Oral Answers to Questions

Laura Pidcock Excerpts

Tuesday 12th June 2018 Commons Chamber

[Greg Clark]

I will indeed. We are not the only country that is seeing a fall in the sales of diesel. As I and my right hon. Friend the Minister of State have said, clean diesel and the new generations of diesel engines have a very important role to play in the transition to ultra low emission vehicles.

[Laura Pidcock (North West Durham) (Lab)]

Contrary to what the Secretary of State has said, over the past six months nearly 2,000 job losses have been announced in the UK’s automotive sector. This week in the media we have seen speculation about thousands of further redundancies caused by a combination of factors, including worries about possible consequences of a no-deal Brexit and the absence of the customs union. May I press the Secretary of State to set out how the Government will work with business, industry bodies and trade unions to ensure security of the automotive industry and those employed in it both in the immediate future and beyond UK’s exit from the EU?

[Greg Clark]

We work very closely with the industry with great success. Engine production in this country was up over 17% last year, reaching 1 million engines. That is a record. Never in the history of the British motor industry were more engines produced than last year. Over the past year, the net number of jobs that are being created—note the word “created”—in the automotive sector in this country is 9,000.We have a very good record of working closely with the industry to support an industry that is not only very successful today, but will continue to flourish in the future.

UK Automotive Industry: Job Losses

Laura Pidcock Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd May 2018 Westminster Hall

[Laura Pidcock (North West Durham) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Matt Western) on securing this important debate. He said that “the headwinds are strong and many” for the automotive sector. He went on to point out 16 issues, including business rates; energy costs; the move from older energies to renewables; the UK’s future trading relationship following our withdrawal from the EU; a freeze on recruitment in the industry; our leaving the customs union; huge uncertainty for businesses owing to a lack of certainty on the Government’s position on a future customs union; the potential shift of manufacturing to EU countries; the kind of regulatory framework that will exist following our withdrawal from the EU; added barriers to trade; the potential loss of tariff-free access; what will happen if we return to World Trade Organisation tariffs; and changes to rules of origin rules.

Other hon. Members then set out many more concerns, including about the impact on SMEs, which makes up 90% of the supply chain, and the complex EU-wide production web and the multiple border crossings needed for the production of a single car. They also spoke of dieselgate and the punitive measures currently levied on some of the cleanest diesel cars, and—crucially—of the lack of confidence for the car industry and its uncertainty over the Government’s position.

My hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington also talked of how the automotive industry represents an economic bellwether and how crucial it is for the west midlands and his constituency. My hon. Friend the Member for Coventry North East (Colleen Fletcher) talked about the automotive industry’s transformative effect on Coventry, including her constituency. My hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Justin Madders) talked about the loss of almost half the jobs at the Vauxhall plant at Ellesmere Port. He repeatedly speaks up for his constituency. It was poignant to hear my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Jack Dromey) explain so eloquently how a job for Warren was about so much more than work. We know that, in every industry, it is about so much more; it is the lifeblood of a community.

It has been said many times that the automotive industry is one of the UK’s most successful sectors. It provides employment to more than 150,000 people across the UK and last year contributed £15.2 billion to the economy. There is no doubt that the continued success of the automotive sector is vital for workers and families across the UK and for the success of our economy as a whole, but worryingly it has been going through a challenging time.

Although there was an uplift in April, car sales plummeted in March by 15.7% compared with last year, and almost 2,000 job losses have been announced during the past six months. In January, despite all the assurances from the Government when PSA Group took over, Vauxhall announced 250 job losses, on top of the 400 lost last year, at its plant in Ellesmere Port, as my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston described. I pay tribute to him and to Unite the union for all the work that they did with PSA Group to protect as many jobs as possible for the future. In April, it was announced that Nissan would be cutting jobs in Sunderland, and last month Jaguar, the UK’s biggest car manufacturer—it employs 40,000 people—announced that it would be shedding 1,000 temporary contract workers in the west midlands.

Three reasons were listed for those cuts: low demand, with sales at Jaguar down by 26%; changes to tax on diesel cars; and the uncertainty caused by Brexit. Those three factors are all either wholly or partly within the Government’s control. They have complete control over the uncertainty on Brexit, or at least they would if they could sort out the Cabinet and it was not in so much chaos. They also have control over the confusion about taxation policy on diesel, but in recent months they have actually exacerbated it. Weak demand in the economy could be mitigated by Government policy through, for example, encouraging wage growth and Government spending to increase national income.

As has been said, the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders has highlighted just how important trade with the EU is to the automotive sector. It says that 1,100 trucks from the EU deliver components worth £35 million to UK car and engine plants every single day. The complex cross-border supply chains depend, crucially, on the free and frictionless movement of goods. Manufacturers are very concerned about that freedom and those frictionless borders being disrupted.

[Mrs Hodgson]

It has been one year, 10 months and 30 days since the UK voted to leave the European Union. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government have therefore had more than enough time to sort out their negotiating position on the customs union, considering how important it is?

[Laura Pidcock]

That is right. I have outlined previously that perhaps some of the confusion and slowness in the process is due to the fact that an initial set of negotiations has to be carried out with two or three Cabinet members before negotiations with the EU can take place.

The SMMT says that

“neither option currently being considered by government...would provide the frictionless movement of goods that UK automotive needs to maintain its competitiveness and productivity.”

It is right that the Labour party has called for the Government to negotiate a new comprehensive EU-UK customs union covering all goods. That is the best way to ensure that there are no tariffs or customs checks within Europe, to support jobs, particularly the 2.1 million UK manufacturing jobs, and to help to avoid, crucially, the need for a hard border in Northern Ireland. It would be very helpful if the Minister could use his closing remarks to set out how the Government will ensure the future security of the automotive industry and those employed in it, going beyond the bespoke assurances to the likes of Nissan and Peugeot. Those were important, but we need more than that.

The automotive industry in the UK is a great success story. We have heard a tour de force in defence of the industry from all hon. Members in the Chamber, but it is currently under huge pressure, and sadly that shows through in the increasingly frequent announcements about job losses and in sales figures. It is incumbent on the Government to work with businesses, industry bodies and trade unions and listen to them when they express very clearly that the Government should prioritise a customs arrangement that removes the risk of tariffs being imposed. We must, as an imperative, seek to protect workers’ jobs and secure the future success of the industry as a whole, and I would be grateful if the Minister could now set out how he intends to do that.

Draft National Minimum Wage (Amendment) Regulations 2018

Laura Pidcock Excerpts

Wednesday 21st March 2018 General Committees

[Laura Pidcock (North West Durham) (Lab)]

I have a somewhat different take on the state of the economy from the Minister. Real wages, excluding bonuses, are still down by 0.2% and are still £15 a week lower than 10 years ago. That is a starkly different picture from the one painted by the Minister.

No one would expect me to oppose this increase in the minimum wage for working people, and the increases to the minimum hourly rate. However, this small rise in the minimum wage cannot go without comment or critical analysis; I wish that the Government would do some critical analysis of the growth in employment, the nature of that employment, and how precarious, insecure and low-paid it still is, specifically in the north-east, the region I represent.

I acknowledge that this increase in the minimum wage will be helpful, but it certainly will not be transformative for the many who are the lowest-paid. The Government seem obsessed with keeping the minimum wage at the lowest level at which it is possible to maintain a subsistence existence—it is called the Low Pay Commission for a reason. Perhaps the Government do that because they mistakenly believe that keeping wages low is good for business, or that it is not the state’s job to set wages, but rather the law of the markets that does that.

What the Government fail to acknowledge is that increasing wages, particularly of the lowest-paid, will immediately increase demand in the economy, which in turn will stimulate production, retail and services. It will also decrease Government expenditure on subsidising low pay, while increasing Government revenue—for example, where tax thresholds are exceeded. Improving the quality of life and economic wealth of the least well-off is not a cost, but an investment in society.

No Government should ignore—though the Minister did ignore it—the huge pressure on wages due to the fact increases in the cost of food, energy and transport, and other living costs, have outstripped increases in wages over recent years. The 33p an hour increase for those over 21 is, I repeat, a help, but not the transformational change we need to help working people in very difficult times.

Let us briefly talk about what might bring about that transformation. I am sure the Minister has read the Labour party’s manifesto in depth, so he will know that Labour would set the minimum rate of pay at £10 an hour by 2020.

There can be no more inspirational story about low pay than that of the striking McDonald’s workers. I met some of them on Monday evening, when they eloquently expressed the hardship that they endure working for the minimum wage. What an injustice it is that people work extremely hard each week to create enormous wealth for the McDonald’s corporation, yet their pay scarcely affords them an existence. Will the Minister join me in congratulating those workers who took industrial action and achieved a 6% pay rise, and will he encourage fellow fast-food workers, and indeed any group of workers, to take collective action against their employers if their pay does not afford them an existence?

On an associated point, what exactly is the rationale for the sharp decrease in minimum wage when we move between age brackets, and in particular for the difference between the rates for those in the 18 to 20 bracket, and those in the 21 and above bracket? It would be really helpful if the Minister set out the assumptions that led the Government to conclude that workers aged 18 to 20 should be paid a different rate from those aged 21, for exactly the same work. That would be instructive; that way, the the voting public, young and old, could understand our different political positions on this. As he knows, the Labour party is committed to a minimum wage of £10 an hour for all workers aged 18 and over by 2020.

The pay changes that will take place in April are a result of recommendations by the Low Pay Commission, as has been said. It is important that the state sets a minimum rate of pay based on the commission’s recommendations, but does the Minister agree that it would be so much better, and so much more dignified, if workers had direct control over setting their pay, through national sectoral collective bargaining? It is workers who understand their work intimately, and who ultimately are best placed to bargain over what they are paid for that work, within a negotiating framework.

[Andrew Griffiths]

I am listening to the hon. Lady’s speech, and she is making some very powerful points, but could she clarify something? Does the Labour party support the Low Pay Commission or not? From what she is saying, I am beginning to doubt that it does support the commission.

[Laura Pidcock]

I have said twice in this short speech that of course a rise in wages is welcome, but we have a completely different philosophy on how wages should be increased.

[Andrew Griffiths]

And the Low Pay Commission?

[Laura Pidcock]

I will address the Minister’s point: we support the Low Pay Commission’s making these recommendations; that is absolutely right. However, we would prefer that power to be in the hands of workers, through national collective sectoral agreements, so that they could bargain over their terms, pay and conditions. Our position is that that would be preferable.

I support these increases—I say that for the third time—but it is my priority and responsibility to be critical of low pay in this nation. The Minister must acknowledge that even with these changes, there will still be people in poverty, struggling, and that there are other solutions to low pay. I support these increases within the limited parameters of today’s discussion and decision-making process.

--- Later in debate ---

[Laura Pidcock]

It is not a victory to take people out of tax if they are still so low-paid. Would the Minister not prefer that they were paid more and therefore paid tax?

[Andrew Griffiths]

What I am concerned about is ensuring that the lowest-paid in society keep more of their money, so that they have more money to decide what to do with and to look after their families with.

Corporate Governance and Insolvency

Laura Pidcock Excerpts

Tuesday 20th March 2018 Commons Chamber

[Laura Pidcock (North West Durham) (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for advance sight of his statement and for making it in good time.

There are two substantive proposals: on clawback and on disqualification of directors. There is, however, already provision in insolvency law for clawback of assets, for example assets sold at an undervalue. There is also provision in company law for disqualification of directors due to incompetence or recklessness. The proposals set out by the Minister on clawback are extremely unclear. Can he explain how these provisions add to existing rights, rather than repeat them?

Secondly, there are a number of much vaguer promises. What do these mean? On giving the Insolvency Service new powers to investigate directors of dissolved companies, what will these new powers be and how would they militate against reckless behaviour? There is also the consideration of the legal and technical frameworks within which decisions are made on payment of dividends and how that can be improved and made more transparent. What does that mean? How can it be made more transparent, and how would greater transparency protect against greed and excessive payment of dividends, as we saw with Carillion? Then there is the strengthening of the role and responsibilities of shareholders in stewarding the companies in which they have investments, and, again, that is vague. What does it mean? Frankly, these are meaningless platitudes.

Thirdly, the Government again appear to be consulting, rather than acting. Do the Government agree that it is time for action, not consultation? They are also consulting on the Taylor review, which in itself was a consultation. What good are these consultations to people currently working in companies providing public services at risk of collapse?

Fourthly, the Government are certainly not known for being proactive; rather, they are always mopping up after the event. None of these problems is new. Companies going insolvent and leaving pension deficits and asset-stripping is not novel; we need only look at the case of BHS. These are problems that the Government should already have anticipated. Why has it taken the Government until now to begin to act, and why do they take only tentative steps?

Fifthly, we must have a bolder and more imaginative approach to corporate governance. Large companies are not the toys of directors and shareholders. They do not exist merely to make a small group of people excessively wealthy. They are the product of the hard work and effort of their workforce and suppliers, and they provide services that the public use. Short-termism is often at the heart of shareholder decisions. How do today’s proposals safeguard the long-term interests of companies, for the workforce and for the public good?

Sixthly, have the Government made any assessment of the viability of Interserve and any companies with public sector contracts? What steps are the Government taking to ensure these companies do not collapse? Will the Government institute project bank accounts for major public construction projects, mandate and enforce payment of public sector contractors within 30 days and set up a new model that allows them to step in when construction companies collapse, all of which Labour has called on the Government to do?

Lastly, how would any of these proposals meaningfully have helped the workers, pensioners and suppliers of Carillion? The amount paid in dividends at Carillion was the same as the pension deficit over the same period. Have the Government done any assessment of what more the workers, pensioners and suppliers would have received under these new plans, and if not, why not?

[Andrew Griffiths]

A little like a machine gun, those questions came thick and fast, and I thank the hon. Lady for them, but I am somewhat surprised. When Carillion went into insolvency the hon. Lady and her partner the hon. Member for Salford and Eccles (Rebecca Long Bailey) demanded that we learn the lessons from the Carillion failure. Today, just a few weeks later, we have come forward with proposals to prevent something similar from happening, yet she criticises us for a failure. Her colleague the hon. Member for Salford and Eccles criticised us in Labour’s press release today for yet another consultation, and then said that Labour has

“launched our own review into corporate governance”.

The Government’s measures will make a massive difference to prospects and the way in which our companies are regulated, to ensure a more robust and accountable regime within the boardroom. The hon. Lady fails to mention the fact that yesterday the Department for Work and Pensions brought forward a White Paper that introduces a huge number of extra regulations and gives powers to the Pensions Regulator to impose punitive fines, civil fines, criminal sanctions, and director disqualification. The hon. Lady asks what we have been doing during our time in office: we brought in pay ratio reporting, a new register of companies for significant shareholder opposition, and we have strengthened the voice of the employees and representatives in the boardroom.

The hon. Lady talks about Interserve. It would be inappropriate for me to give a case-by-case running commentary on the financial probity of private businesses, particularly as that could impact on their share price. I am sure somebody of the hon. Lady’s experience will understand that.

The hon. Lady talks about project bank accounts. As she will be well aware, in January, the Government consultation on project bank accounts closed, and we will be making our proposals in the coming weeks. She talks about payment in the public sector, and I can inform her that the special manager in relation to PwC has already agreed that companies providing services to Carillion will be paid within 30 days, and that is a requirement for all contractors who accept Government contracts. We will make further proposals about how we can improve that and make it robust.

The hon. Lady talks about disqualification. Directors can be disqualified for up to 15 years, and that prevents them from acting as a director, and taking part directly or indirectly. Anyone contravening a disqualification is committing a criminal offence, so these are real punitive powers.

The hon. Lady talked about dividends. There is nothing wrong with healthy companies paying dividends. In fact many of our pension schemes rely on the profits paid from dividends. The hon. Lady talks about dividends as if they are a dirty word, but in a healthy business they are something to be applauded.

The House can be reassured that this is just the next step in a robust, detailed, full review of our corporate governance regime to make sure that we protect the taxpayer, the pensioners and the workers in all those companies who do such a good job.

Draft Employment Rights Act 1996 (Itemised Pay Statement) (Amendment) (No. 2) Order 2018

Laura Pidcock Excerpts

Wednesday 14th March 2018 General Committees

[Laura Pidcock (North West Durham) (Lab)]

It is fantastic to be here this morning discussing a long-overdue extension of entitlement for thousands of people. The most basic demand is that someone providing their labour for another should be able to see what they have been paid and what has been deducted from that pay.

It is also important that workers, whatever their classification, should know how their pay has been calculated—the reverse is a situation in which thousands of people are unable to decipher what they have been paid, the deductions from their pay, whether the deductions were in order and the method of payment. That has resulted in thousands of people being completely unaware whether they have been given the correct pay or whether it meets the legal minimum. For many, the lack of clarity is a stumbling block to seeking pay justice.

Acknowledging that there exists an unequal power relationship between an employer and employee is fundamental. Knowledge is power and an itemised pay statement for those classified as workers—the right is currently given only to those classified as employees—is certainly a start, so I welcome the statutory instrument. As the Low Pay Commission stated:

“A cross-cutting problem impeding workers bringing…cases, and HMRC enforcing the minimum wage, is uncertainty regarding the hours for which they are being paid…Incorrect recording of hours worked, and therefore subsequent underpayment, is likely an important driver of non-compliance.”

Although we do not oppose the statutory instrument, the Minister will expect me to suggest improvements and to make political points. I have just a few. First, I wonder why it has taken so long to implement such an important change. Trade unions have been calling for it for such a long time. I understand that there are administrative challenges, but why will it take a further year to implement the change? I am sure the Minister will need to balance the consideration of the time businesses will need to prepare for administrative changes with the protection workers need from potential pay abuses. An itemised pay statement is vital in proving pay abuses and a year is a long time to wait for someone who currently suspects pay abuse.

I hope the Minister will agree that the pay statement should include all that is currently set out in the Employment Rights Act 1996, but I would like clarity. I was interested in some of the points made about hours paid. The provisions in the Act should rightly apply to workers, but to protect workers and make their pay crystal clear, the pay statement should include the hours worked and the rate paid for those hours. Otherwise, there will still be ambiguity and confusion over whether the pay is correct.

I note that the impact statement refers to extending the right to receive a payslip to workers, so that they can assess information

“including from the number of hours they are being paid for”.

Will there be an account of how many hours and the rate paid for those hours in the new itemised payslip in the extension of itemised payslips to workers?

Although welcome, the SI is only a small step on the road to improving employment conditions. The Opposition argue that the Government need to go further. In our opinion, employers should be required to give all workers a statement of their terms of employment, recognising the power imbalance I cited. We believe that all statutory employment rights should be applicable to workers from day one of the employment relationship, regardless of the hours of work. The scope of the statutory instruments regulating working time, part-time, fixed-term work and agency work should be reformed into a much simpler single employment definition. I am sure many people would celebrate that. In addition, non-standard forms of work should be regulated to address the specific insecurities that that sector faces.

We will support this statutory instrument with the knowledge that it is a small drop in the ocean to improve employment rights. Clarity from the Minister on hours worked and the rate for those hours would be very helpful.

[Andrew Griffiths]

I thank the hon. Lady for the way in which she has engaged with the order. We are united in our desire to bring greater rights and greater protections to our constituents. We want people to be paid fairly, with good terms and conditions, and to be motivated and happy in their work, which is why, through the Matthew Taylor report, the Government will for the first time monitor and benchmark ourselves on the quality of work and not just the quantity. That is a huge step forward.

We share a desire to address the things that the hon. Lady talked about. In our positive response to the Matthew Taylor report, we looked to take forward all the issues—52 of the report’s 53 recommendations. We want greater clarity from day one, and a contract for people from day one, to ensure that agency workers and temporary workers have greater understanding of who employs them and what their rights are.

The hon. Lady mentioned the clarification of the status of workers, which is fundamental. As working conditions and the way we act as consumers change because of technology and so on, so people’s way of working changes. To ensure that they have the proper rights and protections and are paid properly, we need to clarify their status. It should not be that the only way for people who are unsure about their status—employed, self-employed or worker—to get that clarity is to employ a very expensive barrister and go to court. We want to make it simpler.

The hon. Lady talked about disaggregation—the technical term for the breaking down of hours—and I listened closely. I understand her points. What we are keen to do, and must do, is introduce that in an affordable way for employers, recognising the extra cost burden. As the Committee heard, we consulted widely with employers, trade unions, payroll specialists and the people who write the relevant software. They said that there would be an extra burden of cost that they felt unable to bear at this stage.

However, I am minded to ensure that all workers have greater transparency and greater understanding of how they are paid, as the hon. Lady said. That is not included in the draft order, but I am watching it closely and reserve the right to return to the House with further regulation if needed.

[Laura Pidcock]

In the Minister’s opening contribution, there was talk of the hours paid. That is where my confusion came from. To be clear, the itemised pay statement will not have to include the hours worked and the rate at which those hours are paid. Will the Minister acknowledge that that is a very important step for pay justice?

[Andrew Griffiths]

Let me clarify for the hon. Lady: payslips will need to include the total pay, deductions and the hours that the person is being paid for—a clear ability for anyone to ensure that they are paid correctly when they are being paid the minimum wage.

The draft order will extend the basic right to receive a payslip to all workers in the economy. The Employment Rights Act 1996 (Itemised Pay Statement) (Amendment) Order 2018 requires employers to support workers by providing a greater level of detail in payslips.

I am proud to bring these employment rights into force at a time when the Government are accused of being intent on slashing the rights of employees. It is said that, when we leave the European Union, there will be a bonfire of employment rights, starting a race to the bottom, to a Singapore-style economy. Through the draft order, the Government are clearly increasing the rights of workers. Through measures such as this and the Matthew Taylor review, we are showing that we do not need the European Union to ensure that we have worker protections and rights. We will enshrine them in this place. We will ensure that British employees and workers, and people working in the British economy, are properly protected and properly paid, and have their rights fully enforced.

We expect basic fairness in the workplace. The right to receive clear payslips is an important building block of what good work should look like—meaning work underpinned by fair and transparent employment practices, where workers can hold their employers to account for being paid fairly and for all hours worked. Upholding fair and transparent work practices is an integral part of the “good work” agenda that the Government and I embarked upon following the review of modern working practices. That is why last year we ensured that £10.9 million in arrears for 98,000 workers were clawed back for the minimum wage. We want everyone to have easy access to information about their working arrangements and the rights to which they are entitled.

[Laura Pidcock]

Will the Minister give way?

[Andrew Griffiths]

I was just about to finish, but I will give way.

--- Later in debate ---

[Laura Pidcock]

I am grateful to the Minister. Under the Employment Rights Act, the suggestion is that an itemised pay statement asks for the gross amount of wages or salaries, the amount of deductions, the net amount of wages and the amount and method of payment. Nowhere does it talk about the hours paid. I am just wondering where that will come. Is it in the draft order, because I cannot see it? How will the Minister monitor whether those hours are being captured on the pay statement?

[Andrew Griffiths]

The measure will be enforced. I urge the hon. Lady to read the draft order again, because it contains that completely. I have even received divine intervention that clarifies definitely—it is in the SI. Perhaps I can point it out to her after the event.

Hospitality Sector: Tipping

Laura Pidcock Excerpts

Wednesday 7th March 2018 Westminster Hall

[Laura Pidcock (North West Durham) (Lab)]

I declare an interest as a member of Unite the union.

The practices at Bristol-based Aqua Italia, which have been so methodically exposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol North West (Darren Jones)—I thank him very much for raising this important issue with the Government—and, of course, the Bristol Post are, sadly, part of a much bigger picture of exploitation in our low-pay economy. My hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Justin Madders) outlined so eloquently the multitude of issues in the hospitality sector.

When I was a waitress and then when I worked in a pub, it was quite a regular practice for tips to be used to balance the till if it was under what it should have been at the end of the night. The worker would feel like a culprit because their tips were being used; they would feel that they were somehow being accused of defrauding their employer out of that money. But with thousands of transactions, there will be mistakes, and of course it was clearly very unfair to ask the workers to provide the money out of their hard-earned tips.

[Mr Paul Sweeney (Glasgow North East) (Lab/Co-op)]

My hon. Friend shares a very typical anecdote about something that many low-paid workers will experience; I speak as one whose first job was as a waiter in a well known Glasgow pizzeria. The typical practice was to be paid a pound under the minimum wage and then to have a tip allocated as a wage per hour to bring the person up to the minimum wage, so patrons of the restaurant were unknowingly contributing to subsidising the basic wage of the staff. I would often tell them that by giving us a tip, they were simply subsidising the employer to pay the wages. This practice is absolutely disgraceful, and that is why the work of people such as Better Than Zero is critical to addressing the massive inequalities that we see in employment.

[Laura Pidcock]

That is absolutely right. My hon. Friend gives a terrible but, I am sure, quite common example of what is happening in the hospitality sector. I implore everyone in that sector—and in all sectors, of course—to join a trade union, because only through a trade union can they have greater workplace rights. Also, consumers will become more aware and ask questions about what is happening to the tips when they are in an establishment.

What happened at Aqua Italia has been very well set out. Most striking was the case of the woman who had to go to a cashpoint at the end of her shift. How draconian is that? What century are we in when somebody has to pay just to be at work? Of course, the mantra of this Government is that for people to get themselves out of poverty, they must be in work. That is clearly a story to the contrary.

It is astonishing that this practice is legal, and it is more commonplace than people imagine. Although it remains within the law to treat people in such an extraordinarily exploitative way, it certainly cannot be said to be moral. The problem in the hospitality sector was and is the chronic lack of regulation, which has meant that exploitation—especially of young people, who perhaps are unaware of their rights and of the benefits of being in a trade union—has been allowed to flourish. That shows that we cannot rely simply on self-regulation in that sector.

Trade unions have taken a special interest in the sharp practices used in the hospitality sector since at least 2008. In May 2015, after it emerged that restaurants such as Pizza Express, Bill’s and Strada were taking tips and service charge payments intended for staff, Unite the union launched a summer campaign against these practices. For example, Pizza Express claimed an 8% so-called “admin fee” from any tips paid on a card. That is a huge problem, which has been repeated. There was public outcry as the endemic nature of the problem was displayed and publicised via social media. The huge public reaction forced the Government to act. They launched this call for evidence into tipping practices, followed by this consultation. However, as has been repeated consistently: nearly two years on from the consultation, what action has been taken?

In June, Unite campaigners handed a 6,500-signature petition to the Business Secretary, urging him to release the Government report into tips, but it still has not been published. The petition called on the Business Secretary to give staff 100% of their tips with complete control over how they are shared, to ban the bogus tronc schemes and make the code of best practice mandatory. For every single day that goes by, more abuses come to light. The so-called “pay to work” schemes are part of this broader set of practices, which cynically exploit restaurant workers and customers, who are none the wiser.

[Catherine West]

Whereas previously a waiting job was done for a few months or in the summer while someone was a student, these days, with the flat economy we are seeing, people are working in the waiting sector for several years as a full-time role. Does my hon. Friend agree that we now have to get to grips with the situation, get some energy into this and really address the poor practices?

[Laura Pidcock]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. For many people this is not a stop-gap, but a career—they will work for many years in a restaurant, bar or pub.

Workers are charged fees, denied service charge payments, robbed of customers’ tips and denied tips by these bogus tronc schemes. A properly run tronc scheme— a pooling system, used by employers to distribute non-cash tips for employees—should be genuinely independent, free from employer interference and involve staff, but many are not. Too many say that they get absolutely no say in how the non-cash tips and service charges are shared out, or who gets a share. We have to remind ourselves all the time that it is not the business of the employer to say what happens to those tips. Those tips are hard-earned by the service of that member of staff.

Unite has also uncovered something very important. A number of these bogus tronc schemes, organised through troncmaster consultants—quite a dramatic name—have been used by companies to minimise the basic income of workers in order to avoid liabilities on national insurance and pensions. One case of this was an advert for a sous chef with a salary of £28,000. Once taken on, the employee found out that their contract stated a salary of £16,000, with the remaining £12,000 being paid from service charges. If anybody thinks that these practices are tailing off, I should say that two weeks ago we heard about the scandal at TGI Fridays, the American chain, following the proposal to redistribute card tips from waiters to kitchen staff, in lieu of an increase in wages.

Bogus tronc schemes are among a handful of ways in which tips are taken from the pockets of waiting staff and redistributed upwards and outwards into the pockets of companies, both big and small. Trade unions are rightly pointing out that these schemes verge on remuneration avoidance, illicitly reducing companies’ tax liabilities, and therefore should be subject to an investigation by HMRC.

Until staff are given 100% ownership rights over their hard-earned tips, with complete control over how they are shared out, bad employers will continue to take the tips of staff—that has been proved conclusively throughout our history—and young people will continue to live with that insecurity of low pay and not have the regularity of their tips. As the unions have been urging the Government for a decade now, it is time that the Government showed some leadership and dealt with these appalling, exploitative practices that exploit both the customer and the employee. Let us be honest: tips are often a lifeline for staff, but they often become a subsidy for low pay. People are dependent on these tips to live, not just for luxuries.

I am becoming somewhat tired of the Government’s inaction, already mentioned by hon. Members, in response to the low-pay economy. We do not need another review, consultation or any further consideration, but we do need a legislative imperative on employers to stop this theft from their staff. Actually, a whole new suite of workers’ rights is needed, placing collective bargaining, as has rightly been said, at the heart and centre of that agenda. The Taylor review and the Government response to it did not go far enough at all. In fact, the Government’s response to some of these complex issues in the modern labour market was extremely weak. I look forward to the Minister announcing that he will indeed take decisive action on this issue.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Griffiths]

I am glad that the hon. Lady and I have found common ground on that point.

The Government are committed to creating an economy that works for everyone. That is why I was extremely concerned to learn from the hon. Member for Bristol North West about the working conditions experienced by some low-paid workers in the hospitality industry. I recall the period of scrutiny that the sector faced in the summer of 2015. Several of our largest restaurants were discovered to be abusing tips earned by their staff. I will clarify for the hon. Gentleman that I recognise the point he makes about the cost of transactions. He will also recognise that income tax is due on payments where the employer acts as the troncmaster—a fabulous word, which I had never heard before I started to prepare for this debate. There is a responsibility on the employer to deduct PAYE, and we must take into consideration the fact that that will result in some payroll costs. Where the employer facilitates the amounts, national insurance contributions are also due. Clearly, it is important that any employer acting as a troncmaster fulfils their legal obligations in relation to the payment of both income tax and national insurance contributions.

The cases raised today are of exactly the same type as the 2015 cases, which are the reason why we had the consultation. I thank the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Justin Madders) for his contribution, in which he raised important issues including the cancelling of shifts. That is a real problem. People turn up to do an evening’s work only to find that if the restaurant or pub is quiet, they are sent home without any further pay by their employer. They expected to do a four or five hour shift, but they may get paid for only one. I am delighted to tell the hon. Gentleman that, in response to the Matthew Taylor report, we are looking at exactly that: the asymmetry between the flexibility required of workers, particularly those on zero-hours contracts, and the employers that can send employees home at will.

[Laura Pidcock]

Was that a sneaky preview of policy that will be coming from the Government? Are they going to ban zero-hours contracts?

[Andrew Griffiths]

I point out to the hon. Lady that for many people who are employed on them, zero-hours contracts are exactly what they want. I recognise that is not the case for everybody, but all the consultations show that for many people zero-hours contracts provide the flexibility that they are looking for. That is not to say there may not be an argument for some sort of enhancement or bonus for those workers’ flexibility. That is why, following Matthew Taylor’s report, we asked the Low Pay Commission to look at whether those on zero-hours contracts who have to offer such flexibility should receive an enhancement on their wages as a repayment for it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Griffiths]

I absolutely agree. That old phrase, “Physician, heal thyself” applies here. We should set the same standards ourselves. I would point out, Sir Roger, that I do not employ an unpaid intern.

The Government are clear that all workers should be paid fairly and at least the relevant national minimum wage. For those aged 25 and over, that is £7.50 per hour. I am pleased to say that the Government will increase that rate above inflation to £7.83 next month, which I am sure all hon. Members will welcome. In all, increases to the minimum wages will benefit more than 2 million workers. That is a well-earned pay rise for them from this Government. I thank all the businesses that have stepped up to the plate and are working hard to pay the national minimum wage. The Government respond robustly to employers that fail to pay their workers correctly. We have doubled our investment in enforcement, as I stated.

A worker aged 25 and above must be paid that £7.50 by their employer. All income earned through tips must be over and above that sum. Let me reassure the hon. Member for Glasgow North East (Mr Sweeney) that any income earned through tips must be over and above the national minimum wage. If any employee is not getting that, their employer is breaking the law. They should report it, and HMRC will take action to ensure that is enforced.

The hon. Member for Bristol North West raised restaurants charging a 3% table levy to their workers. That is a proportion of whatever sales are earned on the table that worker has served. It should not be seen as a route through the national minimum wage, because it is not.

It is my top priority to ensure that the lowest paid workers are fairly rewarded for their work and contribution to the economy. It simply is not right for employers to keep huge proportions of the tips earned by workers. Accordingly, in the past two years the Government have run a call for evidence, as we have heard, and a public consultation to examine this in greater depth. The exercise established a very clear principle that I think the House will agree with: a majority of stakeholders agree that tips belong to the worker. I would like to make it clear that this Government will act should there be clear, ongoing evidence. This debate has added to that ongoing evidence. The principle is that no employee should be abused in this way.

[Laura Pidcock]

I do not want to disrupt the Minister’s progress, but the trade unions have been saying this for a long, long time. It should not take a Westminster Hall debate to legitimise the argument or add to evidence. They have all the evidence the Government need.

[Andrew Griffiths]

As the hon. Lady will know, at the end of last year Unite the union, of which she has said she is a member, worked alongside the Association of Licensed Multiple Retailers to produce a new code of practice. That was a joint collaboration, and I pay tribute to both the industry and Unite the union for working in such a proactive way to develop a voluntary code of conduct. I also recognise that a voluntary code of conduct works only if everybody sticks to it. As we have heard, there are still companies that are not sticking to it.

The agreement between the unions and the ALMR about the principles that underpin good tipping practices is clear, and it provides great guidelines for how to distribute tips fairly among all workers, not just those at the front of house. We must remember that those working in the kitchen or cleaning tables are just as much a part of the service experience as those waiting on tables and interacting directly with diners, so I understand the need for the tronc system where tips are spread more widely among staff in some circumstances.

Since 2015, we have seen another change, which is that employers are noticing. Poor employers who misuse tips now face tough scrutiny—not only in Westminster, but under the harsh media spotlight. I am encouraged that newspapers raise the issue on a regular basis and highlight the points made by the hon. Member for Bristol North West.

Hon. Members asked when the Government would formally respond to the consultation on tipping. I have listened to the calls for further action from the Government; many would like to see an outright ban on employers making deductions from tips or levying table charges. It is an extremely serious issue, and the Government reserve the right to take action or to legislate if necessary. The evidence that we have heard clearly indicates that the Government need to look at it very closely and to take action if necessary.

Let me be clear: we are not ruling out legislating to solve the problem. Workers should be treated fairly, and I am clear that it is unfair for employers to pocket a huge proportion of the tips earned by staff. Furthermore, employers who play fair are disadvantaged compared with unscrupulous employers. It is a competitive market. We have heard the figures for how much unscrupulous restauranteurs and people in the industry can make as a result of that kind of scheme, which provides them with an unfair advantage in the marketplace among their competitors who are doing the right thing. I am very mindful of that, so we will remedy the situation if the industry does not act on the abuses that are sometimes reported.

Naturally, all options for Government action carry costs and benefits. It is important to get it right so any action is targeted and benefits the workers, while burdens on legitimate, well-meaning businesses are minimised. Employers should not be out of pocket, and I entirely accept that they may need to retain a small proportion of tips to cover the administrative cost of processing them, as I said earlier.

There are many examples of good employers who act entirely fairly about their staff’s tips and who recognise that treating workers fairly is part of running a productive and happy workplace. Ultimately, it is up to employers to make a compelling offer if they want to attract and retain the best staff.

I thank the hon. Member for Bristol North West for securing the debate and for the collaborative way in which he has raised these issues. I look forward to working with him on them in the weeks to come. It is right to call out abuses of tipping and the exploitation of workers in the hospitality sector, and more widely.

It is the responsibility of all employers to pay their staff fairly, and at least to pay them the national minimum wage. Hon. Members should be clear that if that is not happening, the Government will act if necessary. Our policy is that employers should not make unfair and unreasonable deductions from tips. We reserve the right to introduce further sanctions against employers who fail to comply with that basic principle of fairness.

Carillion: TUPE

Laura Pidcock Excerpts

Wednesday 21st February 2018 Westminster Hall

[Laura Pidcock (North West Durham) (Lab)]

It is fantastic to have you chairing this debate today, Ms McDonagh. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton South West (Eleanor Smith) on securing it and on working so hard for her constituents. I know that her eagerness to secure this debate comes from a real anxiety about what will happen to all the workers.

What is wrong with the model of directly employed workers delivering contracts on behalf of the Government on such vital projects as school and hospital builds and prison maintenance; workers who have access to trade unions and vice versa; employers who afford rights and protections to their workers; and work that allows them to live a good life in security? Why not have a model whereby any profits made from the worker’s labour are reinvested in the wages of the workers and the projects that the nation needs? What we saw at Carillion was the absolute opposite of that.

Carillion is not only a well-known blacklister. From 2009 to 2016, it paid out £554 million in dividends—in other words, three quarters of the cash it made from operations. In the five-year period from January 2012 to June 2017, it paid out £333 million more in dividends than it generated in cash from its operations. We know that in the past six months Carillion issued three profit warnings. We also know that during that same period, as has been mentioned, and following those profit warnings, Carillion was awarded three contracts worth nearly £2 billion.

I know that Conservatives and those wedded to freedom of the market would maintain that a business does what it wants with its profits. It is up to them and there should be very little state intervention, but surely even those people—

[Stephen Kerr]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Laura Pidcock]

If the hon. Gentleman will let me finish, he might agree with what I say next. Surely even those people can see that paying out more in dividends to shareholders than the amount made in profits—paying out three quarters of cash made from operations—is not a healthy way to run a business.

[Stephen Kerr]

I agree with the hon. Lady’s last point, but her description of what Conservatives generally believe about the marketplace is a fallacy. We believe very much in the operation of markets, but within the framework of law. Directors of companies have serious responsibilities, both legal and moral, for the conduct of their affairs. That accountability is framed by the law that regulates the marketplace.

[Laura Pidcock]

Thanks for explaining the nature of conservatism. That was very welcome. I think the contracts made after three profit warnings tell their own story.

That way of doing business is catastrophic for workers, and damages progress on desperately needed public infrastructure. Imagine all the investment that could have been made if even half the money that went to shareholders had been invested in public projects and workers. That is why the Labour party calls on the Government to bring the contracts back in house. The situation today, with potential mass job losses, is not the fault of the workers, so a degradation of workers’ rights as a result of Carillion’s collapse—which threw 20,000 workers into a future of chaos and worry—is a price they should not have to pay.

The Government are not powerless in this situation, given that they have 450 contracts with Carillion. They were a major customer of the company, with a considerable stake in the future of the contracts and what the new jobs will be like. If there is any doubt that TUPE applies —particularly regulation 4 on protection of contractual rights and regulation 7 on protection from dismissal—I should hope at the very least for a Cabinet Office statement of practice to be issued to ensure the transfer of all employees in Carillion public sector contracts as if TUPE applied. That statement of practice should also apply to all contracts relating to central Government, local government, the NHS and all public bodies. Similarly, could the Government instruct the official receiver to transfer employees in private sector contracts as if TUPE applied? They gave an instruction to prioritise the continuation of public sector contracts, which was a good thing. It is right, in addition, to issue similar instructions on behalf of private sector workers, whose livelihoods are, as we know, no less important than those of people in the public sector.

It is extremely important that when workers transfer to a new employer, their individual contracts of employment and trade union recognition arrangements should follow them. So far, 980 workers have been made redundant and 7,500 have been transferred, but after all these weeks thousands of workers still face great uncertainty, as has been recounted in personal stories from constituencies. The Government, alongside the official receiver and special managers, must provide certainty.

The Government have said that the majority of employees who have already been transferred are on similar terms and conditions. What does “majority” mean—is it 51% or 99%—and what does “similar” mean? With three Conservative Members in the Chamber, I do not want to be accused of being overly sceptical, but the Government are hardly seen as a bastion of workers’ rights, and it is therefore unlikely that in this instance “similar” would equate to an upgrading of workers’ rights. As to those who were not transferred with similar conditions, what degradation was there of their terms?

The full scale of the catastrophe cannot just be forgotten as another failure of outsourcing, especially when, rather than resorting wholesale to an alternative model, the Government are simply allowing a similar operation to bid for contracts. That makes me very concerned about the long-term security of the jobs. How will the Government track the long-term outcomes for Carillion workers in their new employment and training places, as well as those for the self-employed and employees of subcontractors?

As the Government know, regulation 13 of TUPE, which places a duty on the official receiver and the special manager to inform and consult employee representatives in relation to TUPE transfers, is still a requirement even if regulations 4 and 7 do not apply. It is therefore important in setting workers’ expectations and giving clarity about their future. It relates to information about whether there will be a transfer—and the transfer date—as well as the legal, social and economic implications for any affected employees. Have the official receiver and special managers been complying with that duty? That is not clear. Are those representatives being informed and consulted? Worryingly, I read yesterday that Unite the union has discovered that Carillion did not pay into the NHS pension scheme in December 2017, even though deductions were made from employees’ salaries. I should like to know what happened to those pension contributions.

My final point is that there could be an argument that regulations 4 and 7 of TUPE apply in the case of Carillion. I understand that the usual position when a company is put into compulsory liquidation is that trading ceases and operations come to a complete halt. In an ordinary liquidation, priority is given to paying off creditors, and therefore regulations 4 and 7 of TUPE do not apply. In Carillion’s situation, the Government made it clear that the official receiver should instruct some of the Carillion companies to continue with their operations—especially those relating to public sector contracts—so that the services being provided by Carillion could continue without a break. The Minister for the Cabinet office said:

“Let me be clear that all employees should continue to turn up to work confident in the knowledge that they will be paid for the public services they are providing.”—[Official Report, 15 January 2018; Vol. 634, c. 624.]

The official receiver’s decision that some Carillion companies should carry on trading to safeguard and maintain the services that they are providing means that the liquidation has been conducted in the same way as an administration, in which regulations 4 and 7 of TUPE would undoubtedly apply.

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

indicated dissent.

[Laura Pidcock]

The Minister shakes his head; if he does not believe me, I point out to him the d’Urso case—that was my northern Italian pronunciation and I am happy to provide the Minister with my notes afterwards. The case considered whether the Italian version of TUPE applied to transfers effected by a company that was subject to a special administration procedure for large undertakings in critical difficulty. The special administration procedure had many of the features of a compulsory liquidation. None the less, the European Court of Justice decided that the business transfers directive could apply if it had been decided that the undertaking should continue trading, for so long as the decision to continue trading continued in effect.

--- Later in debate ---

On resuming—

[Laura Pidcock]

When you suspended the sitting, Ms McDonagh, I thought that I had done something wrong or was being outrageous, but in fact there was a Division. I was pointing the Minister to the case in Italy. I urge him to look at it and consider the application in Carillion’s case, because there are so many similarities.

Where there is a will, there is a way. The political questions highlighted by the Carillion case are crucial. The model of outsourcing to companies that essentially leak taxpayers’ money to make rich people even richer has had its day. The same taxpayers who fund the obscene wealth of the shareholders face joblessness, degradation of their terms and conditions and a race to the bottom on what rights they will have left. We know that that model has had its day, but I am not sure that the Government do. However, the critical question today is what happens to the workers, their jobs, their pay, their terms and conditions and their security. I urge the Government to take decisive and reassuring action for thousands of these workers and to answer some of the critical questions that we have all posed here today.

[Siobhain McDonagh (in the Chair)]

Let me clarify that the debate will end at 4.16 pm; I do not want the Minister to feel that he has to abbreviate his contribution.

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

Thank you, Ms McDonagh; it is great to have time to breathe and to think about what I will say. It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. This is only my second Westminster Hall debate as a Minister, so please be gentle with me as we go.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Wolverhampton South West (Eleanor Smith) on securing the debate. I know that she has been incredibly concerned about her constituents. We have spoken. I called her on the very day when Carillion went into insolvency. We have met and spoken on a number of occasions. I know that she brings this matter to the House because she is deeply concerned about the impact that the Carillion insolvency will have on her constituents and the people who work at the Wolverhampton headquarters.

We all recognise the impact that the Carillion insolvency has had and the weight of it. The Government have taken decisive action to mitigate the effects of the Carillion insolvency on employees and firms in the supply chain since it became clear that the company was in severe trouble. Although our No. 1 priority was to protect the vital public services delivered by Carillion, we have also sought to minimise the impact on the private sector and all the jobs that rely on it. Where private sector clients want services to continue, pending transition to another supplier, and have agreed to pay for those services, the official receiver has agreed to maintain them. Through the official receiver and the appointment of special managers, we have ensured that vital public services have been maintained.

There was some suggestion earlier of public services being at risk. We have actually seen an orderly, smooth transition. We have managed to protect the hospitals, prisons and schools—all the public services that rely on the services that were being provided by Carillion. That was our major priority, but of course we have an added interest in doing all we can to protect not only all the thousands of employees employed by Carillion, but the many thousands of jobs in the supply chain—the contractors who, through no fault of their own, find themselves in a difficult position because of the Carillion insolvency.

To date, as I think has been mentioned during the debate, 7,610 of Carillion’s UK employees have transferred to new employers and 1,141 employees have, sadly, been made redundant. I will come on to the support that we are putting in place for those who are made redundant. Carillion had more than 18,000 UK employees, and we hope that the special managers will announce further transfers of jobs and contracts in the very near future.

On 26 January, the Ministry of Justice, for example, announced the creation of a new, Government-owned facilities management company. There has been some suggestion, raised earlier in the debate, that we should transfer wholesale all of these contracts back into public ownership, back into administration by the state. Our approach has been pragmatic: when we can have a smooth transition to new private sector providers that maintains jobs and services, and returns money for the creditors—we must not forget that one of the main jobs for the special manager is to protect the interest of all those creditors owed money by Carillion—we will do so. But when it is right that we take contracts back into public ownership and management, we will also do that. We have a pragmatic rather than a dogmatic approach.

[Laura Pidcock]

I thank the Minister for giving way so soon into his speech. I want to stress this point. The Government have essentially underwritten public sector contracts, so that they can continue, which I support. However, does he agree that that is not a usual feature of a compulsory liquidation? It is more like an administration procedure, and therefore TUPE regulations could apply.

[Andrew Griffiths]

That is the point the hon. Lady made in her speech. Let us be clear: Carillion is in insolvency, not in administration—there is a distinct difference in law. While the Government have stood behind Carillion to ensure that those public services continue to be delivered by the company during that smooth transition, in law, Carillion is in insolvency. I commend the hon. Lady on her Italian, but the point she makes is not relevant to the Carillion case, unfortunately. Later in my speech, I will explain why TUPE does not apply in this case.

The new company that I referred to, the GovCo from the Ministry of Justice, will ensure the delivery of, for example, prison facilities management previously provided by Carillion, including things such as cleaning, reactive maintenance, landscaping and planned repair building work. Those jobs have been taken in house to a GovCo. We have also seen positive signs regarding Carillion’s larger contracts.

As I said, a number of jobs have already been secured, but, as hon. Members will have seen, the media have recently reported on Serco’s and Brookfield’s interest in purchasing a number of contracts and transferring roughly 4,000 workers, although that is not yet confirmed. I understand that the official receiver and the special managers are working hard with customers to try to secure agreements, which will secure further jobs.

We also have to remember that some of these contracts are in the private sector and some are in the public sector. The Government were a customer of Carillion. We did not own Carillion. My hon. Friend the Member for Stirling (Stephen Kerr) rightly pointed out that we did not ride to the rescue and bail Carillion out. Our intention was to protect public services and, wherever possible, protect the jobs that relied on them.

The hon. Member for Barnsley East (Stephanie Peacock) has had to leave because of the Division, and I understand that. She mentioned in particular the issue of apprenticeships, which was also raised by other hon. Members. The Construction Industry Training Board, the CITB, has now conducted face-to-face discussions with all of the 1,400 Carillion apprentices and has so far found new employers for 725 of them. In addition, 180 of those were level 1 pre-apprenticeships, and those have been transferred to new training providers. The CITB is working to ensure that remaining apprentices are supported to find new employers and training providers. We are confident—the CITB is confident—that there will be opportunities and new apprenticeships for all of those apprentices who wish to continue with their studies.

As I said, we have had the question of whether TUPE should apply. While we welcome the protection of Carillion’s employees, and I fully understand the desire of the hon. Member for Wolverhampton South West to protect the terms and conditions of the staff that she represents, it might just help if I explain to hon. Members that there are over 300 companies in the Carillion group, of which around 200 are based in the UK. Currently, 27 companies are subject to compulsory liquidation proceedings in the UK. When these companies are responsible for employing Carillion’s 18,000 employees, it is simply a matter of law that some elements of TUPE do not apply. Protections for transferring employers is a well-established principle that, as we have heard today, derives from EU legislation dating back to the 1970s. However, there are good reasons why key TUPE provisions do not apply when a company goes into liquidation.

The reason why TUPE is not applied in various insolvency situations, including liquidation, is that it is considered an obstacle to rescuing the businesses and saving jobs. That has to be our priority, of course. We want to rescue and secure these jobs. A decision taken by policy makers and Governments of all colours not to apply TUPE provisions in these cases is well understood, as are the reasons behind it. As a result, regulation 8 of the TUPE regulations 2006, covers insolvency proceedings and provides that these provisions do not apply

“where the transferor is the subject of bankruptcy proceedings or…insolvency proceedings which have been instituted with a view to the liquidation of the assets of the transferor and are under the supervision of an insolvency practitioner.”

That is exactly the case that we see here with Carillion.

There are two good reasons why the Government do not want to apply TUPE. First, it would undermine the intention of rescuing jobs, as I said. Secondly, to apply TUPE specifically to the present liquidation scenario would require an emergency Act of Parliament, creating a special statutory scheme for those named companies, having retrospective effects. That would cut across fundamental principles at the heart of our democracy. I am sure that no colleagues in Westminster Hall today would wish to do that. The compulsory application of TUPE to Carillion companies is not, therefore, a matter that can simply be agreed between the liquidator and the unions. There is legal precedence here that we cannot simply ignore.

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

Laura Pidcock Excerpts

Wednesday 7th February 2018 Public Bill Committees

[Kevin Hollinrake]

My hon. Friend makes a good point: we need to engage with all the stakeholders in the consultation to ensure we get it right. I heed the calls of many hon. Members, especially the hon. Members for Lincoln (Karen Lee) and for Washington and Sunderland West (Mrs Hodgson), who have made such points in previous debates.

If the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran agrees to withdraw the amendment, I ask that she and other hon. Members work closely with officials and the Department to feed into the consultation, which will be held later this year to consider some of these points in more detail, including the period in which leave may be taken and how flexibly it may be taken. I am very sympathetic to a longer period, but I ask that we deal with it in that way.

[Laura Pidcock (North West Durham) (Lab)]

I echo the comments of the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran. It is right that flexibility be given. Having listened to those comments, another consultation seems like a frustration. This is quite a simple ask. Grief can affect people in many different ways. It can manifest and culminate at different times for different people depending on their support network, what has happened to them and their child, and the delay of the trauma.

As noted in amendment 11, it is crucial that the parent or carer should not have to take those days concurrently, but could use them as they wished, in agreement with their manager. That is where we would achieve balance: the right would exist, but a manager would have to agree to those times.

When I was a team manager, one of my members of staff found out that her daughter had diabetes. We worked week by week on what the needs of the child were for getting to grips with that disease. That is where the balance could come. It is not too much of an imposition, just an ask for some flexibility.

Flexibility would undoubtedly be beneficial for the employer, because the employee would not just take a two-week block within two months of the trauma, after which they would be expected to return to work. The time could be used as a phased return, as has been mentioned, or stored up for when a particularly bad period arose, which would otherwise probably, and understandably, be taken as a sick day by that employee. I therefore think that this is a very reasonable amendment.

[Will Quince]

I thank the hon. Lady for kindly giving way on her very last word. Does she agree that this is quite a large change? We are introducing one of the best workers’ rights in the world, so it will be a big change for business and will therefore come as somewhat of a shock. We want this to be an absolute bare minimum that businesses provide, so it is therefore really important that we take the business community with us and absolutely sell why this is such an important thing to do and why, as she rightly says, it will be beneficial to their businesses. That is why consulting is probably the right way forward.

[Laura Pidcock]

I know that all this comes, as we mentioned last week, from a place of anxiety of wanting to make sure the Bill passes with ease. I have to politely disagree: I am not sure that this would be a massive shock to business. When I was a manager of a team, albeit within a charity, I still had to make sure that there was enough money in to pay the wages. We very much had to operate like a business.

I hope the new legislation never has to be used, but where it does the entitlement will still be two weeks’ bereavement leave. That is not a considerable time in people’s working lives. Using the time flexibly would have positives for the employer because members of staff, if they were unable to use the entitlement, would often have to call in sick because they were so down and were unable to come in to work.

[Antoinette Sandbach (Eddisbury) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Gray. I extend my thanks to my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton for introducing the Bill. This is my first opportunity to speak on it. I know it has so much support from across the House.

My amendment 20 would extend the period in which parental bereavement leave must be taken from at least 56 days to 26 weeks. That is an important extension, for many of the reasons that the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran spoke about. There are particular days and events that happen, such as inquests, and it may be very important for a parent to be able to attend an inquest relating to their child.

As people will know, I speak from personal experience. The inquests relating to my own son were carried out very quickly—in fact, within 24 hours of his death—but I did not get the results for more than two months. That was the time at which I found out the cause of death. It took two months for me to get that information, which effectively flagged it up as a streptococcal infection, whereas it had been assumed that it had been sudden infant death syndrome. That pointed very strongly to the actions of the midwives, who had not picked it up. I then had to raise issues with the NHS hospital trust in relation to how it had reacted to various telephone calls and things that I had made prior to my son dying. That flexibility, and extending that period, is really important.

My hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton has already praised Elliot’s footprint, Bliss, Together for Short Lives, the National Bereavement Alliance and the Rainbow Trust. They all make incredibly important points, as did the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran. It simply cannot be predicted how events will play out, and therefore that flexibility over when the leave may be taken is incredibly important. I am conscious that many parents qualify for bereavement leave through statutory parental leave, but for those who do not, this is a really important protection.

Grief comes in waves, and we do not know when it will hit us. I had a child who was also bereaved, because she had lost her brother. Support for a sibling is there in other legislation, where parents are entitled to ask for flexible working or to take time off. Again, the flexibility of knowing that leave can be more than a day and that people can devote their attention and time to coping with grief suffered by other family members, rather than their own grief, is really important. More than that, it helps fathers, who may find going back to work a comfort.

Sometimes, being able to go back to one’s job quite quickly gives people security and routine, which perhaps allows them to cope with grief in a different way at a slightly later stage. It also means that parents can stagger arrangements, so that mum can be at home at one point and dad at others. The amendment would introduce a degree of flexibility, which, to an extent, covers issues that the Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for North West Durham, and the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran both spoke about. This is an important amendment that would add to the legislation, and I urge my hon. Friends and the Minister to consider it because of the extension of time that it would bring to parents.

--- Later in debate ---

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

Thank you for your continued chairmanship of this important Committee, Mr Gray. As I was listening to hon. Members debate these issues, I was thinking about how in this Committee it feels like we are never more than a word away from a tear. The palpable emotion we all feel in the room is powerful. I strongly commend all hon. Members who lay themselves bare by talking about their personal experiences; I know it is not easy at all.

From the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran, it is easy to see the pain that remains. My hon. Friend the Member for Eddisbury introduced me to this issue when she spoke so movingly in the Chamber, as have my hon. Friends the Members for Banbury and for Colchester. Even last week, we saw the emotion of the hon. Member for Washington and Sunderland West (Mrs Hodgson) when, in the debate on the Civil Partnerships, Marriages and Deaths (Registration Etc.) Bill, she spoke about the loss of her child.

As you know, Mr Gray, my wife is seven months pregnant. We are overjoyed at that prospect, although Mrs Griffiths is getting slightly more uncomfortable and is daunted by the imminent arrival of Griffiths Jr. This debate makes us think about things we do not want to contemplate, and it is brave of hon. Members to lay themselves open to that. As Members of Parliament, we have little privacy these days. We regularly feel as though our every movement is laid bare to the public—we cannot even fall asleep in a hotel without someone taking a picture and putting it on Twitter.

To the point of the matter, I understand what colleagues are trying to achieve in the amendments. The period of time in which leave is taken, which amendments 3 and 20 seek to address, is key to getting the framework right. The time needed by each individual will vary according to their own way of dealing with the grief that comes from the loss.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton said, there is a balance to be struck, and I understand my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester when he says that we need to strike a balance between flexibility and certainty. I believe his approach to the Bill has been always to mirror existing provisions in legislation so that we do not create precedents, to ensure a smooth passage for the Bill. That is the right approach. It eliminates a lot of difficulties that might be the unintended consequence of what we agree in Committee. It also makes it easier for officials, business and the general public to understand the marrying of rights. In that respect, I agree that maintaining the suggested timeframe of at least 56 days, to maintain consistency with the other provisions, is a sensible approach.

However, I recognise that it would not be right if sticking to 56 days meant that the provision in this Bill did not do what we intend it to. The reason we are here today is to ensure that the leave suits and supports the bereaved parents and allows them what they need to grieve properly. For that reason, it is absolutely correct that we consult on this matter.

I know that the hon. Member for North West Durham would point to the fact that this is yet another consultation; pursuant to my urgent question earlier we had some exchanges on the merits or otherwise of consultation, but I want to be clear with members of the Committee about what the consultation is. It is our intention to launch the consultation in May, and I make a pledge to the members of the Committee that if they agree to it, it will report before Third Reading of the Bill, so that all members of this Committee and all Members of the House will be able to assess the consultation and see the range. Even in this room today we have a range of different views about how long the time should be.

We want to get it right and ensure that the time we put on the face of the Bill is the right time. Within that consultation, we will be able to talk to all the groups that have been mentioned today, and others, to get a proper understanding of the best timescale in which to deliver this.

[Laura Pidcock]

I know we are not talking about new clause 2, because that is gone and it would be terrible, but last week there were assurances that following the Taylor review, which is relevant to the amendments we are talking about now, it would respond to a lot of the concerns contained in new clause 2. Now there is a suggestion that there will be a consultation on this group of amendments. If the consultation comes back and says that, yes, flexibility is needed and it needs to be over six months rather than two months, will the Minister give us assurances now that the Government will accept those consultation findings?

[Andrew Griffiths]

I am sure the hon. Lady will accept that, obviously, I cannot write a blank cheque. If the consultation came back and suggested something that was simply unworkable or impracticable, of course I could not commit to that. What I can commit to is that the process will be open and transparent, and that all hon. Members will be able not only to contribute, but to see the evidence that is presented. It will be open and transparent.

--- Later in debate ---

[Laura Pidcock]

Forgive my ignorance—I have not been in the House that long. I cannot imagine anybody objecting to this provision, so I am not sure how not allowing it at this stage would scupper it at other stages. I ask that question humbly. Why would allowing it now make things difficult further along the line?

[Kevin Hollinrake]

The difficulties would be in redrafting legislation and ensuring consideration of the needs of employers. There are issues with HMRC to do with how payments are made and the ability to look at a single day, rather than two single-week blocks or a two-week block. It makes things more complicated for both the provisions and the regulations. I go back to the point about employers—the Bill is a signal to employers, although I absolutely accept what the hon. Lady is saying. Would any reasonable employer giver their employee time off for a funeral? The answer has to be yes.

[The Chair]

Order. The hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton is intervening on the hon. Member for North West Durham.

[Laura Pidcock]

Thank you, Mr Gray. It is all getting a bit confusing.

Let me say a few tiny words in response to that answer. I understand that it would take a very brave employer to come forth and say that they would not agree with this. I also think we have to bear in mind that although this is painful to every single individual, we are talking about a minority of people who will have a child who dies, and a minority of employers who would be abusive by not allowing a day off for a funeral, so this is about small numbers.

[Will Quince]

The vast majority of employers are rightly compassionate enough to give their staff a day’s leave for a funeral. That is paid, ordinarily, at their full pay rate. If this measure is included in the Bill, the danger is that that would only be at the equivalent of statutory paternity or maternity pay, so we might actually be penalising the people we are trying to protect.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Griffiths]

What we would not want though is a situation where employers say that they do not need to have a policy in place because there is already a statutory requirement. In other areas, such as maternity, there is a statutory pay period and some businesses enhance that, but the vast majority do not. We need a consultation to properly understand, because I would hate for this to be the minimum and for that to be what is expected, rather than businesses stepping up to the plate and offering the generous terms that they already do. The hon. Member for North West Durham is itching to—

[Laura Pidcock]

I am not—I was just stretching!

[Andrew Griffiths]

I was about to say that the hon. Lady is itching to intervene, but actually she was just itching.

We all know too well that the realities of bereaved parents are sometimes very different. The fact is that those who work for less accommodating employers need this Bill the most. I understand the point that is being made. My hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton also pointed out existing leave provisions, which are already helpful and should not be ignored. The Bill will provide an important statutory minimum that employers must adhere to, giving key legal protections to parents who suffer a tragic loss. This policy sets an important benchmark without preventing employers from enhancing it if they wish. We know that the majority of employers try to do the right thing.

I hate to use the defence that I have used at other times during this debate, but a consultation is being held. This will be part of the consultation, which will report before the end of the Bill’s passage. With that in mind, and bearing in mind the points that have been made, I ask that the amendment be withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Patricia Gibson]

I would simply refer the Minister to what I said last week: we know that people who lose sons or daughters are eight times more likely than their peers to divorce. We know that there is a social cost of divorce. There is also a cost to the Government in terms of economic activity if people fall out of the workforce because they are not coping. That is why support is so important at that critical stage of vulnerability and grief.

[Laura Pidcock]

I asked the Library to do an academic exercise on extending the entitlement to those between the ages of nought to 40, which would pull in 29,918 people, based on the figures for nought to 18. Obviously, that is a very crude exercise, and not incredibly accurate, but it gives us some idea that it is not a huge increase. Of course, not all 40-year-olds who die will have parents in employment.

[Patricia Gibson]

I thank the hon. Lady for that very helpful intervention. I already said that the older the son or daughter is when they die, the more likely it is that the parents will be retired anyway and will not need the protection of the Bill. I am sure that the Minister will know far better than I that there is a social cost, and a financial cost to the Treasury, when families break down. There is a cost to the country when people become economically inactive. We are talking about £140 per week, not lottery wins.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kevin Hollinrake]

Like everybody in the room, I was moved by the fine speech and impassioned words of the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran. A family that includes one of my closest friends lost their daughter, sister, niece and granddaughter in the most horrific of circumstances only a couple of years ago. I spent a lot of time with them through that process. Their child was 30, and their grief was no different from how it would have been at any other point in that child’s life. I quite understand what the hon. Lady is saying.

I have children either side of the line: a 21-year-old and 20-year-old, and a 14-year-old and 10-year-old, so I can see it from both sides. If I look at my own children—I would never want to contemplate the circumstances—there is a slight difference in dependency; I feel more responsible for the ones under 18. The hon. Lady spoke about everyone in the room, and we were all moved by what she said, but it is not just everyone in the room we have to consider. It is sad to say, because these things are not about money, but we have to consider the taxpayer.

The hon. Member for North West Durham cited some interesting figures that I was not aware of, but on a raw calculation the amendment would increase the cost to the taxpayer five or sixfold—the cost would go from £2 million up to about £12 million. Despite the fact that the taxpayer is picking up the tab for the statutory pay, there is a cost to employers because they have to cover the time off for the person. That is £1.4 million or £1.5 million, and it would go up to £15 million. Members may well argue—I might well agree—that that is a drop in the ocean compared with the grief that might be mitigated by the changes, but the amendment would mean going back to the drawing board and talking to the Treasury. It would fundamentally and fatally stop the Bill in its tracks, and we might not have time to bring it forward again.

I say to the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran that the Bill is a signal to employers, as my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester said. That is key. The Bill does not do everything we would expect. I would expect any employer to give someone as much time off as they needed on full pay. That is what we have done in our business. With the Bill, we are trying to send a signal to the small minority of employers that are not compassionate, fair or understanding.

We have had a lot of engagement already with charities. None of them has said, “There should be no limit.” Some have suggested a slightly higher limit in certain circumstances, but no one has suggested having no limit, although we should not take that as read. That is an interesting point on some of the feedback we have had.

We have to consider employers in terms of cost and logistics. Members have understandably tabled a number of amendments. The hon. Member for North West Durham has tabled one on lifelong disability, and there are many different ways in which the legislation could be changed to improve it or to cover different circumstances. The amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester talks about children in full-time education. There are problems with the cut-off point and how the legislation would cater for that. The amendment would complicate the legislation.

I understand why Members have tabled the amendments, and I have a great deal of sympathy with many of them, but given the fragility and complexity of taking a private Member’s Bill through this House and the other place, I politely and respectfully ask them to withdraw their amendments so we can move the Bill forward.

[Laura Pidcock]

I just want to point out that the Library said in bold that these are “very crude” figures on the extension of age—otherwise it might not provide me with any research ever again. It has been pointed out before that not all those parents of children between nought and 40 would be in employment, so there would be some mitigation there. Perhaps an exercise can be done to work out on average how many people who die are of working age and have parents in the workforce, but that is not for now.

This strikes at the morality of the Bill. It has been mentioned that the Bill is about the tasks that need to be carried out after the death of a child or in that grieving period, but I agree with the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran—I do not want to sound like a broken record—that this is about the recognition of grief, not just tasks, although grief can be exacerbated and it can be more difficult to heal and recover if people are not able to do the tasks that are part of the journey to recovery. I also agree that a child never ceases to be a child in their parents’ eyes.

I want to make a political point in what has, so far, not been a very political Committee: it seems so hard to get such things through the Treasury. We are scrabbling around, arguing and making the case for a 60-year-old worker to have two weeks off if their child is 30, but it seems so easy for the Treasury to do other things at the stroke of a pen. That is not the fault of the Bill or necessarily of this Government, but it seems that the system values some things much more than others, including employment rights.

[Antoinette Sandbach]

This is a very important Bill. As the Minister and my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton have pointed out, this is the first time that an extension in this area has been considered. There is an argument that goes, “If the parents, why not the siblings? And if the siblings, why not the aunts and uncles or other close family members?”

Much like my hon. Friend, I have reservations, but I do not want to jeopardise the Bill because the principle that it sets out is so important. There is no doubt that if one of my sisters died, I would be devastated. We have to strike a balance between rights and responsibilities, which is very difficult to do in relation to grief.

[Laura Pidcock]

The point has been well made that the Bill is about parental bereavement. Back-Bench Members may want to introduce Bills about other forms of grief, but we are concentrating on parental bereavement in all its forms. I would imagine that when a child dies, grief is pronounced, raw and painful irrespective of age. My intention is for those people to be included—not, of course, at the expense of the complete destruction of the Bill.

Amendment 12 recognises that some people have to care for dependent children for much longer than 18 years—I am sure my father would argue that I am still dependent, and I am 30. Full-time carers have to care for their children because they have a lifelong disability and a recognised dependency. I urge hon. Members to support amendment 12 if they cannot support amendment 6.

--- Later in debate ---

[Antoinette Sandbach]

I shall speak to amendments 18 and 19, which would add the words

“or a person under the age of 25 with a lifelong disability and a recognised dependency.”

The Bill applies to children under the age of 18, for all the reasons raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester. Amendments 18 and 19 would extend the definition of “child” for the purposes of parental bereavement leave and pay to those under the age of 25 with a lifelong disability and recognised dependency.

From my own experience with the children’s hospices that work in my area, they have a cut-off of around the age of 25 for those with disability or illness—they are classified as still entitled to attend the children’s hospice as opposed an adults’ hospice up to that point.

Therefore, there should be an extension to cover disability and dependency. We know that the care offered by parents to those with a disability or a recognised dependency is very often very high, and they will have provided extensive love and support to their child. There are many parents who have children with a disability or a lifelong dependency who, sadly, do not make it to the age of 25. I question whether my amendment should be limited to 25 for such cases—

[Laura Pidcock]

How about the hon. Lady supporting my amendment, which does not cap this at 25?

[Antoinette Sandbach]

I saw the hon. Lady’s amendment and given that the Minister is consulting on a number of matters, I hope he might consider extending the consultation to the amendments. Where there is a high level of recognised dependency, the bond between parent and child is very high, largely because parents in the main, although it is often women who do this, have been carers at a level not necessarily offered in other circumstances.

I am not saying that the grief is any less, but that level of contact with the child will extend beyond the age of 18, whereas in other circumstances many children will have left home and be living independent lives. This is a probing amendment, but one the Government would do well to address, because I suspect there will be easily-available figures from Government data for the number of people covered. The Minister should be able to find that information fairly easily, although there might be implications for that extension.

--- Later in debate ---

[Laura Pidcock]

I do not wish to use the other side’s argument against myself, and perhaps I could have done this in a slightly different way, but the point has been made that there might be someone who has only their parents to sort out all the arrangements after that person’s death. Does the Minister acknowledge that that may be the case with someone who has had a lifelong dependency on their parents and that that requires consideration?

[Andrew Griffiths]

I understand the hon. Lady’s premise. I understand that, looking from the outside, it is easy to make bespoke cases for bespoke situations. All those are valid and have strong reasoning behind them, but I return to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester: we cannot let the perfect be the enemy of the good. Unfortunately, we have to draw a line in the sand.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kevin Hollinrake]

The hon. Gentleman makes a good case for why the circumstances he describes are different from most others. However, consistency is important from an employer’s perspective and certainly from a legislative perspective. Of course, grief cannot be measured in pound notes, but part of our responsibility when introducing legislation is measuring the cost. His amendment would mean our having to revisit the cost and impact for the taxpayer and the employer.

The hon. Gentleman put his case well. The proposal in the Bill is, in any case, a minimum signal; we would expect an employer to be just as sympathetic to someone in this situation in their first 26 weeks of employment as afterwards. We would expect employers to be sympathetic, and I ask the hon. Gentleman to be sympathetic to the most important task, which is getting the Bill through the House.

[Laura Pidcock]

I want to echo the sentiments of the hon. Member for Glasgow East and probe a bit further on this issue. I am obviously not going to talk about the Taylor review, but we want to think about day one rights. I am still not clear who will qualify for what. Were the amendment agreed, it would provide an exceptional right that could not be applied to other bits of legislation. I completely understand why holiday has to be accrued, but the provision is exceptional.

To ground the Committee, the right would apply to such a small amount of people in the grand scale of the population. It seems morally absurd that someone employed for 24 weeks, 18 weeks or even four weeks could not qualify. No one plans for their child to die. People take a job in the good faith that they can do that job. It would be remiss of us not to include the amendment. That is my feeling.

[Andrew Griffiths]

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton again for his comments on the amendments. I agree with the points he made. It is right that the Government maintain a consistent approach across employment rights, because that reduces familiarisation costs for employers and ensures that they are operating within a framework they understand. Let us keep it simple and straightforward.

The hon. Members for Glasgow East and for North West Durham are right. They mentioned the Taylor review. I am proud that this Government are trying to enhance the protections for workers and their eligibility to rights within the workplace. We are looking at day one rights within the work of the Taylor review. Taylor is looking at extending the break-in-service provisions from one week to four weeks, but the 26-week qualifying period will remain. Within Taylor we are consulting and looking to bring forward greater rights, but when dealing with this Bill it is important that we do not reference a Bill that is behind us in the sausage machine. We have to have consistency now. We can only be consistent with the legislation as it stands; we cannot look over the horizon at what might be coming.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I am grateful for the hon. Gentlemen’s submissions and the opportunity to debate this matter fully. As drafted, the Bill allows the rate of parental bereavement pay to be set in regulations at a fixed or earnings-related weekly rate. This secures the flexibility to change or increase the rate of pay in the future. Of course, the main aim of the Bill is to ensure that bereaved parents who need time away from work are able to take that time without fear of suffering detriment from their employer as a result. A survey has shown that businesses that responded already provide bereavement leave and most of these companies offer more generous terms than we are stipulating in this Bill, as we have said a number of times before.

As I was asked before, I will not revisit all the arguments I made before about trying to move this Bill forward as much as we can in its original form, to prevent the need for us to go back and revisit some of the calculations that inevitably have to be made to determine effects on the taxpayer and employers, which clearly are important considerations. In the interest of consistency and cost, and also continuity, in that we would like this Bill to continue its progress through this Committee and through the other stages that it needs to go through, to get through the House as quickly as possible, I politely and respectfully ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw his amendment.

[Laura Pidcock]

I shall be brief. I probably will not speak again, so I want to place on record again my thanks to the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton for this Bill and the passion and discipline that has been shown to try to get it through Parliament. I agree that something is better than nothing—for those in the grieving period, £148.98 is definitely better than £0 in a week—but I want to place on record that we must acknowledge that for the lowest paid, taking that time, just like going on to statutory maternity pay, has a financial impact and that exacerbates the difficult situation people may already be in. We also have to acknowledge that in the worst case situation, some people might not actually take that entitlement at all, because they could not afford the impact on their pay in that week. We have to acknowledge that, however brilliant the premise and skeleton of this is, it will exclude some people on the lowest pay for financial reasons.

[Andrew Griffiths]

My hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton raised a good point about mirroring existing legislation in order to make the familiarisation process for employers more straightforward. We have heard that time and time again throughout this Bill. It is an important point and one I agree with. Managing bereavement in a workplace is not an easy task, so keeping it simple, stupid, is a good mantra. The Bill should be viewed as a base-level right for those who find themselves in this position. My hon. Friend said quite clearly that this Bill does not prevent employers from enhancing their offer, if they would like to make full pay. I hope that hon. Members will agree that this amendment should not be pursued and that the hon. Member for Glasgow East is content to withdraw it.

Taylor Review

Laura Pidcock Excerpts

1st reading: House of Commons
Wednesday 7th February 2018 Commons Chamber

[Andrew Griffiths]

I would just remind the hon. Lady that if she actually reads the report, she will see that we are asking the Low Pay Commission to consider higher minimum wages for workers on zero-hours contracts—

[Laura Pidcock (North West Durham) (Lab)]

Consider!

[Andrew Griffiths]

The hon. Lady says “Consider”, but I would have thought she was a supporter of the Low Pay Commission and that she would think this was a good idea.

We are creating a right for all workers on zero-hours contracts to request a more stable contract, and the Government want to go further than the Matthew Taylor report to address the issues of exclusivity of agency workers or those on zero-hours contracts. I would have thought that the hon. Member for Blaydon (Liz Twist) welcomed that; I know many in the trade unions organisation do.

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

Laura Pidcock Excerpts

Wednesday 31st January 2018 Public Bill Committees

[The Chair]

I call Laura Pidcock to speak. It would be helpful if Members who wish to speak stand up.

[Laura Pidcock (North West Durham) (Lab)]

Thank you very much, Mr Gray, for calling me to speak. It is a pleasure to come to this Committee and work on this Bill, which is the first Bill that I will consider in my new role. The hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton has outlined what the clauses do; I will not repeat that. I will just say that I support the purpose of the clauses.

The hon. Gentleman also said that the fact that this legislation does not exist already is almost unbelievable; I cannot believe that it has taken until 2018 to table such a measure, and create the right to parental leave and pay. I am therefore pleased that, through this private Member’s Bill, we will create such legislation. I give thanks to the hon. Gentleman. By the way, we agree that everything is better up north; that is one of the few things we agree on. We also agree on the purpose of this Bill and we will use this Committee not only to improve the Bill—potentially—but to ensure that it is passed.

I have to say that I am humbled to speak in this debate alongside people who unfortunately have first-hand experience of losing a child, and I place on the record how much I admire all of them and all their strength.

The principle should be that if someone is in work—whatever type of work they do and for however long they have done it—when catastrophe strikes and their child dies, either as a result of a long-term health condition, a freak accident, or anything in between, they should have time off to recover and there should be no financial detriment to their taking that period of recovery. I just cannot imagine the pain and grief that someone experiences when they lose the closest person to them, and the fact that they need to function so quickly after they have felt such grief is impossible to comprehend.

As has been mentioned in previous debates, there are of course employers who will be very understanding and who will make time for people to grieve and to make arrangements. However, we also have to acknowledge, as I think this Bill does, that there are employers who do not show the same compassion at this most dreadful time.

All the statistics tell us something. For example, the National Council for Palliative Care says that a shocking 31% of people who have been bereaved in the last five years felt that they had not been treated with compassion by their employer. In my view, that is an astounding statistic and it is also proof that the Government must take action, and rightly are taking action, to provide protection for these people.

[Will Quince (Colchester) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Gray.

This is, indeed, a very exciting day, and the culmination of nearly three years’ work. I fully support the Bill, amending the Employment Rights Act 1996 and giving parents who sadly suffer the loss of a child the statutory right to two weeks’ paid leave. I first introduced a Bill on this matter in the previous Parliament. The issue was, and remains, one of the burning injustices that I wanted to address during my time in Parliament, which is why I am so supportive of this Bill and the work of my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton.

Why is this issue so important to me? It is important because it is personal. Having gone through the experience of losing a child in 2014, I saw the impact that it had on not just me but the wider family, and my wife in particular. We had all the protections that come with a stillbirth: the full rights of maternity and paternity, which do not exist for those who lose a child after six or seven months.

When I joined Parliament I started researching this subject and looking at why there was this gap in provision and no statutory protection. I came across a similar Bill that was introduced back in 2013 by the former Member for Glasgow South, Tom Harris. He recognised that there was an issue here, based on a personal case in his constituency. I have been liaising with Tom, who has been hugely helpful and supportive of my Bill coming back before the House as a ten-minute rule Bill and its continuation in this Bill. I also met a lady called Lucy Herd who set up an organisation and charity called Jack’s Rainbow. She sadly lost her child who I believe was around two years old, and she has campaigned tirelessly on this issue for several years.

Although Tom did not get as far as starting to draft his Bill, he presented a ten-minute rule Bill that kicked off the process of getting Parliament to think about the gap in provision. With the help of the Table Office, we then drafted a Bill that was an initial variant or incarnation of what we see in front of us today. Sadly, the Session timed out and we were not able to take it through to get it on the statute book.

Along with a number of colleagues from across the House who care passionately about this issue, we campaigned as hard as we could on a cross-party basis, and as a result managed to get this policy in all the four main parties’ manifestos, which was no mean feat. I will be eternally grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton for picking up the baton and running with this Bill. When a Member comes high up in the ballot for private Members’ Bills, they are inundated with requests from charities, different organisations and local, constituency cases from people who want them to take on their cause and campaign. Within about 20 to 30 seconds of a phone call with my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton when I knew that he had come up high up in the ballot for private Members’ Bills, he did not hesitate to say yes. That is a credit to him and shows how passionate he is too about addressing this issue.

I also thank the Government for their support for the Bill, and in particular the former Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Stourbridge (Margot James), who has been so supportive. From the point at which my Bill fell in the last Parliament, we had a number of meetings in the Department to work out ways in which we could thrash this issue out and bring it forward again.

I also welcome the new Minister to his place. Knowing him as well as I do, and from the work that we have already done on this important issue, I know that he is as passionate as we all are about getting the Bill over the line and on to the statute book. I thank all Members from across the House who have supported this campaign and the Bill, and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton said, all the different charities and organisations that have been so supportive of the Bill and have fed into the process with their different ideas. We will not agree with all of them—some of them are not entirely practical—but we might agree with some of them, and the point is that they have been very forthcoming with their ideas and views.

Why is the Bill needed? Why is it so important? To put it bluntly, it is because there can be few more distressing life events than the loss of a child. I know that a number of hon. Members across the Committee have experienced that loss. Personally, I can only speak having gone through a stillbirth. I cannot imagine what it would be like to lose a child at one, three, five, 15 or 17. Up to 5,000 children die every year in the UK, which means that thousands of parents have to go through that personal tragedy.

--- Later in debate ---

[Laura Pidcock]

I agree strongly with the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran. When we think of any of the provisions in the Bill, it is quite easy to think about who is entitled, but much harder to think about who is not. Morally, the disqualification of people who have been through such a horrendous experience does not sit well with any of us.

There are 4.5 million self-employed people in the UK. As the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton rightly said, working practices in this nation are becoming less secure. I do not say that in a judgmental sense, but there is more fracture, there are more self-employed people and nearly 9,000 people in the UK are on zero-hours contracts. The Bill will be meaningless for them unless the extensions are included.

Let us be honest: most people across the nation do not have the option of not working. People take whatever work is available in their area, whether it is secure or not. Many people cannot choose their hours or their income, but when bereaved, they face exactly the same pain and grief. We have discussed how the Bill mirrors other entitlements, but I think the whole Committee would agree that it deals with exceptionally painful circumstances, so it is right that exceptional provision should be made.

I agree that a saving for the Treasury in one place could mean a cost in another. As has been mentioned, the TUC is gravely concerned about zero-hours contracts and self-employed people. Until greater rights and freedoms are established in law to allow precarious workers to organise, it is up to the Government to extend entitlements to them. Thankfully, we are not talking about a huge pool of people nationally, so including agency workers and people on zero-hours contracts would be a small extension to the Bill. Unfortunately, the number of childhood deaths per year has stayed the same on average.

I do not think that it is beyond the Government to make this commitment. I support the new clause.

[Andrew Griffiths]

I thank the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran for tabling the new clause and for focusing on the social cost, which is very important. We can get caught up in the amount of money involved or the cost to the Exchequer, which I will come back to, but this is fundamentally about the cost to human lives, relationships and happiness. As she rightly says, the grief that ensues after the loss of a child can easily cause family breakdown or divorce.

One issue that I have tried to tackle in my time as a Member of Parliament is drug and alcohol addiction. I do a great deal of work with a rehab organisation in my constituency, the Burton Addiction Centre. I regularly go there to talk to people in various stages of recovery. There is often a trigger in somebody’s life that can tip them into alcohol or drug abuse, domestic violence or any of a whole host of things that make their life spiral down. Putting those people back together again and dealing with the consequences of crime and antisocial behaviour brings about a cost to society that the Government are aware of and are working to address.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Griffiths]

I can reassure the hon. Lady that the Government’s response to the Taylor review will, I am sure, specifically address the points made by Matthew Taylor in relation to flexible working, zero-hours contracts and parental benefits. I think I can give her some comfort that those are exactly the kind of things that Matthew Taylor is passionately promoting and that the Government are keen to respond to in the near future.

It would be easy for us to get caught up in the wider discussion about employment rights and what will happen in response to the Taylor review. It is worth remembering the drivers behind the Bill, and the previous Bill brought forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester. I understand his nervousness about over-complicating what is in effect a framework Bill.

My hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton, whose Bill this is, makes the clear point that the Bill has to be properly costed. All Members of the Committee will understand. We have among us an eminent colleague with ministerial experience at the Treasury who is looking at me. I understand what is going through his mind. He wants to ensure that there are rigorous numbers attached to this. Accepting the new clause would make the process much more complex and should be avoided.

The Bill and its predecessor have come about because, at a time of tragedy, time away from the workplace was either not allowed or extremely limited. That is the issue we are trying to address, and I do not want to lose sight of that as we debate these important issues.

[Laura Pidcock]

I just want to be absolutely sure about the Taylor review. The Minister mentioned that matters such as self-employment will be discussed. Would the Bill, if enacted, retrospectively cover those people? Would it be stated in detail that the Bill would be covered by the Taylor review? The same goes for precarious work. I just want a guarantee.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kevin Hollinrake]

My hon. Friend makes a good point. We all want to see this legislation on the statute books. To borrow a phrase I heard the Minister use, the perfect should not be the enemy of the good. We need to get this legislation through, so I entirely agree with my hon. Friend.

This is not only an enabling framework piece of legislation, but a signal to employers. It gives the minimum possible standard that employers should give to their employees. I am an employer outside this place—as well as inside it, as we all are. I am sure if one our team members suffered a tragedy such as this—whether they were a grandparent, a brother, an uncle, or, obviously, a parent—we would all be considerate and give time off. I imagine we would give time off at full pay, rather than statutory pay. That is what we expect.

Today we are setting the signal and framework, not just in the legislation but for employers to recognise the terrible tragedies and the impact on their workforce. I do not want to agree to amendments at this stage because of issues around timing and proper consideration. We could end up in ping-pong with the other place, with redrafting and other ideas about the definition of a parent, which would take time.

My hon. Friend the Member for Banbury made some very good points about examples of parents—biological parents, step-parents by virtue of marriage or civil partnership, the mother or father at the time of birth, and adoptive parents. It is absolutely right to consider all of those. The concern would be about who we are missing, as that is probably not an exhaustive list. We need to consider this properly.

I have often heard the hon. Member for Swansea East speak with passion about these issues. I accept many of her arguments, such as including a person with parental responsibility or a foster parent. It is absolutely right that we should consider those. I have those same concerns but I am also concerned to ensure that the legislation gets through in good shape and good time, and that we have a parallel process for consultation on the definition of a parent in order to get it absolutely right.

I would be in favour of widening that as much as possible but we clearly need to have consideration for employers as well, to ensure that we get this right. I know that the Minister has officials from his Department looking at consultation on the definition of a qualifying parent. It is important to consider the outcome of that consultation. I am sure the Minister and his Department’s officials will do that. We will make sure that we properly consider these issues.

I encourage all Members to continue to input into the process to ensure that we get this right, without making a firm decision at this point. I hope my hon. Friends and the hon. Member for Swansea East agree it is sensible not to press the amendments. To ensure we get this right, we will give it proper further consideration to ensure we have a proper, systemic approach to define accurately a parent in this regard.

[Laura Pidcock]

The anxiety with which hon. Members want the Bill to go through is almost palpable. There is twitching, nudging and a few sweat beads in case any of us might wreck it. Of course I understand that and would not want to be the person who—two weeks into a job—ruins the Bill. However, it is imperative that we question the Government and the Bill’s promoter, because all the time, we are saying, “That can come later; that can be considered later,” but that is not an assurance or a warm signal to people who are in precarious work, are foster carers or are not directly mentioned in the Bill. The Bill is to be celebrated, but it leaves lots of people out. I come back to the point that was very helpfully—

[Andrew Griffiths]

The hon. Lady says that the Bill leaves lots of people out. It does not leave people out at all. The question is whom we put in. That is what we need to get right—not whom we leave out, but whom we put in, to ensure that they are covered.

[Laura Pidcock]

I understand that, but at the moment, for the purposes of this Bill, the argument is not for foster carers, self-employed people or people on zero-hours contracts. I understand the concerns, because it would be hard to convince the Treasury that what we propose could be financed at this time, but I would just like to ask, quite humbly, how hon. Members should proceed. If my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea East wanted to push this issue on Report, would she be pushing at an open door? Would we be able to include all those people? It has taken two years to get to this point, and this place can be quite frustrating. It would allay the fears and worries of people who might be bereaved in the future to know that they might be included in some provision. I would just like some assurances in that respect. Sometimes I am not that confident about guarantees, and I am very anxious to include as many people as possible and to hear that foster carers would be considered on Report.

[Andrew Griffiths]

My hon. Friend the Member for Banbury moved the amendment in her own inimitable style—the style that we would expect. She is, I think, a force of nature. Whatever she is doing in this place, whether she is campaigning on this issue or harrying us all to support Singing for Syrians, we either get with the programme or get out of the way, it appears to me. I am delighted that she has committed herself so totally to delivering this provision for bereaved parents. I understand exactly her intentions in tabling the amendment.

The hon. Member for Swansea East spoke about her amendment with great dignity and perfect intentions. We talk about bravery, and we see many different types of bravery—in our military, in our public servants, in the police and so on—but it takes great bravery to suffer a personal tragedy, something that is so private and raw as it was with the hon. Lady and her son, Martin, and to lay all that pain bare for everyone to see. That takes real bravery, but because we all understand that, it makes it so much more valuable; it has so much more force behind it. I have the utmost respect for what the hon. Lady has done, and continues to do, for people in such miserable and desperate positions and I congratulate her on it.

The hon. Member for North West Durham gets, I think, the level of sensitivity in this room today. There was laughter when she said what she did, but it was nervous laughter, because everyone wants to make sure that nothing goes wrong. Unintended consequences are something that a Government have to deal with all the time—if only we could plan for all unintended consequences. With the known unknowns, or the unknown unknowns, lots can go wrong. We need to ensure that nothing goes wrong with the Bill.

Bereaved parents, at an already heartbreaking time, should not be put in the difficult position of needing time away to grieve while being required to be at work because their employers will not agree to their taking leave. On Second Reading and at the evidence sessions, we heard about all the brilliant employers that offer fantastic, compassionate support for their employees at the worst of times. That is to be commended, but some employers do not do that—there are some that put profit ahead of people. It is those that we wish to address.

Supporting the Bill was therefore a natural decision to make. More needs to be done on such an important topic, and the Bill provides a minimum standard—this is not the benchmark or the gold standard, but the minimum standard, which will protect employees who do not have the security of the reasonable and compassionate employer we have discussed.

Defining exactly who is eligible as a “parent” is not as easy as I first thought. When I heard that I was dealing with this Bill, I thought that defining a parent would be the easiest thing—a parent is a parent; we all know what a parent is—but then I read the responses and about the different perspectives and points of view, from people who have the right intentions, the best of intentions. The hon. Lady asked why people should be left out, and I understand why she talked about that, but I honestly assure her that we want not to leave people out but to ensure that we do not leave anyone behind. We want to get this right first time.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton stated on Second Reading:

“As a society, we have clearly moved on from mum, dad and 2.4 children.”—[Official Report, 20 October 2017; Vol. 629, c. 1161.]

Family units are now hugely varied, and extending this provision to the biological parents alone would be too simplistic. People’s lives are different and more complicated. Society has changed and we all need to get with that and to support those new family units as they develop.