Construction Payment Consultations (Publication)

Margot James Excerpts

Tuesday 24th October 2017 Written Statements

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

My noble Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Department for Business, Energy & Industrial Strategy (Lord Prior of Brampton) has today made the following statement:

Today we are publishing two consultations on payment practices within the construction sector. In publishing these consultations, the Department is delivering two commitments.

The first is to undertake a non-statutory post implementation review of the 2011 changes to part 2 of the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996 (the “Construction Act”). The consultation will gather evidence on the effectiveness of the 2011 changes, the framework of rules created by the amended Act, the affordability of these changes for business, relevance and misuse of adjudication.

The second is to complete a review of the practice of cash retention under construction contracts. The review, of which the consultation is a part, is being published alongside independent research carried out by Pye Tait Consulting. The research draws a number of conclusions and also identifies areas for further investigation, which the consultation will seek to gather evidence on.

The consultations run in parallel, with a response period of 12 weeks, closing on the 19 January 2018.

Prompt and fair payment has long been an issue in the construction industry and many consider that some practices can be a barrier to investment, productivity improvement and growth in the sector. Both consultations and supporting documentation will be used to assess the extent of the issues; and whether and what further intervention is needed.

[HCWS194]

Parental Bereavement (Leave and Pay) Bill

Margot James Excerpts

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

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

It is a privilege to follow the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Jack Dromey), who spoke so eloquently in sharing his family’s own story. That shows what a timeless and terrible problem we are discussing. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake) on securing a high place in the private Member’s Bill ballot and thank him for choosing to introduce such an important Bill.

At the recent Westminster Hall debate on bereavement leave after the loss of a child, which was led by my hon. Friend the Member for East Renfrewshire (Paul Masterton), I was pleased to see that we have cross-party consensus on this issue, as has been borne out this afternoon. I am pleased that Members have shown a great deal of willingness to work across party lines to achieve a positive outcome today, and I have high hopes that that will continue as we discuss the Bill’s detail in its subsequent stages.

As many as one in 10 of the workforce are bereaved in any year. Although the Bill addresses only those who lose a child who is below the age of 18, that is an important place for us to focus our efforts. I completely understand that it is deeply distressing for a parent to lose a child at any age, and we will continue to work with ACAS and Cruse to identify the best way to encourage employers to act sympathetically to requests for leave following the loss of an older child who has reached adulthood.

The loss is particularly harrowing, though, when a child has barely had a chance to start their life. All the hopes, anxieties and dreams invested in that baby, toddler, young child or teenager: gone in such a desperately final way. I extend my heartfelt sympathy to all parents who have suffered and, of course, continue to suffer from such a terrible loss. Like other Members, I commend those who have spoken in the House about their own loss of a child. Their bravery in so doing has raised awareness of this issue and enabled my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton to introduce this Bill.

My hon. Friend the Member for Colchester (Will Quince) made such a passionate speech. The ten-minute rule Bill that he so bravely introduced in the previous Parliament led to the inclusion of a commitment in our manifesto to ensure that all families who lose a baby are given the support that they need, including through a new entitlement to child bereavement leave. There is currently a clear imbalance between the experience of those who work for a good employer and are given the time and space needed to deal with the loss of a child, and the experience of those who, as we have heard in many examples, are not afforded such consideration. The House also heard in the Baby Loss Awareness Week debate last week, to which I also responded, of horrendous experiences and some employers’ cold and callous treatment of their employees following the death of a child. The Bill will go some way towards addressing this issue, which is why the Government support it.

I shall try to address some of the specific points that were made in the debate. The hon. Member for Lincoln (Ms Lee) asked about those on zero-hours contracts and those whose status is that of a worker rather than an employee. I very much sympathise with the point she made. It is helpful that the Bill mirrors existing employment provisions, thereby minimising any additional complexity for employers and parents. Nevertheless, I accept that the hours of some workers—in fact, many—are really under the control of their employer in many ways, even if the hours are flexible and the workers can take time off. Of course, they do not have an entitlement to pay during that period. We heard from the hon. Member for Washington and Sunderland West (Mrs Hodgson) about her personal experience of having to take off the time that she desperately needed without pay. I assure the House that, in line with the recommendations made by Matthew Taylor, we will consider this and other matters raised in the debate when we respond to the Taylor review before the end of the year.

The hon. Member for Lincoln and the shadow Minister mentioned people on benefits and universal credit claimants, who are actually not sanctioned for taking time off work after a bereavement. I am pleased to say that there is already flexibility in the conditionality to safeguard claimants in that position. If a claimant’s child has died, the work search and availability requirements are not applied for up to six months from the date of the death.

My hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South (Chris Philp) spoke about babies who are born prematurely. He mentioned Catriona Ogilvy, who I had the privilege of meeting with my hon. Friend’s constituency neighbour, the hon. Member for Croydon North (Mr Reed), as a result of the latter’s ten-minute rule Bill in the last Parliament. As a result of that meeting and his Bill, we have worked with ACAS on new and detailed guidance for employers to use when employees have a premature baby. The guidance was published last month, and I trust that my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South will join efforts in raising awareness of it.

A wider culture change is needed in the way in which some businesses deal with staff who have suffered a bereavement. Of course, we are only here this afternoon because that is very much the case. There are some other issues that the Bill will not address, but things are happening so I want to mention a few of those points.

[Antoinette Sandbach]

One of the key aspects of the Bill is that a mother or, indeed, a father who was on maternity or paternity leave when they were bereaved is entitled to carry on having that right. That is being enshrined in the legislation. What steps will be taken to ensure that employers are aware of this impending legislation so that they can adequately prepare or, at least, try to amend their policies even before the legislation comes into effect?

[Margot James]

We will inform employers through the various advisory services, via gov.uk and via other means. We will also work with ACAS to ensure that the maximum number of employers are made aware of the legislation. The efforts of all in this House to amplify the message would be extremely welcome.

More needs to happen in various areas in the handling of bereavement as a whole. We would like more employers to familiarise themselves with the ACAS guidance, “Managing bereavement in the workplace—a good practice guide”, which was developed in conjunction with the charity, Cruse Bereavement Care. This has been created specifically to support employers in managing staff who have suffered a bereavement.

The fact is that, as well as needing to take time off work, employees may also find that their performance is affected when they return, or they may be temporarily unable to perform their role. I think that that is highly likely, and other hon. Members have already stated that it is impossible in some cases of bereavement—particularly when the loss is of a child—for someone to concentrate as they would normally. I am the first to accept that this experience could exceed the two-week period that we are here to discuss. We are bringing a new entitlement into law, but I do not wish to discourage employers from understanding that all cases are different and that, of course, some people will need greater periods of flexibility in how they approach their work following a bereavement.

The guidance sets out the benefits of effective engagement at such a time and the positive effect that it can have on the employee and the business in the long run. The employee feels supported, less pressured and therefore better able to deal with the issue they face, and that helps them with the overall process of grieving.

Alongside that, employees need to understand better what other support may be available to them should they suffer the terrible loss of a child. Concerns have been raised in the House in recent months that the cost of child funerals can be an additional concern. As such, where people meet eligibility conditions, a contribution towards the cost of a simple, respectful funeral may be available through the social fund funeral expenses payment scheme. In addition, it is open to local authorities to waive burial and cremation fees for children, as some already do.

Parents who lose a child at the point of birth also need quality care and support. They are the unit that somehow has to carry on functioning after such a devastating outcome. I am a former employer myself, and although it is many years since I was responsible for a lot of people in the workplace, I am pleased to say that I had a management team who tried their best to empathise with parents who had stillborn children or who lost their child, as the mother of the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington did all those years ago, at just a few days old—indeed, the majority of parents who suffer the loss of a child under the age of 18 do so in the first six months of their child’s life.

Losing a child is a truly terrible time, and I am pleased that my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton is introducing a Bill to dramatically improve the situation for anyone unfortunate enough to be in the employ of a firm totally lacking in empathy. Such parents do need the protection we are here to debate this afternoon, but we know, as I said earlier—this was certainly true in my firm, and it is true in the vast majority of firms I am aware of—that having a period of time to cover the immediate bereavement and the tragic, heart-rending funeral service is the basics, and one has to continue to empathise with the individual after they return to work. As one of my hon. Friends pointed out during the debate, people obviously do not come back to work able to switch back on again. They will need time off for certain things. The registration of the death and all that sort of thing carries on. From my personal experience of bereavement—fortunately, it did not involve the death of a child, but being responsible for estates—I know that these things just take time. People want to take time over them; they do not want to feel in a rush and up against a deadline.

Of course I understand the needs of employers, and my company was fortunate enough to have people who could cover for absence and that sort of thing. It is different for a very small employer, and I do sympathise—it can be very difficult. It is also difficult for the self-employed. We have not heard much mention of the self-employed, who are not covered by this legislation, on the basis that they can take time off because they are their own boss. On the other hand, if they are providing services, there are other pressures on them. They have the difficulty of having to deal with customers and so forth without the back-up of a team underneath them who can take up the reins. When we come to consider issues regarding the self-employed in our response to the Taylor review, I trust that we will be able to cover some of these aspects for people who are currently not of employed status.

[Mrs Hodgson]

The Minister made a very good point about the time needed for people to go on the bereavement journey. Will someone who feels able to come back to work sooner but then finds that the grief hits later on—as it does; it hits different people at different stages—be able to take some of the two weeks’ paid leave later, perhaps within a six-month period? Will the Bill accommodate that?

[Margot James]

That is definitely the sort of thing that can be raised in Committee. At the moment, the period is two weeks. The hon. Member for Lincoln asked whether it could be divided into days here and there. That is currently not possible within the various types of family leave and carer leave that exist on the statute book. The leave is divided into weeks, but it can be taken over a period of time. I am sure that when hon. Members get to discuss the Bill in Committee, the fixed period of time might be a subject of debate.

Thanks in large part to the work of the all-party group, the Government have recognised that the NHS needs to improve its own environments. That has led to better bereavement rooms and quiet spaces, now at nearly 40 hospitals. The Department of Health has funded Sands to deliver a national bereavement care pathway to reduce the variation in the quality of bereavement care provided by the NHS. Only last week, 11 pilot sites were announced in hospital trusts that are going to implement the new pathway.

From time to time, I receive letters from parents who have suffered the loss of a baby in my local hospital. I know that efforts have been made to improve the services for those parents. If the parents have lost their baby very, very shortly after childbirth, I can think of no worse place to be than the average maternity suite. My heart goes out to those parents. I am glad that the work of the all-party group is leading to improvements in the care in our local hospital trusts.

Again, I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton for choosing this subject from among so many interests competing for our time. I very much welcome the consensus among hon. Members across the House and thank them all for their hugely valuable and sensitive contributions.

Money Laundering and Tax Evasion (Azerbaijan)

Margot James Excerpts

Thursday 19th October 2017 Commons Chamber

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

I congratulate the right hon. Member for Barking (Dame Margaret Hodge) on securing this important debate, from which I have learnt the shocking truth about Azerbaijan, and on her forensic analysis.

The Government are committed to making the United Kingdom’s financial system a hostile environment for illicit finance. The National Crime Agency takes allegations such as those identified by the right hon. Lady seriously, and will consider carefully whether recent information would allow an investigation to proceed. The Government pursue a targeted but proportionate level of enforcement that focuses on achieving compliance from companies. We seek to counter financial crime while protecting the dynamism of the UK’s business environment.

[Nick Smith]

Will the Minister give way?

[Margot James]

I will, but I have very little time.

[Nick Smith]

Does the Minister think that she has heard enough this evening to ask the authorities to launch an investigation?

[Margot James]

I must confess that I am not entirely aware of what my powers are in that respect, but if I am so empowered, I will certainly do as the hon. Gentleman suggests.

We want the United Kingdom to be a trusted place in which to do business, and the best place in the world in which to set up and grow a business. The UK has high standards of business behaviour and corporate governance. The overwhelming majority of its 3.9 million companies contribute productively to the economy, abide by the law, and make a valuable contribution to society. In discussing what action to take in response to the minority who abuse the system, we must not undermine its strengths or impose more burdens on the law-abiding majority without very careful consideration.

The Government are active in taking action to tackle misuse. Since 2015, we have implemented a series of reforms to increase the transparency of UK incorporated legal persons and arrangements in order to prevent their misuse for illicit purposes. The reforms include, but are not limited to: the introduction of the publicly accessible register of people with significant control, which the right hon. Member for Barking mentioned; the abolition of bearer shares; the introduction of unexplained wealth orders; and the introduction of the combined register of trust and company service providers supervised by professional bodies, as well as HMRC.

[Dr Huq]

Will the Minister give way?

[Margot James]

I have a lot amount of material to cover. I will give way a little later if I have time.

It is too early to measure the impact of many of those reforms, but we expect them to make a significant difference in helping to prevent the misuse of companies and other entities, and in assisting law enforcement agencies with their investigations when misuse does occur.

The right hon. Lady mentioned Companies House. It carries out checks on all information that is received to ensue that it is valid, complete, correctly formatted and in compliance with company law filing requirements. The obligation to ensure the information is accurate lies with the company and its directors. The validation checks serve to help companies to get things right. A company commits an offence if it fails to maintain its registers and keep them up to date.

The UK has a robust system of publicly accessible data. The Government favour an approach that encourages transparency of information, followed by the scrutiny of company information over its lifetime. I appreciate that—

[Nick Smith]

rose—

[Margot James]

I will give way if I have time, although I might cover the points the hon. Gentleman wants to raise.

It might appear that the system is designed around the needs of law-abiding companies, which are the vast majority. I appreciate that it is open to abuse. Maintaining one of the most open and extensively accessed registers in the world is a powerful tool in identifying false, inaccurate or possibly fraudulent information. With many eyes viewing the data, as well as errors, omissions or worse, the information held on the register can be subject to significant policing by a variety of users.

Companies House is always looking at ways to further improve the quality of data. A significant recent development includes the introduction of the “report it now” function, which makes raising concerns easier than ever before.

If irregularities are raised, Companies House follows up with the company in question, and in most cases any inaccuracies are corrected immediately. There were over 2 billion searches of the Companies House register in 2016-17, which indicates that the data are available and under scrutiny. Companies House works closely with enforcement agencies such as the National Crime Agency in sharing data analysis to combat economic crime.

I will now talk about Scottish limited partnerships, which the right hon. Lady raised. I fully recognise her concerns. Over the past year or so, serious concerns have been raised about the use of these partnerships as vehicles for criminality. As a result, my Department launched a call for evidence earlier this year to collect information about the extent of the problem and how the limited partnership legal framework might therefore need to be strengthened. The Government have been considering this evidence and I can confirm that we are actively considering reform. We will announce our next steps shortly.

That said, it is important to mention that Scottish limited partnerships are a popular form of incorporation. I accept that their number has increased over the last few years, which gives rise to perfectly legitimate suspicions, but they are also used by many legitimate businesses across the economy, particularly in the investment and pensions sectors, fulfilling a genuine commercial need.

As the right hon. Lady mentioned in her letter to me at the end of last month, as of June this year, Scottish limited partnerships and a number of other legal entities were required to identify and disclose their “people with significant control”—beneficial owners—to Companies House. This information will form part of a central register that is publicly available, consistent with the requirements already placed on other forms of UK companies since 2016. Our objective is that the requirement will provide transparency over the ownership and control of Scottish limited partnerships.

Scottish limited partnerships are also required to submit a statement at least once a year confirming that their “people with significant control” information on the companies register is accurate. The right hon. Lady highlighted in her letter to me that many companies have yet to comply, but I can assure her that they will be chased down. As this is a relatively new requirement, the build-up of the names into the register of those who own and control SLPs is still under way. Companies House is undertaking compliance activity to ensure that Scottish limited partnerships comply with the new regulations.

In summary, I can confirm that the Government are actively considering options for the reform of these partnerships and will be setting out their approach soon.

Question put and agreed to.

draft Electricity Supplier Obligations (amendment and excluded electricity) (amendment) regulations 2017

Margot James Excerpts

Monday 16th October 2017 General Committees

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

I beg to move,

That the Committee has considered the draft Electricity Supplier Obligations (Amendment and Excluded Electricity) (Amendment) Regulations 2017.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Gapes. These regulations amend the Electricity Supplier Obligations (Amendment and Excluded Electricity) Regulations 2015, which make provision for indirectly exempting eligible energy-intensive industries from part of the costs of funding the contracts for difference scheme. They aim to avoid putting those industries at a significant competitive disadvantage.

The transition to low carbon and the securing of our energy supplies must be done in a way that minimises the cost to business and domestic consumers. Our industrial gas prices are internationally competitive, but our industrial electricity prices have moved out of line with other European countries. That places UK electricity-intensive manufacturing industries at a competitive disadvantage and increases the risk of carbon leakage.

To meet our legally binding climate change and renewable energy targets, we have implemented a number of policies designed to incentivise the generation of electricity from renewable resources. A substantial part of the cost of those policies is recovered through obligations and levies on suppliers, which pass those additional costs on to their consumers. That results in electricity bills being higher than they otherwise would have been.

The contracts for difference scheme is such a policy. It gives greater certainty and stability of revenues to electricity generators by reducing their exposure to volatile wholesale prices. The scheme is financed through a compulsory levy on electricity suppliers, which pass the costs on to domestic and business users through their electricity bills. The levy currently stands at almost £2.52 per megawatt-hour. The funding costs of the contracts for difference can reduce the attractiveness of the UK as an investment location and increases the risk that companies will invest or even move elsewhere. That is a scenario we particularly wish to avoid as we exit the European Union.

We intend to safeguard the competitiveness of those energy-intensive industries particularly exposed to the additional costs arising from CfDs by exempting them from a proportion of those costs. An exemption scheme allows for real-time changes in energy use to be taken into account and provides greater certainty to business. The European Commission approved our state aid proposal to exempt certain energy-intensive industries from the cost of CfDs in December 2015. The draft regulations update and improve the regulations we laid in 2015 and bring them into line with the terms of our state aid approval, allowing us to commence the scheme.

We recognise that the exemption will redistribute the cost of financing CfDs to other electricity consumers. We estimate that that would increase annual household electricity bills by around £1 over the next few years. None the less, we have taken steps to reduce costs on consumer bills, which are now lower than they might otherwise be. We have also published a draft Bill that will limit the cost of standard variable tariffs and other default tariffs that customers are moved on to at the end of a fixed-term deal, meeting our manifesto commitment and bringing an end to unjustifiably high prices.

The regulations make amendments to the original 2015 regulations that are necessary to bring them into line with the Commission’s state aid approval. We are also making technical changes to the regulations to improve the administration of the scheme. The amendments include changes to eligibility; allowing new or restructured businesses to claim the benefit of the exemption; a requirement on beneficiaries to notify us, to help us ensure that they receive the exemption to the correct level only if they are eligible; and allowing a company to apply for the exemption if it does not obtain electricity directly from a licensed electricity supplier.

The House of Lords Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee raised a number of points relating to the timing of the consultation, provision for direct competitors and the impact on consumer bills. I will summarise its main points. Regarding the length of consultation, the policy to exempt eligible energy-intensive industries from a proportion of the cost of CfD had been subject to three previous consultations, the third of which covered technical amendments to the regulations, rather than policy changes, as the policy has already been consulted and agreed on previously. Our original intention was for the regulations to come into force at the end of February. However, some of the technical issues needed further consideration to ensure that the amended regulations achieved their aim. We involved stakeholders throughout the whole process.

Our original intention had been to provide relief to direct competitors—businesses that do not meet the eligibility criterion on electricity intensity, but which manufacture the same products as eligible companies in the same sector. That was designed to create a level playing field and prevent market distortions within sectors. We submitted a state aid notification to the European Commission to address this issue. However, the Commission does not think that our proposal is compatible with the relevant state aid guidelines. We are considering alternative options within the scope of the guidelines that may be open to us.

The draft regulations will make the necessary changes to the 2015 regulations to allow us to exempt eligible energy-intensive industries from up to 85% of the indirect costs of funding the CfD scheme. As well as providing those businesses with greater long-term certainty, the measures set out in the regulations will reduce the price differential between eligible energy-intensive industries and their international competitors, mitigating the risk that those companies are put at a significant competitive disadvantage and might choose to move their production abroad. I commend the regulations to the Committee.

--- Later in debate ---

[Margot James]

I thank Committee members for their questions. I am very pleased that they agree with the direction of this important statutory instrument. In answer to the questions from several hon. Members, led by the shadow Minister, concerning the discrepancy in the notes on the increased cost of household bills due to this measure, the difference in estimates of an additional £1 and £1.80 to people’s bills is because the population of eligible energy intensive industries is less than we originally estimated. As a result, the burden on consumers has reduced from approximately £1.80 to £1 a year. In answer to another question from the shadow Minister, there have been no over-exemptions as yet, as the regulations have not yet been enacted. We have general powers to claw back any over-exemptions if needed, but we are looking at whether a specific mechanism would be helpful.

[Mr Jones]

There is a huge drop from £1.80 to £1. I understand what the Minister is suggesting, but what is the percentage drop for the industries that will be eligible? If it is of that order—nearly 100%—it must be quite big. Are the estimates wrong about the number of industries that would be eligible or, as the policy has developed, have certain industries been taken out of the process?

[Margot James]

The estimate was too high in the first place and it has reduced. I will look into the reasons for that and I will write to the hon. Gentleman. In his speech, he asked about the policy for this sector of the economy post-Brexit—might we pursue a more competitive approach vis-à-vis the rest of the European Union? I think that he is asking what our policy on state aid will be after we leave the European Union, and that is a matter for the negotiations.

I think I have addressed the questions raised by Committee members. The hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow said that the average increased cost of electricity for a medium business user would be £3,100 a year—she is correct on that point.

[Alan Brown]

What will the Government do to try to mitigate that £3,100 burden on businesses?

[Margot James]

For this measure to be cost neutral, the cost of exempting some energy intensive users has to be distributed fairly among businesses. For an average user—a medium-sized user—the uplift will be about £3,100. As yet, the Government do not have plans to mitigate that.

[Mr Jones]

What assessment have the Government made of what types of businesses will be affected? I see the logic of the draft regulations in helping energy intensive industries, many of which consist of large entities that I accept are in international markets, but £3,000 a year is a huge amount for a small or medium-sized business. Has any assessment been made of which businesses the burden will fall on?

[Margot James]

I said “a medium-sized user” of electricity; I did not mention small businesses. I agree that that would be a significant increase for a small business. We are developing a package of measures to support businesses to improve their energy use and productivity and to make them more energy efficient. That is how their bills will be reduced in the long term.

The average increase represents less than 0.5% of the total electricity bill of a medium-sized business. I feel that that is an appropriate price to pay for the benefit that energy intensive users will gain. The shadow Minister indicated the Opposition’s support for this measure. As she said, if we do not do this, high users of energy might be driven out of the UK, which would result in carbon leakage. That would not be a satisfactory outcome, so we have amortised the costs elsewhere. I think that 0.2% is a sustainable increase for the average medium-sized business user of electricity.

[Mr Jones]

I accept that, but I have to say that the Minister is flying blind here. Have the Government made any assessment of the businesses that will be affected? Do not get me wrong. I support the main thrust of the draft regulations, which aim to protect substantial users of electricity, but if the Government do not properly assess their effects we might protect one side of the economy but lose jobs elsewhere.

[Margot James]

Eligible energy intensive industries can also be small and medium-sized businesses. Very few of the vast array of companies across the country are exempt. The cost of the exemption will be amortised across many million businesses, so the average increase will be small, and the average company can bear that. I will write to the hon. Gentleman with any further information that we have that demonstrates the assessment that we have made of those companies.

I mentioned that we have developed a package of measures to support businesses to improve their energy efficiency. That aims to improve energy usage by at least 20% by 2030. We have also launched an independent review of the cost of energy, which I am sure the shadow Minister is familiar with. That review is led by Professor Dieter Helm and is all about helping companies to reduce their energy usage, which will be good for the environment and for company costs.

[Rushanara Ali]

Has the Department requested feedback from the businesses that will bear the £3,100 per annum cost as part of the impact assessment?

If so, what was their response? On the costs being passed on to charities, to which paragraph 10 in the impact assessment refers, will the Minister explain which charities are affected? What is their size and scale? Are they small, large or medium-sized? What will be the annual cost to charities? Public sector organisations are under a lot of pressure as a result of cuts to funding. Will the Minister update the Committee on whether an impact assessment has been carried out and what feedback has come back from those organisations about the cost burden of the policy? Once again, I support the thrust of the proposal, but we need answers to those questions.

[Margot James]

I am happy to write to the hon. Lady with more details of the assessment that has been carried out and about the size of the charities that have been scrutinised.

The exemption is a key component of our programme to reduce electricity costs for energy intensive industries. It will help to prevent putting those industries at a significant competitive disadvantage. The increase in industrial electricity costs due to funding the CfD can reduce the UK’s attractiveness as an investment location, and increases the risk that companies will invest and move elsewhere.

[Alan Brown]

Going back to funding the contracts for difference and managing the costs overall, the Minister will be aware that the last option—offshore wind—came in at £57.50 per megawatt-hour, compared with Hinkley at £92.50 per megawatt-hour. Onshore wind is going to be even cheaper than that. Will the Government take account of that the next time they auction bids for CfDs?

[Margot James]

I will ask my colleagues to write to the hon. Gentleman with more information. I would not like to mislead the House, and I do not have the information at my fingertips.

[Rushanara Ali]

I am concerned that if the Minister writes to us as she proposes, we will not have an opportunity to amend the regulations, and she will not have the opportunity to take into account the cost to charities. She will be aware that many charities are having to shut down—I know that, because I chair one which, like others, has faced real challenges staying afloat, but has successfully done so. If she is suggesting that those costs should be borne by not-for-profit organisations without support from the Government, that concerns me. Will she assure us that the Government will find a way to mitigate those costs and will find resources to help those charities so they do not have to bear the costs of companies, if the costs are transferred?

[Margot James]

The Government provide advice to charities, voluntary organisations and businesses to help them improve energy efficiency and lower their costs. We are also revitalising the green deal, which they can access to improve energy efficiency. The cost to charities, like the cost to businesses, will be very small—0.2% of their total bill.

[Rushanara Ali]

It is not acceptable to expect a charity to bear the cost, even if it is 0.2%, without any assurance from the Government. Why are we cross-subsidising from the private sector to the not-for-profit sector? The Minister’s answer is not satisfactory. Will she assure the Committee that charities will not have to bear the cost of the Government’s decision to cross-subsidise by getting them to pay for the changes that they are making to help companies?

[Margot James]

I cannot add anything to what I have already said in response to the hon. Lady. I will ask for further clarification on the matter, but at the moment I can only repeat what I have said: it is a very, very small increase, because it is amortised across so many electricity users—not-for-profit organisations and companies. The exemption scheme allows for real-time changes in energy use to be taken into account, and provides greater certainty. We recognise that the exemption will redistribute the cost of funding to other electricity consumers, but we have taken steps to reduce costs on consumer bills, and they are now lower than they might otherwise be. The proposed measures update and improve the regulations, and they bring them into line with the terms of our state aid approval, allowing us to commence the scheme.

Question put.

Advice Services (Nottingham)

Margot James Excerpts

Wednesday 11th October 2017 Westminster Hall

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Dorries. I congratulate the hon. Member for Nottingham North (Alex Norris) on securing this debate, his first in Westminster Hall, and first of many, I have no doubt. I congratulate him on his interesting and compelling speech. I am very pleased to have the opportunity to set out how the Government support the Citizens Advice service and the importance of having access to free, confidential and impartial advice. I have seen for myself in my own constituency the difference that such support can make to people and families, often the most vulnerable, often, as the hon. Gentleman ably pointed out, in crisis and under immense pressure.

The hon. Gentleman mentioned Citizens Advice Nottingham and District, Nottingham Law Centre and Nottingham City Council’s welfare rights service as examples of success, and I share his appreciation of the work of those agencies and similar advice services across the country.

The services are indeed well used. In 2015-16, more than 8,000 people received advice and support from Citizens Advice Nottingham and District, most of whom said they could not have resolved their issue without receiving that help. It is important to appreciate that these advice services not only help people to resolve financial difficulties but have a profound impact upon people’s lives, sometimes improving their health and reducing stress as a result of the help they offer.

Also in 2015-16, more than 2,900 clients were provided with free legal advice by Nottingham Law Centre on issues ranging from debt to welfare, and from benefits to housing. The centre succeeded in getting nearly £67,000 worth of debt written off for its clients, and I know that in one of the other instances that the hon. Gentleman cited—I think it was the Disability Nottingham case—the centre had a tremendous success rate in supporting vulnerable people through tribunals.

The welfare rights service delivered by Nottingham City Council also helps to provide free, confidential and impartial advocacy and advice to citizens from across the city, including making home visits to those people who are unable to attend an appointment.

I must say one thing in respect of the legal aid position that the hon. Gentleman mentioned, in particular the very sad case that he mentioned involving Claire. The Government are committed to ensuring that legal aid continues to be available, particularly in the most important cases, such as those involving domestic violence or if children are at risk of being taken into care.

Given the sensitive issues that those services cover, it is important that they are provided independently of Government, so that their clients can trust that their problems will be treated impartially and in confidence. Also, as many of those clients’ cases relate to interactions with Government agencies or services, such as benefits, it is important to note that the local citizens advice bureaux operate independently and are funded from a variety of sources. In the main, however, they receive their core funding from the local authority in which they are located.

[Mr Leslie]

On that point, the Minister is right to talk about the need for agencies to be at arm’s length from the Government and from Ministers, but I do not think that that necessarily negates the idea of their having some kind of statutory force, to give them that sense of being a function that is supported by society as a whole. If we cannot have that, we must recognise that this is a real “invest to save” situation. As my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham North (Alex Norris) pointed out, for every £1 invested in advice services the Government can save a considerable amount later down the line. It is because these services exist in a sort of non-specific, non-legal context that we sometimes rely too much on charity to underpin advice, rather than making it a right that people have.

--- Later in debate ---

[Margot James]

The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. I would not want to negate the role of charities and local self-help groups, which play a huge role in their communities, but there is a role for Government to ensure that some impartial, independent advice is available. Through the Citizens Advice national agreements that we have, my Department funds Citizens Advice nationally. For example, helping people in the area of fuel poverty and energy advice is a statutory service that Citizens Advice offers; the service is funded by Government, but the advice is given impartially and independently of Government. Therefore, it is important to note that Citizens Advice operates independently, even though it is funded by our Department to a certain extent, to help it to meet its resourcing needs.

It is the local authority, not central Government, that is better placed to make decisions about advice provision in its local area, based on local priorities and need. However, we must remember that local authorities are independent of central Government. They are responsible for their own finances and recruitment, and are accountable to their local electorate. So, when it comes to spending or resourcing, however difficult the decisions are, it is for local authorities such as Nottingham City Council to make those decisions. I hope that, whatever the outcome, the people of Nottingham will still be able to access free, independent advice, and that the national body, Citizens Advice, which is funded by my Department, will help to ensure that that continues to be the case.

We know and understand that some people are vulnerable, and that some will need more support than others. That is why the Government continue to spend around £90 billion a year on a strong welfare safety net. One example of that is our troubled families programme, which is helping to turn around the lives of 400,000 people. I know that it is doing very important work in Nottingham, and under the priority families programme led by Nottingham City Council, 1,200 families have already been helped to turn their lives around, and a further 3,480 families are engaging in the programme.

To reiterate, the Government remain committed to, and supportive of, the right to free, independent advice. As I have said, that advice is best delivered by independent organisations at the local level, although I am mindful of the need for the Government to continue to play a role on a statutory basis, as I mentioned earlier in response to the hon. Member for Nottingham East (Mr Leslie). However, those with the knowledge, expertise and experience are helping people from all walks of life on all manner of issues.

Clearly, as the hon. Member for Nottingham North pointed out, a huge amount of good work is being done by the people of Nottingham, the staff and the volunteers in providing this vital work and support. I salute them all. I hope that the local Government will continue to recognise and support their hugely valuable work for many years to come.

Question put and agreed to.

Royal Mail Delivery Office Closures

Margot James Excerpts

Wednesday 11th October 2017 Westminster Hall

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Gapes. I congratulate the hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes) on securing today’s important debate at which some crucial issues facing the Royal Mail and the public that it serves have been raised. The Government recognise the crucial role that postal services play in communities across the country. The relocation and closure process that is the subject of the debate has dominated discussion. I would like to respond to some of the points made.

There are very good drivers for running an efficient and effective delivery service. Proposed relocations or closures of delivery offices are part of Royal Mail’s ongoing business transformation, which aims to meet changing customer expectations, increase efficiency and, yes, keep costs under control. Royal Mail always engages with its people and the trade unions before any decision to close a delivery office is taken. It also writes to the local MP and issues a press release, to provide an opportunity for wider public engagement, which is taken into account in the final decision-making process. The same goes for the Post Office.

[Helen Hayes]

It has been my experience in my constituency that the lack of an obligation on Royal Mail itself to consult the public is a huge omission in that process. Royal Mail relies on notifying the local MP and assuming that the news will somehow get out. Of course we make a noise about it, but that is no substitute for the organisation itself consulting and engaging with the public it serves. Will the Minister comment on that?

[Margot James]

I thank the hon. Lady for her question. I will take that point back to Royal Mail. I have been given the impression that the consultation requirements for changes such as the relocations and closures that we are discussing are the same for Royal Mail as they are for the Post Office. If that has not been the case in her constituency, I will raise that issue directly with Royal Mail.

Many local residents and businesses rely on the convenient facility that Royal Mail offers for the collection of parcels and items of mail. Where closure or relocation is necessary, Royal Mail takes care to ensure that there will be no impact on deliveries to its customers. I recognise from comments that have been made in the debate that there is a strong feeling that that statement does not seem to transmit to Members present or, possibly, to the wider public.

The postmen and women who deliver to the postcode areas covered by a relocated delivery office will continue to serve the local community. Customers do not have to visit a delivery office to collect items of mail if they are unable to do so or are not at home when Royal Mail first attempts delivery. The hon. Member for East Dunbartonshire (Jo Swinson) raised concerns about the alternative methods that are in place, which I will run through before I come to her proposal. Royal Mail has put in place a variety of options to ensure that customers get their deliveries in the most convenient way possible. It will always attempt to leave an item with a neighbour in the first instance, and customers may nominate a neighbour to take in their parcel. It is also possible for customers to arrange a delivery free of charge on a day that is convenient for them, including Saturdays. A further option is to arrange for the item to be delivered to a different address in the same postcode area. Those are several ways in which Royal Mail has attempted to maintain customer service.

The hon. Lady proposed that local networks of delivery points, including post offices, should be considered. There is already an option to redirect mail to a post office —that is a paid-for service, for which I believe the charge is 70p—but I am sure that Royal Mail will be open to that suggestion and others, as it is determined to improve its customer service throughout this change process.

[Hugh Gaffney]

The Minister mentioned post offices. The whole point of the debate is that post offices are shutting down on the high street and that people are travelling further to collect parcels.

--- Later in debate ---

[Margot James]

The hon. Gentleman is not quite right about that. Post offices are not closing. In fact, the post office network is now sustainable; more outlets are opening for many more hours.

[Hugh Gaffney]

indicated dissent.

[Margot James]

If the hon. Gentleman means Crown post offices, I understand his point. Many of those post offices are being franchised to other retail outlets, but some of those outlets are more convenient for customers. That point should not be lost on him.

While I am addressing the Post Office, which is not the subject of this debate, I will take up the point made by the hon. Member for Falkirk (John Mc Nally). I am not aware of the closure at the moment of any Royal Mail distribution centre in Falkirk, so perhaps he will provide the details. As far as I am aware, there is not one closing in Falkirk. He talked about the closure of post offices up and down the country. That simply is not the case. I will send him the statistics for post offices opening, rather than closing, around the country. The total numbers bear out what I am saying.

[Jo Swinson]

Will the Minister give way?

[Margot James]

I will one last time, as I am aware of the clock ticking.

[Jo Swinson]

I appreciate the Minister’s giving way, and she is of course right that, as the hon. Member for Falkirk (John Mc Nally) mentioned, there were a significant number of post office closures under the Labour Government. That was halted, but that is exactly why it is a good network. I urge the Minister to ask Royal Mail not to put barriers in the way of people using the network, such as the 70p additional charge for consumers. Surely there must be a solution, given that Royal Mail is trying to save some costs. It is a small amount of money that might go to the post office, and if we save consumers from having to shell out, it would be more of a success.

[Margot James]

As the hon. Lady knows, I am not responsible for the operational aspects of Royal Mail, but I shall put that to its management. It is appropriate that she has raised the matter of costs, as I was just coming on to that; it is important that we appreciate why business transformation is necessary.

Efficiency is a key component of ensuring the financial sustainability of the universal obligation. Price increases are not a long-term solution, particularly in such a competitive market. We have already heard that the market for letters has declined by 40%. The market for parcels, while buoyant, is highly competitive. At the time of the 2008 Hooper review, Royal Mail was estimated to be 40% less efficient than international comparators. Since the Postal Services Act 2011 Royal Mail has spent more than £1 billion on its transformation programme. In 2010 only 8% of Royal Mail letters were sorted by machine, compared with 85% for leading EU operators. The investment that Royal Mail has made has closed the gap and increased automation of letter sorting to more than 80%. Ofcom has found that those investments have improved efficiency.

--- Later in debate ---

[Margot James]

I was coming to efficiency. Ofcom has found that the investments made by Royal Mail have improved efficiency. Labour productivity in delivery and processing increased by 5.6% between 2011 and 2015. Royal Mail’s transformation programme between 2012 and 2015 produced cumulative savings of £340 million—an average of £110 million per year. In its review of postal services regulation, Ofcom recognised the steps that Royal Mail had taken on transformation but also concluded that it could do even more to improve efficiency. Royal Mail’s approach to the continuous improvement of its efficiency and productivity allows it to be more competitive and helps it to meet changing customer expectations. The closure of some distribution points was because of the new market in packages, for example. Some of the old distribution points were simply not large enough or fit for purpose for the modern requirements for so many packages. The totality adds up to a company better positioned to grow its existing customer relationships and win new business.

A number of colleagues have talked about the privatisation and the financial side of the management of Royal Mail. I just point out that since privatisation Royal Mail has invested £1.4 billion in employee pension schemes. That is a vast amount of money. It has also paid out dividends of £800 million, which it has to do as a publicly quoted company. One of the key reasons for privatisation was to put Royal Mail on a footing where it could borrow on the markets to fund its investment rather than have to compete with schools, hospitals and other Treasury-backed spending obligations. As such, it has managed to raise £500 million in debt and has maintained profitability, as well as growing sales, in a highly competitive market. I do feel that rather than criticising the chief executive, I should put on record my admiration for her in the difficult job that she has had steering Royal Mail through a highly competitive environment. I appreciate that there are other views on the matter, but I must put that on record as my view.

Overall, the service and value provided by Royal Mail to its customers is good and, where it needs to make difficult commercial decisions, it does so in a way that minimises disruption to businesses and consumers. The CWU’s announcement last week of a 48-hour national strike, planned to commence on 19 October, will challenge even Royal Mail’s high delivery standards. We are hopeful that both parties will reach an amicable solution on the matters under discussion and avoid a strike, if at all possible, and the inevitable disruption to the postal service that would follow. If the worst happens, Royal Mail has planned contingency arrangements in place to minimise the impact on delivery services. It is inevitable, however, that some or all delivery offices will be affected during any industrial action.

Ofcom also has a well-established monitoring regime that allows it to track market developments closely and that informs its decisions about the regulatory framework. We hope that both sides will keep talking—I think that is something all hon. Members agree with—and that an amicable solution is found. It is in everyone’s interests to see Royal Mail continue its proud tradition of delivering the UK’s universal postal service in the private sector.

I congratulate the Royal Mail and its hard-working staff. I am sure it will continue to focus on delivering this key mission: connecting companies, customers and communities; making e-commerce happen; and delivering the universal service obligation.

Leaving the EU: Consumer Protection

Margot James Excerpts

Tuesday 10th October 2017 Westminster Hall

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Streeter. I am pleased to have the opportunity to discuss the impact of the UK’s exit from the European Union on consumers.

First of all, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Vicky Ford) on tabling a debate on this very important issue. As the Prime Minister has made clear, most recently in her speech in Florence last month, the UK’s vote to leave the EU was not a vote to abandon our relationship with the EU. We want to maintain our deep and special partnership with it. We are leaving its institutions, but we remain a close ally, and we are committed to working with it to secure the best outcomes and to maintain strong consumer protections.

As hon. Members have made clear, consumers are crucial for UK prosperity. Household expenditure accounts for around 60% of our economy. In 2016, 83% of UK consumers used the internet to order goods or services, and 23% used it to order goods or services from another EU country. Engaged, confident consumers stimulate competition in markets and drive responsible business practices, benefiting businesses and consumers alike. This is crucial to ensuring that our economy works for everyone, which is a key objective of our industrial strategy, which will put the UK in a strong position for the future.

British people do not want shoddy goods or services and we will ensure consumers are protected from dangerous products and unfair trading practices. Making sure consumers are protected, wherever and however they purchase goods and services, is a top priority. As the hon. Member for Makerfield (Yvonne Fovargue) pointed out, the UK has a strong history in its own right of protecting consumers. The Consumer Rights Act 2015 updated the laws governing every business selling directly to consumers and gave consumers clear rights. UK consumers have also relied on domestic laws in advance of EU legislation; for example, laws outlawed unreasonable contract terms almost 20 years before the EU legislated to ban them.

We have demonstrated our commitment to high standards for consumers by going beyond EU minimum standards in a number of other areas. For example, the UK led the way in protecting consumers purchasing digital content in the 2015 Act, before the Commission brought forward its proposals on digital content later that year. That point was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford, who played a key role in the development of that consumer protection framework as chair of the European Parliament’s Committee on Internal Market and Consumer Protection. Her scrutiny of EU proposals has been crucial to ensuring the law works for citizens and businesses alike. As she knows, the UK has worked closely with the European Commission, and in the Council, to develop a robust regime.

While we remain an EU member, we are continuing to fulfil our obligations fully and in good faith. We are setting the agenda where we can, to ensure that our legislation remains fit for purpose in the digital age. For example, the Digital Economy Act 2017 includes important measures to protect consumers and the UK’s position as a world leader in the digital economy. It includes protections against spam mail, and against children easily accessing online pornography, just as protections exist offline.

At EU level, we have secured general approaches in the Council on two pieces of consumer legislation this year: the digital content directive and the consumer protection co-operation regulation. Both files will increase consumers’ protection when buying online and set clear obligations for traders and businesses. Those are just two examples of how we have achieved robust protections. We will seek to continue working closely with the European Union on issues such as information sharing and enforcement co-operation.

We have a proud history of protecting consumers, but I agree with hon. Members that that should not make us complacent, following our exit from the European Union. I turn to our plans to protect UK consumers through the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill. The Bill will ensure that we exit the EU with maximum stability and provide certainty for businesses and consumers. It will ensure that UK consumer protections based on EU legislation are clearly retained, and that when a consumer buys from a trader based in the UK after exit, they can rely on the same rights that they currently enjoy. The way consumer protections apply internationally in the future is a matter for negotiations. However, our starting point is that we must continue to have effective protection for consumers, particularly those buying across borders, and we will work with the EU to secure the best possible deal for consumers in that respect.

Hon. Members have raised the question of how well we are working with stakeholders. I am disappointed to hear that, according to the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough (Gill Furniss), stakeholders have been frustrated in their desire for ministerial attention, and I can assure her that I will do my best to put that right. It is essential that we work with stakeholders to understand the impacts on consumers of the UK’s exit from the EU. As the hon. Lady pointed out, Minsters and officials have met a range of stakeholders, including Money Saving Expert, Citizens Advice and Which?, and in April 2017, when he was in post, Lord Bridges of Headley opened the National Consumer Federation’s consumer congress, which explored how we can secure the best outcomes for consumers after Brexit. I am pleased that Which? has been conducting an in-depth analysis of the range of impacts that EU exit will have on citizens.

My hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford mentioned some important areas for consumers, showing what a wide-ranging and integral issue this is. Flights, data roaming, insurance: it is vital that we have the complete picture of consumer concerns. That is why I agree that talking to consumer groups and businesses is vital. I have invited consumer groups and the devolved Administrations to meet me and the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union, so that we can hear their views and discuss key EU-exit issues. I look forward to continuing that engagement.

A number of other issues were raised concerning travel protections. Consumer protection for flights based on EU law will be retained in the EU withdrawal Bill, meaning that British consumers will be able to rely on the same rights after we leave the EU as they have now. On advance booking, it is a high priority to identify new arrangements at least 12 months before we formally leave the EU, to ensure legal certainty for consumers.

More broadly, maintaining liberal access to EU markets is a high priority for the Government. We recognise the importance of air services to the health of the economy. The hon. Member for Bristol North West (Darren Jones) spoke with great knowledge about that subject and others relevant to this debate, reminding us that we must ensure that our post-Brexit consumer protection is fit for the future. I hope that his justifiable complaint against WOW Air is resolved.

The hon. Member for Makerfield raised a valid point about the future of our connection with the Rapex rapid alert system for dangerous non-food products. Intelligence sharing will remain vital post-Brexit, and we are working already with the EU to explore options for maintaining information sharing across borders. I agree with her that it is vital.

Various hon. Members mentioned product safety. Maintaining high standards for product safety is a high priority for the Government. I was asked specifically about the state of discussions on whether the British Standards Institution will continue to be involved in European standards setting. The BSI, the UK’s national standards body, is independent of Government, but we are working with it to ensure that our future relationship with the European standard-setting bodies continues to support a productive and open competitive business environment in the UK. They are assisting us as we roll out improvements to the product safety and withdrawal regime. The European standard-setting bodies, such as the European Committee for Standardisation, are not EU bodies, although they have a special status in the EU.

We remain committed to securing the best deal for UK citizens during the Brexit negotiations. That is as true for citizens as consumers as it is of any other aspect of their lives. As I said, the UK’s framework already sets high standards, and the EU withdrawal Bill will ensure that EU-derived protections are enshrined in existing UK law. Our aim is no reduction in protections for UK consumers after EU exit. It behoves us all, and certainly me while I am responsible for consumer protection, to work hard after EU exit to ensure that our consumer protection regime continues to be an example to the rest of the world. That will be a responsibility for future parliamentarians, but I certainly sense from the remarks made in this debate that we are all concerned not only to put in place a regime that is as good as it has been throughout our membership of the European Union, but to work to continue to improve it and ensure that it is fit for the future environment.

We recognise that for protections that rely on co-operation with, or action by, EU member states, negotiation is needed, and we enter those negotiations with ambition and some optimism. We start from a strong position of trust in one other’s institutions, and a spirit of co-operation stretching back many decades. Through open and honest dialogue with our European partners, we remain committed to achieving strong outcomes for consumers through the Brexit negotiations, and to continued co-operation with EU consumer protection sources of information, and to sharing, post-Brexit. With that, I hand over to my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford.

European Union (Approvals) Bill

Margot James Excerpts

3rd reading: House of Commons & Committee: 1st sitting: House of Commons & Report stage: House of Commons
Tuesday 10th October 2017 Commons Chamber

[The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

With this it will be convenient to discuss clause 2.

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

This is a short Bill. As I explained on Second Reading, the purpose of the Bill is to approve four draft decisions of the Council of the European Union. All four draft decisions rely on article 352 of the treaty on the functioning of the European Union, and therefore require the approval of Parliament. Section 8 of the European Union Act 2011 provides for exemptions in order to avoid the requirement for an Act of Parliament, but the decisions with which we are dealing do not fall within any of the exempt purposes.

The first two decisions will enable two countries, the Republic of Albania and the Republic of Serbia, to be granted observer status in the European Union’s Fundamental Rights Agency. The third and fourth decisions are necessary to implement a co-operation agreement between the EU and Canada on competition enforcement. Clause 1 provides for approval by Parliament of those four draft EU legislative decisions. Clause 2 concerns the territorial extent of the Bill, its commencement date and short title. Subsection (1) provides that the Bill extends to the whole United Kingdom, subsection (2) provides that the Bill will come into force on the day it receives Royal Assent and subsection (3) provides for the Bill’s short title.

We are content that all four decisions are reasonable and proportionate, and that they will not result in any additional financial burdens on the UK. I urge hon. Members to agree to clauses 1 and 2 standing part of the Bill.

[Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)]

The European Union (Approvals) Bill is a two-clause Bill, as the Minister has said. It will approve four draft decisions of the Council of the European Union in relation to the participation of the Republics of Albania and Serbia as observers in the work of the Agency for Fundamental Rights, and the signing and conclusion of a new agreement between the EU and Canada regarding competition law, including the exchange of information between the EU and the Canadian Competition Bureau. Approval of those decisions by means of an Act of Parliament is necessary under the European Union Act 2011 in order for a Minister to vote in favour in the Council.

The Fundamental Rights Agency replaced the European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia in 2007. As the Europa website states, the agency advises EU institutions and national Governments on fundamental rights, particularly in the areas of discrimination, access to justice, racism and xenophobia, data protection, victims’ rights and children’s rights. The agency’s areas of work have been determined through a five-year framework, and the main priority areas include the fight against racism, xenophobia and related intolerance. EU candidate countries can participate in the FRA as observers. The Bill approves two draft decisions on the participation of the Republic of Albania and the Republic of Serbia as observers in the FRA’s work. We support the draft decisions concerning the participation of Albania and Serbia in the FRA.

Competition is vital to our economy, the success of our businesses and the prosperity of the people of our country, and the encouragement of healthy competition is vital. National Governments have a vital role in ensuring that a fair market exists, and not just a free market. The way in which Governments work together is also crucial in determining whether markets are free, fair or otherwise. The decision of the Trump regime to impose punitive tariffs on Bombardier will have a disastrous effect on the workers and communities of Northern Ireland, and on the economy. Such tariffs, if they are allowed to stand, exemplify the use by companies such as Boeing of market dominance to destroy competition.

--- Later in debate ---

[Margot James]

I beg to move, That the Bill now be read the Third time.

The brief explanation that accompanied the clause stand part debate in Committee covered all the points that need to be made about this short Bill. I thank all hon. Members who have contributed so fully, and I am grateful for their support for the measures. I wish the Bill an equally swift passage through the other place and on to Royal Assent.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

[Grahame Morris (Easington) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. With your permission, I would like to pay tribute to a loyal servant of this House, Trevor Ford, who has been a Doorkeeper for more than 20 years and is retiring today. He is from my region; he was actually born in Gateshead, but is a proud red and white Sunderland supporter all the same. He served with great distinction in the Royal Air Force from 1969 to 1992 and completed tours in both Northern Ireland, during the 1970s, and West Germany. In 1996, he became a Doorkeeper here in the House of Commons. Many of us will know that Trevor has worked at almost every post in and around the Chamber; he has worked in the Members’ Lobby, at the back of the Speaker’s Chair, in the Strangers Gallery and, more recently, in the Special Gallery. He has been the Bar Doorkeeper and has led the Speaker’s Procession on many occasions. He is a thoroughly well liked, thoroughly decent individual, and he has served this House with great distinction for 21 years. On behalf of the whole House, I would like to thank him for his loyal service and wish him well on his retirement.

Employment Tribunals

Margot James Excerpts

Wednesday 13th September 2017 Commons Chamber

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

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mike Penning) on securing today’s important debate, and I extend my heartfelt condolences to Mrs Hardie for the loss of her husband.

I am aware of the Law Society Gazette article on my hon. Friend’s constituency case relating to unfair dismissal and how the judge treated the matter of discretion. Although I cannot comment on the detail, I am very sympathetic to the position in which Mrs Hardie finds herself, and, of course, I am very happy to meet her with my hon. Friend.

I can confirm that the “just and equitable” test is wider than the “reasonably practicable” test. A tribunal can extend time for bringing a discrimination claim forward where it considers it just and equitable to do so. For unfair dismissal cases, the claimant must demonstrate that it was not reasonably practicable to bring the claim within three months for the tribunals to extend the time and to allow the claim to proceed. Case law has established that demonstrating that it was not reasonably practicable is a more demanding test than establishing that it is just and equitable for the claim to proceed. This is what Parliament has set out in legislation. The time limit in both cases is stipulated in the relevant Act. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for bringing this issue to my attention, because I was not aware of the impact that the difference in wording can have in cases such as that of his constituent.

[Mike Penning]

One of things that was so distressing to Anna was that she was cross-examined about whether she had had conversations with her husband and asked where was the proof. There is no proof that I proposed to my wife. It was a very personal thing between me and her—there is no written evidence about the proposal. To say in a cross-examination that she had no proof that her husband wanted to do this, even though Anna had clearly discussed it with him, is abhorrent. She was cross-examined at a time that was enormously distressing for her.

[Margot James]

Although I said I could not comment on the details of the case, I must say, given what my hon. Friend says, that there are situations in which the law itself is insufficient to guide the behaviour of barristers in their work. I find myself very sympathetic to the concern and horror expressed by my hon. Friend.

[Mike Penning]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Margot James]

Yes, I would be delighted. I wanted to refer to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mrs Miller), but before I do so I will give way to my hon. Friend.

[Mike Penning]

Can I just say that I have had the honour of kissing the Queen, so I am a right hon. Member? That might give the Minister a bit of time to find the right page. It is sometimes hard to do that; it has happened to me on more than one occasion. It was a great pleasure to have kissed the Queen’s hand.

[Margot James]

I do apologise to my right hon. Friend—and indeed to my right hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke. Towards the end of the day, one forgets these terms, but they are important.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke raised the issue of pregnant women or women who have just given birth and the time limit in respect of bringing cases to employment tribunals. She and I have discussed this in the past, and I am aware of the recommendations of her Select Committee, the Women and Equalities Committee, on this point. I can confirm that we are reviewing whether we need stronger protection against redundancy for pregnant women and women returning from maternity leave. We will consult on options in due course, and we would very much welcome her views during that process.

[Mrs Miller]

I warmly welcome my hon. Friend’s announcement, which will draw very positive comments from well beyond these walls. Could that review perhaps be extended to cover the points raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mike Penning), who has made a most compelling case for people who are in the particular circumstances that his constituent found herself?

[Margot James]

I thank my right hon. Friend, who makes a sensible proposal. I hesitate to make too much of a commitment based on one case, no matter how harrowing it is. I think I must first meet Anna, if I may call her by her first name, and my right hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead. However, I will certainly take the suggestion by my right hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke into consideration, as we are indeed reviewing the position with regard to pregnant women and women returning from maternity leave.

I have not said much about bringing cases to employment tribunals, but the first step, of course, is for people to refer themselves to the arbitration service ACAS. The Government are committed to encouraging people to resolve their workplace disputes without the stress and cost of an employment tribunal. I reiterate that I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead for bringing this harrowing case to my attention. Although I have had to reserve my position regarding whether to include the situation in which his constituent finds herself—

[Mike Penning]

rose—

[Margot James]

Was that a request for another intervention? Of course I will give way to my right hon. Friend.

[Mike Penning]

I thank the Minister for agreeing to meet my constituent. She has opened a Pandora’s box, because she has quite rightly said that she wants to see other evidence to show that this is not a one-off. I took advice, as she probably saw from the article in the Law Society Gazette, from eminent lawyers, including Kerry Underwood from Underwoods Solicitors, who is a specialist in this area. She will find that not one, not two, but lots and lots of cases like this have been time-barred, when common sense and natural justice might have suggested that they should be allowed to go through.

[Margot James]

In the case that there turns out to be a substantial body of evidence, as my right hon. Friend has indicated, I am sure that it will be very persuasive. I suggest that he invites the relevant Minister from the Ministry of Justice to join our meeting, because responsibility for this matter is shared across two Departments. With that, I conclude my remarks and thank my right hon. Friend again for bringing this matter to the attention of the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Bereavement Leave: Loss of a Child

Margot James Excerpts

Tuesday 12th September 2017 Westminster Hall

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Brady. I welcome the opportunity to discuss this tragic issue, and I thank the hon. Member for East Renfrewshire (Paul Masterton) for securing this important debate and for his thoughtful remarks. I also thank the all-party parliamentary groups mentioned in this debate for their positive work.

I reassure all hon. Members that the Government remain committed to supporting the private Member’s Bill of my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake) on parental bereavement leave and pay, which comes on the heels of a similar Bill brought last year by my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester (Will Quince), to whom I shall return in my remarks. I met the two of them today to flesh out some of the details of the issue.

Unquestionably, the death of a child is traumatic and deeply upsetting for any parent. I agree wholeheartedly with the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) that the loss of a child or baby is the worst form of bereavement that a human can suffer, a point reinforced by other Members in their contributions. It consigns most sufferers to a lifetime of grief, which, at best, if they are fortunate, they learn to live with over time. That was powerfully put by the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Patricia Gibson) in a speech of great impact. I extend my heartfelt condolences to her and to all Members, and all observers of this debate, who have been personally affected by this terrible, life-changing event.

The Government expect employers to be sympathetic and flexible when employees request leave in such circumstances, but acknowledge that that is not always the case. I have been upset to hear from several hon. Members about the survey, and about individual instances of inhumane behaviour that I do not think that any amount of human resources training could begin to address. We recognise that without a statutory entitlement to time off following the death of a child, the situation will not rectify itself.

Our manifesto committed to ensuring that bereaved parents can take time away from work to grieve for a lost child. As I have mentioned, the Government remain fully committed to that. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester for the huge amount of work that he did during the last Parliament, which led directly to the making of that commitment in the Conservative party manifesto. I know that a similar commitment was made in the Labour party manifesto.

The particulars of the Bill are being carefully considered, so it would be premature to go into too much detail about the proposals, but I will of course bear in mind the detailed questions and suggestions from the shadow Minister and discuss them with my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton and with Treasury officials. Officials in my Department met interested stakeholders over the summer and had some fruitful discussions, which have helped to shape our thinking. I was heartened to hear that there is wide support for the Bill among employer and employee groups, charitable organisations and parents alike.

Many hon. Members have mentioned the importance of bereavement services. The quality of care that bereaved families receive can have long-lasting effects. The Government have invested £35 million to improve birthing environments from that perspective. The improvements include better bereavement rooms and quiet area spaces at 40 hospitals. There is, of course, more to do, as the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North (Gavin Newlands) amply demonstrated in his contribution.

[Jim Shannon]

Will the Minister give way?

[Margot James]

I am mindful of time. If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I only have five minutes left and a number of questions to answer.

The Government are supporting Sands, the stillbirth and neonatal death charity, to work with other baby loss charities and royal colleges to produce a national bereavement care pathway to reduce variation in the quality of bereavement care provided by the NHS. I noted the intervention by the right hon. Member for Enfield North (Joan Ryan) about the evolving needs of bereaved parents, some of whom will need to access bereavement services long-term. That point was reinforced by the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran. Sands is also working on a project for NHS England on the role of bereavement midwives.

The Department of Health has published “Health Building Note 09-02: Maternity care facilities”, a guideline on the design and planning of maternity care facilities in new healthcare buildings and the adaptation and extension of existing facilities. In line with the guidance, we expect new build or redesigned maternity units to include facilities for parents and families who suffer bereavement at any stage of pregnancy or in the immediate aftermath. The standard of neonatal care across Scotland, as my hon. Friend the Member for East Renfrewshire has rightly pointed out, is a matter for the Scottish Government, but I share his concerns and encourage him to take it up with Scottish Ministers.

I listened with interest to the hon. Member for Glasgow East (David Linden) on the work of children’s hospices and palliative care services in Scotland, which should be brought to the attention of Health Ministers in the UK and, if possible, of those working on the national bereavement guidelines.

The self-employed were mentioned. Those who are self-employed and bereaved face different challenges from people who are employed, but no less demanding ones. As Matthew Taylor argued in his review of employment and protections, the tax that people pay and the entitlements that they receive are linked, so it is right that we consider the wider arrangements for the self-employed in a holistic way that includes tax benefits and rights. The Government will come back to the Taylor review, including those matters, with a full response before the end of the year.

Since 2010, we have taken steps to equalise the state benefits provided to the employed and self-employed, including giving the self-employed access to the full rate of the new state pension for the first time, so there is a precedent. We agree with the principle of equalising benefits for the self-employed, but that should happen alongside reforms to taxation, which will need to be considered carefully over the longer term. The self-employed will need to be consulted as part of those deliberations.

I draw hon. Members’ attention to the ACAS guidance document for employers, “Managing bereavement in the workplace—a good practice guide”, which was developed with the charity Cruse Bereavement Care for people who have lost a loved one. I hope that the valuable work done by so many hon. Members to raise awareness of this terrible issue will have an impact on employers, as well as on the health services and wider society.

Hon. Members raised the important point that some employers struggle to know the best way to support staff in these circumstances. We support the Bill introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton, which will put matters on a statutory footing, but there is a lot more that employers can do. It was disturbing to hear of the survey showing that only a third of people who suffered this terrible experience felt adequately supported by their employers.

The ACAS guidance highlights the important role that employers can play and their duty of care to employees, and includes specific advice about parents who lose a child. Most importantly, it helps employers understand how grief might affect their employees. It provides practical steps that employers can take when they are notified by their member of staff, in the immediate aftermath, and when the employee returns to work. The guidance has been well received by employers, and we will consider how we can continue to work with ACAS to promote it further and embed a cultural change in companies up and down the country, given the importance of the issue.

I thank all hon. Members for their contributions to the debate. It has come at a valuable time in our thinking.