nature of this provision, my proposal for a requirement to give reasonable notice instead. This is covered in my amendments 9, 10 and 11. The fourth theme relates to the cut-off created by the 18th birthday and the proposals to change the definition of a child so that the provisions refer not only to sons and daughters under the age of 18. This is covered by amendments 6, 24 and 21. Finally there are three more amendments that I will speak to specifically: amendments 4, 7 and 8.

I shall start with the first theme. Sometimes, the person acting as a parent is not the biological parent. They could be a primary carer who has picked up the reins when things have gone wrong. Amendments 1, 2 and 12 cover this area. I think that we would all agree that parenting is not just about biology. It is not just about who has physically created a child, as we see with egg and sperm donor births. My concern is that if the Bill is passed without amendment to the schedule, there could be too much focus on the parent, rather than on the person who has done the parenting by looking after the child, bringing them up and loving and caring for them. The amendments will make it clearer that this is about the primary care giver—the person who is acting as the parent. I would be interested to hear my hon. Friend’s views on this and those of the Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, my hon. Friend the Member for Watford (Richard Harrington). We would not want to get into a situation where the person or couple who were acting as the parents could not take time off, yet an estranged biological parent could do so.

[Michael Tomlinson (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (Con)]

I, too, have put my name to this amendment, and I intend to speak to it in a few moments. The way in which the Bill is drafted means that the Minister will lay regulations in due course, but should we not take this opportunity now to express our views on the Floor of the House about what the definition of a bereaved parent should be? Of course we trust Ministers to get this right, but it is for us as well to put forward what we think would be the appropriate definitions—hence these amendments.

[Kevin Foster]

Absolutely; I could not agree with my hon. Friend more. I accept that the Bill has had a good run in, particularly due to the valiant efforts of my hon. Friends the Members for Colchester (Will Quince) and for Eddisbury (Antoinette Sandbach), but it is important to examine these questions on the Floor of the House, especially when we are dealing with Private Members’ Bills. They are slightly different from Government Bills, which might have had lengthy periods of consultation in Green Papers and White Papers, perhaps following a manifesto commitment. This Bill also has a manifesto commitment behind it, but I shall not refer to that further because it already enjoys cross-party support. All the parties represented in the Chamber today strongly support creating this type of provision.

This is about being very clear, so that anyone seeking to interpret this legislation at a later date will know what our intention was in passing it. We also want to be clear what is in the Minister’s mind on this subject. Who exactly is the parent under this legislation? Someone sitting at home listening to this might wonder what on earth this discussion is about. Actually, it is about ensuring that the legal definition involves not only the biological parents but those who are effectively parenting and looking after a child as though they were the parent at the sad time of that child’s death.

This brings me to my own experience in local government in Coventry, where we had child protection services. Often, a way to avoid a child going into care was for a relative, particularly a grandparent, effectively to become the parent. The child would be placed with them to keep them within the family and maintain some parental contact, without being formally adopted. I accept that, under the current wording of the Bill, someone is legally the parent if there has been a formal adoption process. There should be no confusion about that.

I want to ensure that the regulations will cover a situation in which a grandparent, uncle or aunt—or even a much older brother or sister—has stepped into the parent’s shoes to act in absolutely the right way. In the child protection context, that sometimes involved someone giving their younger brother or sister a chance to stay out of an institution. I want someone who has taken on that role to be able to benefit from this type of provision. They will have developed exactly the same bonds of attachment as a parent and, sadly, they will also have had to deal with the formalities following the death in the same way that a parent would normally do. I want the Bill to cover them as well.

--- Later in debate ---

[Karen Lee (Lincoln) (Lab)]

When I lost my daughter, she was grown up—she was not a child—and I want to suggest that people might need to take leave on odd days. I know that that is not easy to facilitate, but people do not know when grief is going to hit them.

[Kevin Foster]

I am sorry to hear about the hon. Lady’s experience. It would be interesting to hear the Minister’s response to that suggestion as well. Perhaps the leave should not simply be a block of two weeks; after all, this is not like taking a holiday. Events such as the child’s birthday or something else that the family was looking forward to might crop up, and perhaps employers could allow the bereaved person to take their leave in two separate weeks or in separate days over a period, rather than as a two-week block. Also, I wonder whether the Bill focuses too heavily on the funeral as the main event. Clearly, it is a difficult day and people will want to take time off around it, but not necessarily two weeks. As the hon. Lady says, there might be other days, perhaps not too far in the future—a family wedding, for example—that will also be difficult for the parent and taking time off at that point would be appropriate. I thank her for her intervention.

I hope that the Minister noted what she said and will reflect on it in his contribution. In amendment 23, the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran proposes to increase the amount of leave that can be taken to up to a year, but I want to reassure people that my amendments are about ensuring that things are not too tough or quick after the event.

My third group of amendments—9 to 11—relate to the requirement for notice and the ability to create such a requirement. Given the nature of the provision, I feel that it is more appropriate to examine creating a requirement for a reasonable notice period. It is safe to say that such events will rarely be predictable, and we have heard testimony in the Chamber before from Members who have gone through a stillbirth. Something wonderful is expected to happen, and people plan for it and look forward to it, but what happens instead is a shattering experience. I am worried that if we are too prescriptive about requirements to give notice, we could create a situation in which the bereaved find themselves having to comply with a particularly tough notice period requirement or having to deal with their employer in a particular way. I accept that the vast majority of employers would bend over backwards if an employee went through this type of situation, but we need the law to deal with the handful that would not.

[Antoinette Sandbach (Eddisbury) (Con)]

There was a degree of shock among the members of the Bill Committee at the evidence of employers who were not prepared to give employees leave if they were pregnant and then lost their child. I and many other Members were horrified by the lack of compassion and understanding being demonstrated by some people towards their employees at a deeply personally distressing time. I welcome my hon. Friend’s amendments that address the issue, which is an important reason for why we are being forced to legislate in this area.

[Kevin Foster]

My hon. Friend is right. The vast majority of employers will be considerate and understanding and will look to support their employees. At the end of the day, they will generate a lot of loyalty in an employee that might well be repaid in a positive way at a later date. It is not a burden for an employer to be good to their employees. Reducing staff turnover can actually be a huge boost for a business. Employees can get experience and develop skills and will stay if they feel that the situation is more of a partnership than a “them and us” relationship.

Unfortunately, however, there is still an undoubted need to legislate. The majority of people would not discriminate against others based on their gender, sexual orientation, race or ethnicity, but there are some who would, which is why we have the law and the relevant sanctions in place.

[Chris Philp (Croydon South) (Con)]

I support my hon. Friend’s case for protecting bereaved employees by ensuring that notice periods operate in a reasonable fashion. However, to ensure that nobody falls through the cracks, does my hon. Friend agree that there may be a case for a more general duty on employers to act reasonably? We may not be able to set out every eventuality in regulations, so a general duty to act reasonably would provide protection for bereaved parents.

[Kevin Foster]

My hon. Friend has clearly read my amendment 9, which talks about a “reasonable” notice period. Is written notice reasonable in some circumstances, or would a simple phone call from a trusted close relative be suitable? People react to grief in different ways. The hon. Member for Lincoln (Karen Lee) pointed out that some people might need to take specific days off, but others may want the time immediately. Some people may even want to come into work the next morning, and they will be able to speak to their employer face to face.

I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South (Chris Philp) that things should be done on a reasonable basis. As a lawyer, I accept that there can be issues with words such as “reasonable” and “proportionate” and with where exactly we draw the line, but he is right that we do not want to split hairs about whether something is right or wrong. My hon. Friend the Member for Eddisbury touched on the fact that there will be no issues with most employers, but when an employer is looking to get out of doing something, that may lead to issues about how exactly notice was given or whether it absolutely conformed with the regulations. No reasonable employer would do that, but we legislate for those who are anything but reasonable.

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

My hon. Friend is making some strong points. He will be aware that there is already a requirement for employers to give reasonable time off when people suffer such tragedies but, as he says, the Bill seeks to ensure that the employers who would not normally be generous and sympathetic also give people the time off that they need at times of great tragedy and grief.

[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.

[Karen Lee]

It is just as important that an employee is supported when they go back to work. I was working on a hospital ward, and the people were just fantastic. People can say anything about the NHS, but it was wonderful to me. I had something like 10 weeks off while nursing my daughter, and when I went back I was doing audits of heart attacks for MINAP—the Myocardial Ischaemia National Audit Project—cleaning cupboards and all sorts of things. It was about six weeks before I went near a patient again. Every business is different, but people cannot just walk back in and pretend that everything is the same as it was on the day they left after their world has been turned upside down. It is vital that that is taken into consideration.

[Kevin Foster]

It is apt to reflect on the NHS, which provides such support to its staff as well as to its patients, in its 70th year. The hon. Lady is right that it is not just about leave. The employer will need to behave reasonably when the employee comes back.

As I have said, an employer would not feel comfortable about a person doing certain jobs if they have just suffered such a bereavement. Few of us would suggest it is a good idea to fly a plane the next day, for example, or to do something that requires absolute concentration—I am pretty sure the military have quite strong provisions on leave or, at the very least, on excusing people from particular duties. If a person’s mind is elsewhere, if they have had their life turned upside down, they will not be in the mood to do air traffic control, for example. It is appropriate that employers think about that when a bereaved parent comes back from leave.

It is hard to legislate for every instance, and thankfully many employers are very good and are fairly understanding. The Bill sets a legal minimum.

[David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)]

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

[Kevin Foster]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Michael Tomlinson]

My hon. Friend is making a powerful point. Does he agree that amendments 6, 21 and 24 would not widen the scope too greatly? His powerful example shows that many people in this situation will already be retired, so removing the age restriction of 18 does not widen the scope. When looking for a balance between employers and employees, which of course we must do, the amendments would not widen the scope too much.

[Kevin Foster]

The amendments would widen the scope a bit. An employee aged 61, 62 or 63 might lose a relative in their early 40s but, yes, by the point children are in their 50s or 60s, their parent is almost certain to have retired, or at the very least will only be in part-time employment. Monica Bulman, a nurse who recently retired in Torbay, did nearly 60 years in the NHS, which is remarkable. She was in her 80s when she retired.

For me, it is about the principle and about how the Minister and my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton think employers should reasonably act in circumstances where, for everyone else, an adult has passed away but for the employee it is their child. The employee will remember their child as a baby, and that will have an emotional impact. I am concerned that we do not create a cliff edge at 18.

[Will Quince (Colchester) (Con)]

My hon. Friend is making a powerful point. I do not usually disagree with my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Michael Tomlinson), but the amendments would change the remit quite significantly. They would increase the number of potential recipients fivefold. At the moment, as we know, there is an element of fragility in getting private Members’ Bills through the House. We have the support of the Treasury Bench, which is based on financial calculations on the existing number of potential recipients. If we were to increase that fivefold, I fear we would lose Government support because they would have to go back, redo the calculations and get Treasury support again. However well meaning, I encourage him to think about the implications of these amendments.

[Kevin Foster]

I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention, and I take on board what he says. Perhaps my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton will cover this in his speech, but it will be interesting to hear how we would expect employers to react in this circumstance. I am particularly thinking of people aged over 18 who have particularly special needs because of, say, Down’s syndrome. In the past, those with Down’s syndrome sadly lived relatively short lives. We now have examples of those with Down’s syndrome reaching retirement age with very elderly carer parents. That presents its own challenge to local authorities in how to provide care to a parent who is absolutely devoted to caring for their child who is now perhaps in their 30s or 40s. As the parent develops their own care needs in their 70s and 80s it can be difficult to manage them without breaking the special bond the family have had for many decades.

Hearing what my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester says, I may be minded not to press the amendments if they might prevent the Bill from progressing. It would be interesting to hear from the Minister what thoughts the Government have on such cases and how we might expect employers to react. I do not want a situation in which the Bill applies if a person loses a child aged 17 years and 364 days but does not apply if they lose a child aged 18 years and one day. We must ensure there is no such cliff edge, which I do not think is the intention of the Bill.

[Will Quince]

I totally agree with the points that my hon. Friend is making. The key thing is getting the Bill on to the statute book; once that has happened, we can consider secondary legislation and amendments, but this is about our getting there. We discussed all these things in Committee. There are other issues, covering spouses and other relationships, that people would understandably wish to be included in the Bill. Unfortunately, we cannot do that; we are unlikely to get it through if we do. Everyone in this House would like us to look at the legislation in the future, with a view to amending it, but we have to get the Bill on the statute book as a starting point.

[Kevin Foster]

I take the points my hon. Friend is making. As I said at the outset, I fully support the Bill—I have no intention of giving a five-hour speech as an attempt to talk it out. When it comes to the key moment, I will not seek a decision on these amendments if that would endanger the Bill. However, it is right that we have this discussion today so that Ministers can listen to the opinions of the House. Sadly, tribunals and courts will be called on to interpret the Bill, but our discussion means they will be able to see clearly that Parliament was not setting a maximum and saying that the provision should stop there, but deciding where the floor—the minimum—should be.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

My hon. Friend is making some excellent points. The Bill has an impact on the Treasury, with an annual cost of about £3.2 million, because the taxpayer—not the Treasury itself, clearly—will be picking up the tab for the statutory pay element. We have to take that key consideration into account. We must also consider costs for businesses, especially small businesses, as they will suffer the effects more than larger businesses. Small businesses find it much more difficult to cater for absence. As there is already a predicted cost of £2.6 million a year for small businesses, does my hon. Friend agree that we need to strike a balance by taking into account the interests of both business and the individuals who suffer these tragedies?

[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.

[Michael Tomlinson]

Yes, why not?

--- Later in debate ---

[Kevin Foster]

It must be wonderful being one of my hon. Friend’s constituents—we will all be emailing him at 3 o’clock tomorrow morning and waiting for the reply. As I was saying, I accept that there is a need for balance, but I do not want the process to be too rigid.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kevin Hollinrake]

rose—

[Kevin Foster]

I think that I am about to hear it now, so I happily give way.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I am happy to come back on this point. We are clearly dealing with a minimum here. We expect employers to be—our evidence absolutely supports the fact that they are—generous and sympathetic in such situations. Many of them give full pay and provide whatever time is needed for the parent to try to recover—or to move on—from the tragedy. We are trying to cater for the isolated numbers of employers who do not take that approach. We believe that one in 10 does not provide a sympathetic and generous policy when these things happen. So we are trying to strike a balance while sending a signal to those employers that they should be generous and sympathetic in such situations.

[Kevin Foster]

I take on board my hon. Friend’s point, but legislating is not just about sending a signal—we can do that by tabling a motion, making a speech or putting a question to a Minister. This is about setting down a piece of law that is not signalling what employers should do, but telling them what they must do. He is right to say that the Bill will not make much difference at all to 90% of employers. The small business that works as a team and the larger employer that values its staff will be able to sit back and think, “This is pretty much what we do already,” with the exception that the Bill provides for statutory parental bereavement leave and for the taxpayer to make certain payments. The Bill is about dealing with that 10%.

[Will Quince]

My hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake) makes a good point. The Bill enshrines in law the minimums—it is about a floor, not a ceiling. The House should make it clear that on pay and time off, we are providing for statutory minimums. We know that most employers will want to offer more time—the time that their employees need. Likewise, although we are talking about amounts for statutory paternity and maternity pay, I would like to think that most employers will recompense their staff at full pay. I hope that the Government, as a good, compassionate and sensitive employer, will consider ensuring that civil servants are paid at full pay, because that would send a clear signal that the Bill sets out a minimum and there is an expectation that the provision will be greater.

[Kevin Foster]

I thank my hon. Friend for making the point that this is about the minimum rather than the maximum. I take on board what he and my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton have said. I certainly do not want to endanger these provisions, but I will be interested to hear what the Minister says when he responds to the debate. It would be useful to hear his views about the policy that will be adopted in the civil service. If he wishes to intervene now, I would be happy to let him, but he might find it easier to cover that when makes his speech.

This is an appropriate point for me to move on to amendment 7, which relates to the pay level. It would make it clear in the schedule that the minimum pay level will be statutory parental bereavement pay, rather than contractual pay. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester, I hope that most employers will be flexible, but the amendment would make it clearer in the Bill that the minimum is the statutory pay. Of course, if employers wish to pay more—if they wish to treat the period as normal paid leave—they can, but the Bill will set out the minimum.

[Chris Philp]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on his extremely detailed and thoughtful speech. Will he confirm my understanding of how the process will work: the statutory pay element would be reimbursable by the taxpayer—the Treasury—but any excess over and above that level that the employer might choose to give would not be reimbursable by the taxpayer?

[Kevin Foster]

I think that my hon. Friend’s interpretation is correct, but perhaps the Minister will cover that when he sums up so that we are absolutely clear about the Treasury’s position. My understanding is that the Bill makes clear the minimum—the statutory pay—but that employers are of course welcome to pay more. As we have heard, most employers—some 90%—are doing the right thing. I should be clear that most employers are already doing exactly what we want them to; we are legislating for the 10% who do not.

[Michelle Donelan (Chippenham) (Con)]

I echo hon. Members’ comments about the Bill setting the minimum, but it is important that we also recognise that some very small businesses and microbusinesses simply cannot afford to continue to offer full pay because they have to get somebody else in to do the job in the interim. The statutory element is about giving them the ability to be compassionate and let their staff take the time off with some kind of income. It is not just about some employers not getting it; it is a “needs must” thing, too.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kevin Foster]

I recognise that for some employers, particularly microbusinesses in which there might be only two, three or even four employees, it is not about wanting to be nasty, but about the position of a business that is operating hand to mouth incurring the costs of agency staff and so on. That is why it is right that the taxpayer is involved in supporting people at a difficult time. I do not think that any of us object to the taxpayer sharing some of the costs of this provision, rather than it all being loaded on to employers. I accept that there is a balance between what we expect employers to do and what the taxpayer should be asked to pay for.

Having discussed microbusinesses, perhaps this is a good time to move on to amendment 8. I will be interested to hear the thoughts of the Minister and my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton about what type of job will be covered. Many people might think, “Really? You have a job and you get paid. That’s simple enough.” Unfortunately, it is not quite that simple in the modern economy. It is not like the situation in decades past when it was perhaps quite easy to identify someone’s employer.

The Bill refers to jobs of a kind specified by regulations, and I am particularly keen to know that there will not be a sort of shopping list of the jobs covered such that if someone delivers milk in the morning, they are be fine, but if someone works on a farm milking a cow, they will not be covered because that job is not listed. My amendment deals with the question of whether someone is employed, and we have a good definition of that in law. Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs is only too keen to define people as employed so that they can be taxed appropriately on their income from their employment.

I hope that we can explore exactly how we will cover some of the new models of employment, in which someone may not have a job with one employer but regularly works for a group. I am thinking particularly of the gig economy, in which someone might be working irregular shifts, but are to all intents and purposes an employee of an employer. How do we deal with different types of employment model? I accept that we will not be able to cover absolutely every single situation in which someone is paid to do something on someone else’s behalf. There will always be debates about how we treat self-employment. Indeed, the debate about national insurance contributions and what the self-employed are eligible to claim from the welfare and benefits system showed the difficulties with these things.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

My hon. Friend makes a strong point. The world of work is certainly changing. He will be aware of the Matthew Taylor review, which has been examining issues relating to the gig economy and how we define someone as an employee or a worker, as well as all the different categories of employment and self-employment. We want to keep options open in the Bill so that we can mirror the outcomes of the Taylor review when those issues are settled. We therefore will not have measures in the Bill that we cannot change; we will have flexibility to make sure that people who deserve to be covered by the Bill are covered.

[Kevin Foster]

I thank my hon. Friend for helping to bring some clarity to the matter. I did not want to get back to the old idea of what a “proper job” is that some of us used to hear at school. It is amazing how many people thought that certain things were proper jobs, and it has to be said that it was mostly men and that a proper job was one that was traditionally male orientated—surprise, surprise—and other things were just basic jobs. However, the sorts of jobs that were once dismissed—in care, healthcare and other areas—are vital in today’s economy, and we need people to be doing them and to see them as the type of job and career that they want to go into.

While exploring the Bill, I was concerned that we should not end up with Parliament in effect asking the Minister to draw up a list of every job he could possibly think of and every type of employment activity that could ever be done for an employer, so amendment 8 is about targeting whether someone is employed. I am conscious that we have to make sure that our language and intentions are fairly clear. We should bear in mind our brief debate on another private Member’s Bill, the Unpaid Trial Work Periods (Prohibition) Bill. Most of us would think that a trial was a very short period—perhaps an hour or two, just to see how someone mixed with a team—but the hon. Member for Glasgow South (Stewart Malcolm McDonald) gave an example of a place that had interpreted a trial as several weeks of working for nothing. Clearly, none of us would view that as a trial; the process was just about trying to dodge minimum and living wage legislation. We need to make sure that there is no opportunity to misuse what we all might think are reasonable words in the English language.

I am conscious of time and wish to give others the opportunity to speak. I shall listen carefully to the arguments made by the Minister and the Bill’s promoter, my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton, when they speak about my amendments. I have been reassured by some of the interventions I have taken from my hon. Friend, and I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester for his interventions, which have helped to clarify some points. To be clear, I will support the Bill even if my amendments are not accepted. It would not be beneficial for anyone if the Bill was not passed.

This welcome Bill will help many in the darkest times of their lives. My hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton can take great pride in the difference that his Bill will make to those people, and my hon. Friends the Members for Eddisbury and for Colchester can take great pride in how they have used their personal experience to help others who end up in the same position. I support the Bill wholeheartedly and hope that the discussion of my amendments will help to make it even better.

[Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Torbay (Kevin Foster).

I thank the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake) for bringing forward this Bill and for the consensual and sensitive approach that he has demonstrated as he piloted the Bill to this stage. I appreciate all the work that he has done to ensure that, finally, the anomaly and the injustice of bereaved parents not having any protection in employment law is addressed. I also thank the members of the Bill Committee. I make special mention of the hon. Members for Colchester (Will Quince) and for Eddisbury (Antoinette Sandbach), with whom I have made common cause on this issue.

--- Later in debate ---

[Patricia Gibson]

My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. We have to bear it in mind that the relationship between a parent and a child, even as the child grows up and becomes an adult themselves, is rather special. As he says, the traditional picture of young people growing up and moving out is no longer borne out in the statistics, for a variety of reasons. The relationship of parents and children living in the same house has to be recognised at any age, but also even when they are not living in the same house.

I understand why the Government have put this into the Bill, but drawing the line at the age of 18 when we are talking about the death of a child appears to me to be quite random and artificial. I do not think that such a distinction is appropriate in the context of the loss of a son or daughter. Loss is loss, whether or not someone’s son or daughter is their dependant. I ask the Minister and the whole House to keep it in mind that this Bill’s focus and starting point—we need only look at the title—is the bereaved parent, not the child. It is not about the circumstances of the age at which the child is lost—it is about protecting parents.

When a son or daughter is lost at an older age, the discussion—in relation to this Bill, at least—becomes more academic. As the hon. Member for Torbay pointed out, the older a parent is when they lose their son or daughter, the more likely it is that they will be retired anyway and will not need the protection of this Bill.

[Kevin Foster]

The hon. Lady is making some powerful points. She is right that this is about the impact on the person. As I said, my grandmother was into her late 70s and her son was 59, but his death still impacted her very strongly emotionally.

[Patricia Gibson]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. I listened very carefully to the personal example that he gave us from his own family, which makes the point very well.

I ask the House to consider some other examples, such as that of a daughter aged 24 with a young child of her own whom she is perhaps bringing up on her own. As the Bill stands, if she were to die, her bereaved parents would not have any of the support that it could offer, even though there may be a thousand reasons why they will need bereavement leave—for example, the support that their grandchild might need if she had been bringing the child up on her own. I put to the House an interesting example that is completely, and sadly too often, within the realms of possibility. What about a son aged 25 who would not be covered by this Bill? Let us say that he is serving abroad in the British Army in a fragile region, and loses his life during a tour of duty. Do his parents not deserve the protection that the Bill offers because he happens to be 25 and not a dependant? I do not think that the intention of the Bill is really to exclude such parents, and that is why I have tabled these amendments.

I remind the House that this Bill was introduced in the first place because of the particularly unnatural order of circumstances in which someone buries their own child. I do not presume to judge whether one kind of grief is worse than another, but we can all agree that it goes against nature for someone to bury their own child. It does not necessarily go against nature to have to bury one’s husband or one’s wife. That, sadly, is in the normal scheme of things that we ultimately all have to face, but nobody—nobody—expects to bury their own child. A child is a parent’s investment—their stake in the future.

--- Later in debate ---

[Michael Tomlinson]

What a pleasure it is to follow the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Patricia Gibson). She spoke with clarity and passion and from experience, and it is clear from other interventions that she has made a real difference to the Bill. I thank her for her words and for her work.

I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake) for his work in guiding the Bill through the House, as well as my hon. Friends the Members for Eddisbury (Antoinette Sandbach) and for Colchester (Will Quince). I have piloted a presentation Bill through the House, and I got it all the way to Third Reading before it fell at the last hurdle, so I completely appreciate the fragile china that is a private Member’s Bill. I well remember my hon. Friend the Member for Eddisbury speaking in the very first Adjournment debate that I attended as a new Member of Parliament, and what a powerful experience it was to sit close to her. I think that I appeared in a number of leaflets distributed by my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester, because I was sitting just behind him when he was making one of his powerful speeches. That had a double benefit: me hearing his wise words and the people of Colchester seeing my face in his leaflet.

I will come back to amendments 24 and 25 in due course, because the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran struck a raw nerve, and her words were very prescient. My hon. Friend the Member for Torbay (Kevin Foster) has spoken in great detail to all his amendments, which I have signed, so I do not feel the need to bang on at length, but I want to address two or three areas.

First, amendments 1 and 2 relate to primary care givers and grandparents. While those amendments may not be necessary because of how the Bill is drafted—it is clear that the Secretary of State will lay regulations and that there will be a definition of a bereaved parent—it is important that we debate in this place at some length what we expect that definition to include. At a time when we need more foster carers and adoptive parents, it is right that we use the term “primary care giver”, rather than just “parent”.

[Kevin Foster]

If someone adopts a child, they become the parent as far as the law is concerned. There are also foster carers or those who have taken in a child in certain circumstances—for example, when there are potential child protection issues. We must be clear that this applies to the primary care giver, not necessarily only the person who is legally or biologically defined as the parent.

[Michael Tomlinson]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right, as he often is. That is why I was so delighted to add my name to his amendment.

It is the same with grandparents. My hon. Friend the Member for Mid Worcestershire (Nigel Huddleston) led a powerful debate in Westminster Hall just last week on the important role that grandparents play in the family. I agree with him that we should give far more credit to the possibility of grandparents having care for and access to grandchildren. That is why I was delighted to sign amendment 2, which shows the important role that grandparents do and should play in the family.

Let me move on briefly to one or two other amendments before I get to my main point. On amendment 23, I completely agree with the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran about the need for flexibility. That is fundamentally right. We heard that from the hon. Member for Lincoln (Karen Lee), who quite rightly said that we do not know how grief will strike any of us—we just do not know. Some people will want to go to work immediately the next day. To be—dare I say it?—a little bit stereotypical, it is probably more often the man who will want to go straight back to work, throw himself into it, try to forget what has happened and put it to the back of his mind and just get on with life. That is not always, but quite often, the case. Flexibility is key.

We have talked before about the fact that these are minimum standards. We are not talking about good employers. These provisions are there to safeguard employees who are not fortunate enough to work for a good employer. I completely agree with the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran and the thrust of amendment 22 on the need for flexibility.

That brings me to my main point, which is on amendment 21, which I have tabled, and amendments 6, 24 and 25. It seems entirely arbitrary and faintly ridiculous that we are saying that these provisions only apply when the child is up to the age of 18. It is simply not right to say that a parent acts any differently if their child is 17, 18 or 19. My brother died aged 24, and I know that it did not affect my parents any less or any more because he was 24, rather than 17 or 18.

I am incredibly proud of my brother. He used to claim that he was the first Oxford student to have been president of both the Oxford Union and the Oxford University Conservative Association since my noble Friend Lord Hague of Richmond. I think he was wrong in that, but he was very proud to claim that he did that double. Sadly, he died out in Beirut. He was on a gap year in Lebanon—he was not fighting—and was learning Arabic. There were increased tensions between Israel and Hezbollah in Lebanon, but he died of a very mundane cause: carbon monoxide poisoning. It was such an innocent tragedy, and it just should not have happened.

My father had just retired the summer before, and I know that had he still been in work, he would have found it incredibly difficult to carry on and to turn up to work the next day. My mother was still working. She had the good fortune of having a brilliant employer. She was a teacher—many of my family are teachers—and her headmaster effectively gave her that term off, so she had from April to September, because there are the long summer holidays. Imagine a scenario where a parent does not have a decent employer and does not have the protection of this law, and arguably the protection of these amendments as well.

I maintain, as did the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran and my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay, that extending this beyond the age of 18 would not widen the scope that much. We have heard evidence that it may increase the burden fivefold. It is probably my fault, but I have not seen that evidence, and I want to know what it is based on. My instinct is greatly that the older the child, the more likely it is that the parent will be in retirement and therefore that this will not widen the scope. I ask the Minister to consider and perhaps set out in some detail the evidence why the burden would be so much greater if the definition of “child” was opened up to beyond the age of 18.

The final set of amendments that I want to touch on is amendments 9 to 11, in relation to the regulations. My hon. Friend the Member for Torbay is right that the regulations laid before Parliament by the Secretary of State in due course should not be onerous in relation to notice periods. We are talking about parents who are in an incredibly difficult position, at an incredibly sensitive time. We do not want to be shutting off people who are entitled to this parental leave just because they happen to have failed to give some minor notice, because the letter has gone missing or the email was not sent. We need to be sensitive at a time of grief.

[Kevin Foster]

My hon. Friend is making a very good point. Does he agree that the bonus of his amendment 17 is that someone could easily provide notice in any way; it would not have to be a handwritten letter delivered in a particular way? As long as a reasonable effort has been made to get the notice to the employer about the circumstances, that should be enough, regardless of exactly which form that notice took.

[Michael Tomlinson]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. He has the benefit of being a lawyer and will therefore have studied notice periods and all the ancient texts about contracts and contractual arrangements. It is just nonsense to say that this should be construed that tightly and with that much regulation. We need reasonable notice periods, while being perfectly understanding of the situation that these parents are in.

I strongly support the Bill. I congratulate once again my hon. Friends for their work, and I look forward to hearing the responses from the Minister and my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton to the points I have raised.

--- Later in debate ---

[Bill Esterson]

The hon. Gentleman is right and I commend him on promoting this Bill. I would like to pick up on some of the points he made about employment, self-employment, and the impact of the Bill on businesses. A good employer would certainly want to look after its staff—indeed, it is in its interests to do so. If an employer wants to retain staff, it should look after them, and that is also the right thing to do more generally. As we have heard, the vast majority of employers already do what is set out in the Bill in practice, and the Bill rightly ensures that all employers have a minimum set of standards to follow.

I take on board the point about whether this is the right time to consider broadening the provision to cover adult children, but we are talking about a relatively small number of people who would qualify for an entitlement to leave. We are talking about someone who loses a child, whether that child is under or over the age of 18—the hon. Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Michael Tomlinson) described losing his brother who was 24. It does not matter at what age this happens; it is an extremely painful situation for family members, and I understand that my hon. Friend the Member for North West Durham (Laura Pidcock) reminded the Committee of just that point. In the mind of a parent the pain never ceases, whatever the age of the child.

Although an older child might have a family of their own to help with practical arrangements, that is not always the case. Indeed, some older children are dependent on their parents—for example, parents may still care for a disabled adult. It is perfectly possible that a worker aged 60 could have a daughter or son who dies aged 30 or older, and it is reasonable for them to be afforded paid leave for all the reasons given for younger children. Lifting the age limit of what it means to be a child could be done either in the Bill or later, in recognition of just how exceptional these circumstances are.

Out of all the employment rights currently written into law, parental bereavement leave and pay is something that no one in the Chamber would ever want to apply for. Increasing leave entitlement from zero days and no pay to two weeks’ paid leave at a statutory minimum rate is a welcome step, although I am sure that many people who have lost a child would tell us that two weeks is nowhere near long enough, and perhaps a longer period of leave might be right. However, for purposes of the Bill we are discussing two weeks’ paid leave, which would be a significant and important step forward.

It is crucial that bereavement pay is paid immediately after the death of a child. A parent or carer should not have to worry about whether they can afford to take time off, and that should not be another thing added to the extreme stress that bereavement often creates. The statutory minimum rate is certainly better than nothing, although I fear, having had to take a hit on pay, that if pay is not given in full that may still exclude some from taking leave. Certainly the statutory minimum is better than nothing, and a step forward for those employers that currently do not provide such support.

[Kevin Foster]

Does the shadow Minister agree that this is about setting a floor, not a ceiling?

[Bill Esterson]

Yes, I agree. I believe that bereavement pay rightly has the support of the whole House. It is important that it is state funded and that HMRC is liable. That will minimise the risk of people not being paid—the point was made by my hon. Friend the Member for North West Durham in Committee—which is necessary because of the exceptional nature of the leave and the pay that needs to come with it. For those reasons, I also agree that there should not be a qualification period before a bereaved parent is qualified to receive the pay.

I want to pick up on some of the points raised by the hon. Member for Torbay (Kevin Foster). There is a challenge in ensuring that everybody benefits from the Bill, for example self-employed people who are currently not able to receive social security. This week the Federation of Small Businesses pointed out that it often takes two to three years to fully establish a business. The current rules on universal credit, which apply for only one year, are a very real concern in supporting self-employed people. There is a similar challenge here in supporting self-employed people through parental bereavement pay.

The flipside, of course, is the impact on employers. As someone who has run a small business, I can say from experience that when a key member of staff is not available it impacts the business. That is also true for larger businesses, but it is easier for them to make alternative arrangements. We need to recognise the impact on small businesses. This is about getting the balance right. It is only right that members of staff receive bereavement pay and that the statutory minimum is recoverable by the employer. The ongoing challenge will be how smaller firms in particular are supported when a key member of staff is absent.

My hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln (Karen Lee), from her own very sad experience as a nurse, demonstrated just how difficult it is for a member of staff who has suffered a bereavement to return to work and to carry out their normal duties. It is not straightforward to say that for a smaller firm staff should have to get back to work. Sometimes it is simply not possible for people, when they have suffered a bereavement, to return to work and carry out their duties. The challenge is very difficult for both the employer and a bereaved member of staff, and I hope the Minister will pick up on that point in his response to the debate. I do not say that there are any easy answers, but it is right that we are able to discuss the issue.

It was surprising to see the contradiction between some of the amendments tabled by the same Members. One asks that no notice be necessary for leave, while another asks that reasonable notice be given.

--- Later in debate ---

[Michelle Donelan]

I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention and for clarifying that very specific time of 11.45 pm. I will urge all my constituents to contribute to the consultation, especially those who can bring their own experience to it.

[Kevin Foster]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the priority is that the provisions do not become a cliff edge, meaning that we do not have people’s 18th birthday as the absolute marker? Actually, when we read the Bill, we see that it could apply not only to someone under 18, as the parent of someone who dies on their 18th birthday may end up qualifying. However, the issue is making sure that this age is seen as a bare minimum, not a ceiling.

[Michelle Donelan]

I thank my hon. Friend for his contribution. He made that point earlier and he is right that we need a law that is compassionate yet workable so that we can interpret it in an orderly fashion and implement it for everybody.

The consultation will also look at the definition of a parent. That is needed in today’s society more than ever before, as we have different types of families and family dynamics. Sometimes people have more than one mother and more than one father, and we need to be flexible when defining parents and understanding of the different roles that people play as primary care givers.

Another important area is the self-employed, and I know that we will look at that as part of the Taylor review. I regularly speak in Parliament about making provision for the self-employed because although they are the lifeblood of our economy, they are too often forgotten and missed out from these types of benefits. Self-employed entrepreneurs are driving our economy forward, so it is important that we show just as much compassion and understanding to them.

I hope that this fantastic, modern, forward-thinking Bill will inspire other countries to follow suit. I hope not only that its provisions will set out the minimum that we expect from companies, but that we will revisit the Bill in the future and try to expand and build upon it.

[Chris Philp (Croydon South) (Con)]

It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Chippenham (Michelle Donelan) and to speak in such an important and moving debate. I start by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake) on piloting this private Member’s Bill through the Commons—I hope it will conclude today—with such skill and deftness, which we have come to expect from him.

I also pay tribute to members of the Bill Committee, who clearly improved the Bill with such diligence and thoroughness. I gather from comments that have been made today that the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Patricia Gibson) served on it, along with my hon. Friends the Members for Eddisbury (Antoinette Sandbach), for Torbay (Kevin Foster), and for Colchester (Will Quince). I apologise if I have missed any Committee members out—[Interruption.] How could I possibly forget my hon. Friend the Member for Charnwood (Edward Argar), who is certainly nothing if not unforgettable. I thank and congratulate those hon. Members for their work, and my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay has clearly given this matter extremely careful and diligent thought in tabling so many detailed amendments.

Before speaking to some of those amendments, I observe that the measures are extremely welcome. They strengthen protections and rights. One occasionally hears people claim, particularly as we think about leaving the European Union, that there may be some sort of race to the bottom on regulation and that we somehow plan to have less stringent employment rights in this country than in the rest of Europe. This Bill proves conclusively that that is not the case, and that this Parliament is willing and eager to legislate to strengthen employment rights and the rights that our citizens enjoy in ways that go far beyond anything contemplated by European Union legislation. This Bill is evidence that we are doing more, not less, when it comes to employment rights and other rights.

I turn to the first group of amendments—amendments 1, 2, 12 and 14—tabled by my hon. Friend. Amendment 1 would extend the definition of parents in this context beyond simply biological parents to include people who are acting as the deceased child’s principal guardian. Amendment 2 would include grandparents when they act as the child’s principal guardian. Those amendments are absolutely right in spirit. I am interested to hear whether the Minister thinks that these things need to be in the Bill—these amendments would do that—or whether they can be dealt with in regulations. Whichever approach is adopted, the spirit and thrust of my hon. Friend’s amendments are absolutely right. It is clear that whoever is caring for the child—the biological parent, a grandparent or a foster parent—they have an equally close connection to the child and would suffer the same level of anguish as a biological parent would. I therefore agree very strongly and wholeheartedly with the amendments that my hon. Friend has wisely tabled.

[Kevin Foster]

I appreciate the comments that my hon. Friend has just made about the amendments. Does he agree that we must focus on not ending up with a scenario in which a primary care giver—someone who has been a parent in almost all senses of the word—has no access to leave, while, in theory, an estranged biological parent could suddenly have that access? We must reflect the impact on the person who has been doing the parenting.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kevin Foster]

I can confirm that my hon. Friend’s interpretation is correct. I wanted to make clear what the statutory minimum was, but this is, of course, about a floor and not a ceiling. Employers would be welcome to go further: the amendment would not change that.

[Chris Philp]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his additional clarification. We are in complete agreement.

Speaking of complete agreement, I want to make one more point about the amendments. It relates to amendment 9, also tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay, assisted on this occasion by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole. The amendment proposes the introduction of a test of reasonableness in relation to notice periods, to which a number of Members have referred.

Clearly, in circumstances of probably unexpected bereavement, requiring parents to comply with potentially quite prescriptive and very detailed notice periods would not be appropriate. As other Members have said, it would present the risk that a bereaved parent might inadvertently fall foul of one of those notice periods. I think that there is a strong case for a general requirement—either in the Bill, which is the aim of the amendment, or in subsequent regulations—for employers to act reasonably in this context. Such a catch-all would, I think, provide a general level of protection and reassurance for bereaved parents.

I know that other Members want to speak. Again, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton: I am delighted to be here today to support this excellent Bill.

[Robert Courts (Witney) (Con)]

It is a great pleasure to speak in the debate. I have been greatly moved by what has been said by Members in all parts of the House. Others may agree that the House is shown at its best when it works on a cross-party basis—when it listens to Members who speak about their individual experiences and who speak with passion and knowledge. I salute all those who have done so today: their speeches have made a great impact on me and, I am sure, on my constituents and the whole country.

We are debating a very important piece of legislation, but perhaps one of its effects will lie outside legislation. As anyone who has experienced bereavement will realise, one of the initial feelings is isolation—the sense that friends or family are not coming to see them or a feeling of distance from their employers. I hope that those who are watching the debate or who read the report later realise how much they are not alone. They are listened to, and many Members on both sides of the House have their interests firmly at heart and are doing everything they can to help.

I warmly welcome the Bill, and I pay tribute—as others have, but it bears repetition—to all those who have argued this case so compassionately and for so long. My hon. Friend the Member for Colchester (Will Quince) has been one of the leading lights, and he introduced a version of the Bill that sadly did not make it past the general election. The Government have picked the issue up and support the Bill—it was in the Conservative party’s manifesto—and I thank them for doing so. My hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake) has, in the words of my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester, picked up the baton—a nice way to put it. It is important to remember that this is very much a team effort, and several Members supported it in the recent Westminster Hall debate and the baby loss awareness debate some months ago, in which I was deeply honoured to speak. I thank everyone involved enormously, because many people in West Oxfordshire will be feeling grief and loss but be heartened to see that so many people in this House are seeking to help them.

I am also pleased that, while some other countries have similar rights, we will be world leaders in introducing this level of rights and protection. That makes it sound a little too inhuman—it will be a level of reassurance and human compassion that will be world leading. I am proud to be able to make a few brief comments in support of the Bill and on the amendments tabled by hon. Members on both sides of the House to attempt to improve the Bill, which is of course to be highly commended.

Amendments 1, 2, 12 and 14 deal with definitions and whether we should be dealing solely with literal parents. I do not think that we should be prescriptive and that only biological parents should be the beneficiaries of assistance under this legislation. Clearly, as we will all know from our constituents, many people can be involved in caring for a child: the biological parents or foster parents, or others who it is difficult to foresee in legislation but who may be deeply involved in a child’s upbringing and be devastated by its loss. We should be as flexible as we can to ensure that people, however they are connected—whether they have a caring responsibility in a formal sense or in more of a moral sense—are equally protected and assisted by this legislation.

We will need some clarity, and the Government are consulting on this and listening carefully. It is a drafting issue and we will have to ensure that the Bill is phrased to provide breadth and width, but also clarity. We must make it clear in passing the legislation that we are seeking to help those who are bereaved having cared for a child and that we do not want to be prescriptive about particular classes of carer.

[Kevin Foster]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the firm message that we want to send to the Minister is that the definition of “parent” is about parenting, not biology and blood lines?

[Robert Courts]

As so often, my hon. Friend makes the point that I was seeking to make, but more succinctly and eloquently. He is right: it is parenting, not being a biological parent, that I am seeking to stress, and I am sure we all agree on that.

Amendments 3, 5, 22 and 23 deal with when leave can be taken and for how long. I am humbled to speak in this debate, as I have heard so many moving stories from those who understand only too well the nature of grief. I hesitate to express my thoughts, but I do so with the intention of being as helpful as possible. Grief is not a predictable phenomenon. People cannot know how long they will grieve for or what form their grief will take. Perhaps most strikingly, they have no way of knowing when it will strike. It may be immediate. However, as we have heard, people often find different coping methods. They may decide to carry on. Going back to work and immersing themselves in the hubbub of everyday life makes them feel better for some time, but sooner or later grief hits and they may then need leave from their employer.

--- Later in debate ---

[Robert Courts]

My hon. Friend powerfully makes the very point I want to make. For any human being, burying a child is profoundly distressing, as it goes against our very nature as humans. We therefore should not even countenance saying that people should not be able to avail themselves of assistance just because their child is older; that would go against what we are trying to achieve.

While that is my wish, however, I listened carefully to the interventions made by my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester, and my overriding desire is that this legislation gets on to the statute book. If it just sets a minimum level, we do not have to say that that is it, the story is closed and we can never amend it again. We can come back to it: we can either amend this legislation through regulations or come back and debate it again, and campaign, as we are so used to doing, to ensure that we provide a higher standard. I would not like any changes to be made now that mean either the Government are unable to support the Bill or employers feel that it is too onerous on them, and as a result we do not have these much-needed protections. It must be our foremost concern today to put these protections in place.

The last group on which I want to comment is those that address notice periods: amendments, 9, 10, 11, 15 and 17. I think that an element of practicality is intended here, and I would certainly not wish to see anything in this Bill that requires people, at a time of profound distress, when their world has been turned upside down and they cannot think straight, to have to worry about filling in forms or jumping through hoops or having to comply with something, which, as my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South (Chris Philp) said, might mean they inadvertently fall foul of a regulation.

We are seeking to provide legislation that is compassionate and sensitive. The requirement for any notice period to be given must be very light touch and amount to nothing more than people simply telling the employer that this tragedy has occurred and they would like to go off for a certain period. That is reasonable to enable the employer to provide some cover for the job they are undertaking at that time, but I certainly would not want to see requirements put in place—perhaps involving training—and people having to worry about whether they have complied with them. That would be running completely counter to what we are trying to achieve here.

[Kevin Foster]

Does my hon. Friend agree that that is the benefit of saying the notice must be reasonable or, as amendment 17 from my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Michael Tomlinson) proposes, giving as much scope as possible about how this notice can be provided, so that there is not a written form that people must be aware of and fill in?

[Robert Courts]

My hon. Friend rightly draws my attention to amendment 17, and the fact that I have not referred to it directly is perhaps a drawback of dealing with the amendments in groups in the way that I have done. The amendment says:

“Employers must accept notice given in writing, face to face, by telephone or through a third party on behalf of the bereaved parent.”

Therefore, it makes clear that a low level of notification is required. I think that is along the right lines, and I ask the Minister to consider it and respond.

Similarly, in providing evidence, people should not be required to find and supply to an employer a death certificate or a coroner’s report, because that is the very last thing they would want to deal with at such a time. I appreciate that some people might use legislation to accrue a benefit to which they were not entitled, but my mind boggles somewhat at that happening in such circumstances, and legislation already exists to deal with anyone who takes such an extreme course of action. My overriding concern is to ensure that bereaved parents and carers are looked after and helped. That must be what we are seeking to do here, rather than setting up bureaucratic hurdles for them at a time when they really do not require them.

I am grateful to the House for listening to me. Suffice it to say that I support the Bill, which, although overdue, is very welcome. I wish it a speedy passage, and I congratulate once again those who have taken the standard forward and taken the Bill through the House. I commend all those who have spoken with such total bravery today. It is not easy for them to stand up in public and explain things that are so personal, but the Bill shows the enormous impact that they can have when they do so. I salute all hon. Members who have done that today and on other occasions.

--- Later in debate ---

[Richard Harrington]

The shadow Minister makes a good sedentary comment, but I detect a note of sarcasm.

The serious point here is that consultations in which charitable bodies and other institutions make points based on their experiences are an important part of the legislative process, because that is where the detail comes in. I can assure Members on both sides of the House that this is not a can-kicking consultation or a formality. It is very important. Anyone who is interested can submit a response, and the consultation is open until 8 June, so there is not long to wait. I feel that it is necessary. Sometimes consultations are formalities, but I do not think this is one of them.

[Kevin Foster]

I am reassured by some of what I am hearing from the Minister, but can he be clear that the Government will look at the results of that consultation with a view to being clear on primary care givers, rather than parents who are purely defined by biology?

[Richard Harrington]

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

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

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

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

[Richard Harrington]

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

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

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

[Kevin Foster]

May I clarify for my benefit and that of other Members that the idea is for eight weeks to be the minimum timeframe and that the leave can be broken? This is not about a solid two-week period.

[Richard Harrington]

That is exactly what the Government are trying to find out. It may be that that is not appropriate, but my instincts are that what my hon. Friend says is right. Bills like this are strange. The natural thing would be to have as much flexibility as possible for almost anything, because these circumstances are different—of course they are. Each is a terrible tragedy, and we have heard speeches from hon. Members across the House about their own experiences, and those of their families and constituents. Everyone is different. We do not want to have to force everything into a narrow hole.

Employers have to know where they stand, however, otherwise we are just asking them to be nice people and to behave humanely. We do say that, of course, but it is not enough. We have to provide a framework and a balance must be struck. I think that we all agree that we need to provide employers with a simple set of rules, not an over-complex set of rules. The odd time—thankfully, it is just the odd time—that such a terrible bereavement happens, we do not want employers to be rushing around looking for papers, laws and guidelines. If an employer has only three or four employees, that is very difficult to do. I am sure their answer would be, “Take whatever you need,” but we have to provide the rules. I am absolutely clear that the amount of leave and pay is a minimum entitlement, so that all families who lose a child are given the bereavement support they need. I believe it is the absolute minimum.

The Bill was never about making sure that each parent who finds themselves in this situation has all the time off they need, because grief is different for each person. Grief is never time-limited and I am sure any reasonable employer would not or could not give people enough time off to deal with their entire grief—grief will happen over the rest of their lives. The intention is to set a minimum entitlement that employers must provide and to encourage a culture of support to develop around child bereavement. I am sure many employers would take into consideration the mental health needs of parents after bereavement, or extra time to deal with other children affected. This is the minimum; it is not everything. I hope that employers do not think, “Well, that’s all we have to do. That’s enough.” It never is. I am sure all responsible employers know that.

We have to consider employers’ rights. They have to have a clear framework. They need to know, in a way that is easily understandable, the minimum the law entitles them to. This may be obvious, but most employers will never come across this situation. When it does happen to an employee in a smaller company, employers will not have experienced the situation before. They will not have a file in a human resources department to tell them what their rights are. We found a consensus among employer groups for the minimum leave period of two weeks. It is sensible to continue with that, as long as it is known that it is the minimum entitlement in the Bill. Bigger, more organised employers will develop their own enhanced bereavement policies, as big firms often have very clear policies for almost every possible contingency.

On removing the age limit for a child, I cannot imagine how difficult it is to lose a loved one. The point was made, I think by my hon. Friend the Member for Chippenham (Michelle Donelan), that a child is a child. My mother is 89, but I am still her child. That may be obvious, but when we think of children for the purposes of the Bill one can assume that we mean little children. As my hon. Friend said so eloquently, to lose any child is not what nature intended but unfortunately it does happen. I can well understand why amendments seeking to remove the age limit for a child have been tabled. Having a sick child is understood easily by people. The way things are changing mental health, thankfully, is spoken about more now. However, people do not come across child bereavement very often, so it can be more difficult to speak about. The numbers, however, are not insignificant.

We have tried to get the balance right between those affected and those who need to administer this provision. It provides the minimum level of entitlement, but it does not prevent employers from enhancing their policies. I do not like the idea of having to consider costs in these circumstances, but they are unavoidable. There is a cost to employers and to Government, and the broader the scope, the higher the cost, so it is important to focus on the fact that this is a framework and a floor, providing a minimum. However, in so many areas of life employers go far beyond what the law sets the minimum for. Holiday pay and sick pay are good examples, and I am absolutely certain that the bereavement pay should be too.

--- Later in debate ---

[Richard Harrington]

I would like to consider my hon. Friend’s point. Perhaps I can drop him a line next week, or perhaps we can meet up and have a chat about it, because I do not want not to give a knee-jerk answer to a very complex question.

[Kevin Foster]

May I suggest that a letter with the information could be placed in the Library, given that we have discussed the issue on the Floor of the House?

[Richard Harrington]

Yes, I thank my hon. Friend very much for that suggestion. I would be very happy to do that and to correspond directly with my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Michael Tomlinson). We have to focus on the fact that this is a floor, as I think I have made clear. This is really about changing the culture around bereavement in general. It is my heartfelt belief that this Bill is not the be-all and end-all but that it will be a powerful driver of that culture change.

--- Later in debate ---

[Richard Harrington]

I know that my hon. Friend has personal experience in that regard, as his twins were born prematurely. I was born quite prematurely myself. Some of us look as though we were not born prematurely. My hon. Friend has made a serious point, however, and I will definitely consider it.

Amendments 9 to 11 and 15 to 17 deal with notice requirements. In this context, we have to stop and think about what the word “reasonable” means. It looks sensible in drafting and in amendments, because people think, “Well, what’s reasonable is reasonable”, but it is very subjective. It is a word that remains open to interpretation and genuinely means different things to different people. If I was challenged on the grounds of reasonableness—for example, on the length of this speech—what would the outcome be? It is a serious point with a number of scenarios and thought processes, with the usual outcome that something can be considered reasonable or unreasonable for any number of reasons when viewed from multiple perspectives.

The amendment might inadvertently make it difficult for those who seek to rely on the provision to know exactly what it means for them. We cannot create a situation in which the issue of reasonableness ends up being a sticking point between employer and employee. Then we would have questions of whether it should go to an employment tribunal or how would it be arbitrated, when that would be the last thing that anyone wanted on top of dealing with the terrible tragedy of a child’s death. It would be the worst of all outcomes and I am sure that no Member would want to see it.

I understand the aim of the amendment, however, and I sympathise with its spirit. But given that we are dealing with such a delicate issue, in which clarity is key, we should keep the text of the schedule as it is.

[Kevin Foster]

I take on board some of the points that the Minister is making, but does he accept that “reasonable” is a word that has been in the law for a long time in various circumstances? For example, Lord Denning famously talked, in the language of his time, of the man on the top of the Clapham omnibus. One of the reasons we picked the word is because it has been decided on in the courts many times.

[Richard Harrington]

I thank my hon. Friend for that point and in my brief time not as a lawyer but doing a law degree I remember the Lord Denning case, which was about being subjective about reasonableness. It was fine for Lord Denning, as the Master of the Rolls, to opine on the issue, but we have to consider a system that will not, we hope, go to an employment tribunal or a court—that is the last thing that anybody would want. Although “reasonableness” seems a fine test on the surface, this is such a delicate issue that we need to keep the text of the schedule as it is, with due respect to Lord Denning and my hon. Friend, although I agree with him about the “reasonable” test generally in English law and other systems.

As for the eligibility for pay, I look at this from my business background. Keeping the qualifying period for the pay element aligned with family leave provisions avoids questions arising at this sensitive time about who is entitled to take both parental bereavement leave and pay, because employers are already familiar with how it works. If employers are able to follow the legislation easily it will, in turn, enable them to act in a way that reduces the stress and uncertainty of the bereaved employee. ACAS has opined a lot on this subject and my officials have worked with it to establish how the Government can best support employers when an employee suffers child bereavement. Much of it will have to do with guidance and support to reflect the new provisions after Royal Assent and once the regulations have been made.

In supporting the Bill, the Government want to ensure that employees and employers are both involved in managing child bereavement, in the context of existing family leave and pay legislation. So I think it better that we leave the Bill as it stands in this respect—consistent with existing family-related pay entitlements when it comes to eligibility for statutory pay.

On amendment 18 and the liability of HMRC, the point has been covered a lot in the proceedings on the Bill, and I believe we need to ensure that protections are in place in the event an employer does not fulfil his legal obligation.

To allow time for Third Reading, I would just say that this is as good a time as any to reiterate the Government’s full support for the Bill, and my appearance as the third Minister to represent the Government is not a signal of wavering commitment. It is a signal that we are trying to get it right and treating the subject with the importance it deserves. I hope that after today’s important stages the Bill will make a swift transition for consideration in the other place, so it can proceed and receive Royal Assent at the earliest convenience.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I was pleased that my hon. Friend explained what otiose means. He is absolutely right that the Bill has been shaped as it has passed through the House. The consultation is a key part of that, and it is fair to expect that some of the Bill’s provisions will be different from those that we see today. Finally, I politely ask Members not to press their amendments to a Division and to allow the Bill to pass through the House and on to the statute book as quickly as possible so that we help more parents who suffer these terrible tragedies in their hour of greatest need.

[Kevin Foster]

It has been fascinating to listen to the past few hours of debate, and I am pleased by the discussion of the amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Michael Tomlinson) and I. I was reassured to hear the Minister’s comments about the consultation, particularly that this is about setting a minimum, not a ceiling, and about practice in the civil service. I hope that the matters we have discussed today will be automatically included in the consultation, as my hon. Friend just said, without us having to write another letter stating, “As I said in the House of Commons on Friday 11 May, these are my views.” I look forward to the matter coming back for debate after the consultation has concluded, when I am sure there will be opportunities for discussion on the Floor of the House. Having listened to the Bill’s sponsor and the Minister, I beg to ask to leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.



Third Reading

Queen’s consent signified.

Sainsbury and Asda Merger

Kevin Foster Excerpts

Monday 30th April 2018 Commons Chamber

[Andrew Griffiths]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his concern and recognise his passion as a previous trade union representative. He asks about the validity and veracity of the assurances given so far by Sainsbury’s and Asda. It is early days—we are not even at day one into this process—so we will see how that develops. On his aspiration that we protect the farmers and small suppliers, I gently point out that it was this Government who introduced the Groceries Code Adjudicator and brought in those tough measures and protections to help our farmers and the supply chain.

[Kevin Foster (Torbay) (Con)]

Four of the five major retail supermarket sites in Torbay are occupied by either Asda or Sainsbury’s, and the two stores are right next to each other in Paignton. What reassurances can the Minister give me that communities and local councils will be able to feed in their views to the CMA, to ensure that competition at a local level is preserved?

[Andrew Griffiths]

My hon. Friend raises important points, and I know that his constituents will be concerned. I can assure him that the CMA will take representations. If he would like to meet personally with the CMA, I would be delighted to try to help facilitate that.

GKN

Kevin Foster Excerpts

Tuesday 24th April 2018 Commons Chamber

[Greg Clark]

On the hon. Gentleman’s first point, the commitment to five years is the longest that has ever been given and was not something that Melrose was willing to offer the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee. In fact, the further undertakings that have been entered into on defence matters, which are of course in the aerospace division, go beyond that period.

I mentioned in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Redditch (Rachel Maclean) that Airbus’s chief executive has not repeated the reports that were made previously. I have discussed the matter with Melrose and its intention is to develop a relationship that it hopes will prosper in the future.

[Kevin Foster (Torbay) (Con)]

Given that this is the first time that the process has been used, the Secretary of State has rightly focused on the legal undertakings that he has been able to extract from Melrose. Will he speak a bit more widely about the general discussions that he has had about the future role of GKN’s assets in his industrial strategy?

[Greg Clark]

I have been very clear in my discussions with both sides during the bid. It is important to have equal treatment when taking a quasi-judicial decision. GKN has an important role to play in our industrial strategy in two important sectors. GKN will be part of an aerospace sector round table later this week, and I expect it to live up both to its responsibilities and to the opportunities in this most exciting of sectors.

GKN: Proposed Takeover by Melrose

Kevin Foster Excerpts

Tuesday 27th March 2018 Commons Chamber

[Greg Clark]

I would be very happy, either by myself or with a colleague, to meet the hon. Lady. For matters of pensions, including steel pensions, the Pensions Regulator is quite rightly there to operate independently of Government and of the companies, to ensure that fair decisions are taken. That is a good arrangement, but I am happy to arrange the meeting she asks for.

[Kevin Foster (Torbay) (Con)]

I welcome the Secretary of State’s statement. In relation to the defence contract, is he aware of Melrose talking to the Ministry of Defence? What information will he seek from the Ministry of Defence in coming to a decision on a quasi-judicial basis in relation to whether there are national security concerns?

[Greg Clark]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his question. My understanding is that there have been discussions between the Ministry of Defence and Melrose. Should the bid be successful, the MOD and other agencies would then need to form a view as to any consequences it had for national security and advise me accordingly.

Unpaid Trial Work Periods (Prohibition) Bill

Kevin Foster Excerpts

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

[Chris Philp]

I will come to the substance of the Bill in a moment, but I entirely agree that the hon. Gentleman’s brother’s experience—two days!—is clearly well beyond anything that is remotely reasonable and also that reporting should be made easier. We should put some of these facts into the public domain so that people who think they might have been unfairly abused, either in this area or a related one, can report the companies and action can be taken.

[Kevin Foster (Torbay) (Con)]

My hon. Friend is making an interesting speech. Does he agree that one way of dealing with this is to have very clear guidance on the existing law about what is an acceptable trial period and what is flagrantly trying to dodge the law and the minimum age, as Mooboo Bubble Tea tried to do in Glasgow?

[Chris Philp]

I will come to that point, but first I want to put two other facts about enforcement on the record. First, HMRC has a team of 400 people working on this. I am very sorry that the brother of the hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Lloyd Russell-Moyle) did not feel able to report the matter to one of those 400 HMRC staff. Secondly, the budget for enforcement was recently doubled from £13 million to £25 million, which I hope gives some confidence that HMRC and the Government are taking this very seriously.

I turn now to the point just raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay (Kevin Foster). There is clearly an issue with enforcement. My understanding of the law is that excessively long unpaid work trials are currently unlawful and should be paid. We have heard three examples in the Chamber today, two from the hon. Member for Glasgow South and the one we heard a moment ago from the hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown. All involved periods of work—two days in the last case and periods of two or three days and 40 hours in the other two—that strike me as clearly far in excess of what is reasonable and ought to fail the test of not being excessively long unpaid work trials. I would welcome the Minister’s confirmation that those three examples do indeed contravene existing regulations and that, in his view, had they been reported—I think one or two were—the company would likely have been found against.

Office for Students: Appointment

Kevin Foster Excerpts

Monday 8th January 2018 Commons Chamber

[Joseph Johnson]

I agree with the sentiments the hon. Lady has expressed. Those comments and tweets are obviously obnoxious and repellent, and that is why it is right that Mr Young has apologised for them, it is right that he has expressed regret for them and it is right that he has committed not to repeat them at the risk of being immediately dismissed from the Office for Students board.

[Kevin Foster (Torbay) (Con)]

I have been interested to hear the Minister’s answers. Can he reassure me about what evidence he took in relation to Mr Young’s current appointment as a Fulbright commissioner and what reassurances he has that some of the behaviour we have discussed this afternoon will not be repeated?

[Joseph Johnson]

Mr Young does important work on the Fulbright Commission. He is a commissioner and has been reappointed to that role as a result of the good work he has done. That carries on. As I said earlier, Sir Nigel Sheinwald, the chair of the Fulbright Commission, has described Mr Young as an effective, committed and energetic commissioner and seen no evidence that the historic remarks—going back many years—have influenced him in discharging his duties responsibly on behalf of disadvantaged young people. He does very good work in promoting social mobility through the Fulbright Commission’s work with the Sutton Trust and other organisations.