Oral Answers to Questions

Will Quince Excerpts

Tuesday 12th February 2019 Commons Chamber

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

I am very pleased to assure the hon. Lady that we are not only doing enough, but leading the developed world. Our renewables generation has increased fourfold since 2010. We have decarbonised our economy—as our four nations—more than any other country in the G20, and we were the first industrialised county to seriously look at that shocking Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report and ask our own independent Committee on Climate Change for its advice on how we can get to a net zero-carbon economy going forward.

[Will Quince (Colchester) (Con)]

T5.   It is concerning that the Department’s research has estimated that 54,000 women a year may lose their jobs due to pregnancy or maternity, and that one in nine women has said that they were fired or made redundant when they returned to work after having a child. What steps can my hon. Friend take to address this issue?

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

I thank my hon. Friend for that question. Let me be clear: pregnancy and maternity discrimination is unacceptable and illegal. That is why, last month, the Government announced a consultation on pregnancy and maternity discrimination. The consultation seeks to extend redundancy protection for pregnant women and it seeks views on what the Department is doing to tackle pregnancy and maternity discrimination. I point out that this will go beyond what the EU currently allows.

Oral Answers to Questions

Will Quince Excerpts

Tuesday 8th January 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call Will Quince. [Interruption.] I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is delighted to have excited such a reaction, but I would like to hear what he has to say.

[Will Quince (Colchester) (Con)]

T6. Thank you, Mr Speaker. Will my right hon. Friend join me in welcoming the £900 million cut in business rates announced at the most recent Budget, which will benefit thousands of small businesses up and down our country, including in Colchester?

[Kelly Tolhurst]

I am delighted to join my hon. Friend in welcoming this recent measure, which has benefited small businesses so well. We have cut corporation tax to 19%. As a result of cuts made by this Government since 2017 through the small business rate relief, over 655,000 small businesses—the occupiers of a third of all business properties—pay no rates at all.

Stage Lighting: Efficiency Regulations

Will Quince Excerpts

Friday 15th June 2018 Commons Chamber

[Will Quince (Colchester) (Con)]

I thank my hon. Friend the Minister for being here to respond to this debate and apologise for making his Friday longer than it might otherwise have been.

Britain has a world-class arts and culture scene that generates a huge amount of tourism, growth and economic activity. In no sector is this more true than our theatre scene, which is not only beloved by millions of theatregoers up and down the country but engages with people from all ages and backgrounds, from the pantomime at Christmas in our local theatre to the big-name productions at the National theatre and everything in between. Theatre gives everyone an opportunity to take part, whether children at school, amateur dramatics in the local village hall, or world-class theatrical schools up and down the country. Some people even say that this very Chamber is the greatest theatre of them all. I guess that it is true for many MPs that our time in Parliament ends either as a comedy or a tragedy. I live in hope of neither.

We have many fantastic local theatres and performance venues in Colchester: the Mercury and Headgate theatres and Colchester arts centre. These theatres are proof that cuts to the arts are a false economy. Every £1 of grant aid that the Mercury theatre receives generates £3 for the local economy. The total economic impact of this theatre for my local area is £3.6 million—hardly an insignificant sum.

[Robert Courts (Witney) (Con)]

My hon. Friend is leading a fascinating debate, and I congratulate him on having secured it. He has talked about the impact of some of his local theatres. In my constituency, in west Oxfordshire, we have Chipping Norton theatre. It belies the description of a local theatre, because people come from all over the country—not just west Oxfordshire—to attend this outstanding venue. I am sure that it is the same with his theatres.

[Will Quince]

I thank my hon. Friend—he is absolutely right. The reputation that precedes so many of our theatres up and down the country means that they attract a wider audience than just the local population. With that comes additional spend from people going to restaurants and staying in hotels. Theatres play a huge role in the local economy. That is one of the reasons—not the only one—why they are so important. Investing in the arts provides a strong cultural boost in our regional towns and cities. These theatres are also where the careers of some of our best British actors and actresses begin and where some of the most innovative plays and productions start their lives.

I have secured this debate because I have real concerns about the impact that potential changes in regulations on stage lighting could have for our local theatres and performance venues. The European Union is currently reviewing legislation on eco-design, which includes lighting. The new regulations, which have been proposed for September 2020, will require a minimum efficiency of 85 lumens per watt and a maximum standby power of 0.5 watts on all light sources, lamps or self-contained fixtures sold within the European Union. As part of the review, an existing exemption was removed. Without this exemption, the majority of tungsten, arc and LED stage lighting fixtures would no longer be available on the market, and venues could be forced to go dark.

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

My hon. Friend gives me the opportunity to mention two establishments in my constituency—the Rex in Wareham and the Tivoli in Wimborne. He mentions EU regulations. I am sure that he will come on to this, but how does Brexit impact on that now that we are of course leaving the European Union?

[Will Quince]

I thank my hon. Friend for his question. Being as observant as he is, as a non-practising barrister, he will know that I mentioned that the regulations come into effect in 2020. Nevertheless, the Government are talking about frictionless trade, and given that this trade regulation will apply across the European Union, it is really important to have an exemption that applies across the EU. We are requesting this exemption for theatres and performance venues in not just the United Kingdom but across the EU, and I will come on to that. I am glad he had the opportunity to mention two of his local theatres, both of which I have heard of, so their reputation precedes them.

Some people may say that this is fine. They will ask, “Why shouldn’t theatres and other performance venues play their part in saving the environment?” The theatre and entertainment industry do want to play their part. They fully support the sustainability agenda and are taking steps day by day to improve their environmental standards. However, introducing these regulations without an exemption will have a considerable negative impact across European entertainment industries that would far outweigh the positive intentions behind the proposals.

With such a steep climb, there would be a tremendous financial burden on theatres, community halls, churches, schools and every single performance venue that uses theatrical lighting instruments as part of its shows. It is true that nothing in the new regulations requires venues to stop using their existing fittings, yet what good is a lamp without a bulb? Once the bulbs can no longer be sold, the existing fixtures will become worthless. That does not exactly support the principles of a more circular economy.

It is not possible to simply buy a compliant LED replacement bulb for a stage light. That is not how it works. In the entertainment industry, LED lights come as one whole unit, and the current cost for one of these high-quality lights is approximately £2,500. If someone runs a venue with, say, 300 tungsten sources and they need to be replaced overnight, along with the infrastructure that runs them, the total cost quickly escalates. Likewise, for those who run a community hall and own 10 lights, put on two shows a year and are used to spending only £20 on a bulb every now and then, the financial demand would be crippling.

If these regulations are introduced as they currently stand, there will only be a limited supply of existing bulbs. Once they are gone, they are gone, leaving behind an enormous amount of otherwise perfectly functioning scrap metal and glass. If theatres and venues were to refit their tungsten and arc rigs with the high-quality LED lights required—provided, of course, that they are available on the market—they would need to do so before September 2020.

The estimated cost of this transition to the UK theatre industry alone is £1.2 billion. This is considerable disruption and cost for limited power savings, given how entertainment lighting is typically used, notwith- standing the enormous amount of waste generated and electricity and energy used to manufacture and ship the new fixtures. Surely, there is a better way to achieve such energy savings. Even if venues could afford an overhaul of this magnitude, no high-quality LED lighting units currently on the market are compliant with these proposals. Venues will be left with no adequate tools with which to light productions.

Just as important an issue is how these regulations will affect the technical elements behind the productions we witness. Research and technical development over the past decade have enabled significant progress in LED spotlights to make them suitable for use in stage lighting for theatrical productions. However, it is still not possible to replace all professional entertainment lighting products with LEDs. The currently used tungsten lightbulbs allow for a wide spectrum of colour choice that can reliably fade and mix with the rest of a rig, so that all elements of a show can be precisely controlled to the needs of a production. LEDs are now approaching a similar standard, but these developments have all come about organically.

The introduction of these proposals would stifle such innovation, and as a result, we would be left with little more than harsh, unflattering floodlights with which to light our productions. It should be noted that it is extremely difficult to get LED lights perfectly to dim all the way off in the same manner as traditional lighting, and that for the lighting of live events very small halogen lamps, with a diameter of 0.5 cm, are used to produce a high-power output. Again, there are currently no available replacements for those special lamps with LED technology.

Finally, and probably most importantly, there is the issue of how all those individual issues join together to affect the artistic vision of a production. Change can be important, and perhaps these new conditions will result in visionary directors who take advantage of cold—always on, but not very bright—lighting, but it may lead to some very bleak plays. The reality, however, is that the technical problems with LED lighting will severely affect the artistic quality of performances. The richness of lighting for a live event lies in the diversity of light sources’ colours and intensity; without that, our world-famous productions would be left flat.

The impact of these regulations on local theatres and performance venues will be both financial and artistic, so we need the exemption to remain in place. I therefore turn to my hon. Friend the Minister and say that we should all be concerned about these proposals. Although I am reassured to hear that representatives have been in active, and I understand positive, dialogue with the European Commission about introducing a narrow technical exemption, we need the Government to play their part.

I understand that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, who is himself a fan of the theatre, has written to the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy expressing his Department’s support for an exemption for professional stage lighting for theatres and other venues. I think there is support for that across the sector and across the Government, so I ask the Minister to take forward our concerns to his friends and counterparts at the European Commission. I hope that he can reassure me that this is a priority, and that he will do everything he can to support the industry in securing this important exemption.

We should be very proud of the creative arts sector in our country. It does so much to improve our culture and our communities, yet it is at risk from these regulations, both financially and artistically. That was previously recognised—hence the exemption—so I hope the Government will do all they can to ensure that the exemption continues and that performances up and down this country are not compromised by poor or inadequate lighting, or indeed no lighting at all.

Parental Bereavement (Leave and Pay) Bill

Will Quince Excerpts

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

[Kevin Foster]

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

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

[Will Quince (Colchester) (Con)]

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

[Kevin Foster]

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

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

[Will Quince]

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

[Kevin Foster]

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Kevin Foster]

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

[Will Quince]

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

[Kevin Foster]

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Richard Harrington]

Yes. As ever, the good citizens of Havant are very well served. I make the point clearly that I meet business representative organisations, such as the Confederation of British Industry, the EEF, the Federation of Small Businesses and chambers of commerce, on a weekly basis. They are very responsible and I shall be bringing it up with them. This is a culture change, but culture changes do not happen instantaneously.

On remuneration, I really believe that the Bill again provides the minimum standard for employers. Hon. Members on both sides of the House have spoken about the level, but this is a minimum level, and bereaved parents have to know what the minimum is and what the entitlement is. However, it is not something that they should be negotiating with their employers. I am sure again that employers will be clear, and most will have a policy that is greatly in excess of that.

While I am on the subject, I turn to a point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay. When we were discussing the amendment that deals with remuneration, I was asked about the civil service and whether the Government will provide leadership. I am pleased to announce today that we have decided that civil servants should receive full occupational pay for the one or two weeks that they take off under the Bill’s provisions. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear!”] Many civil servants already take special leave when they find themselves in tragic circumstances, and we obviously want that level of support to continue when the Bill is implemented. I do not think that that makes the civil service particularly special. It should be standard, but I think we should lead by example. I have seen—not to do with child bereavement, but with sickness and other things—that the civil service is very flexible, and we as Government are very responsible employers in that way.

[Will Quince]

I thank the Minister for that very welcome announcement. It sends a very clear message to employers up and down the country that this is the gold standard and very much what we expect them to aspire to.

[Richard Harrington]

My hon. Friend is right: we must lead by example. Offering full pay to our own employees who lose a child means that we are a good employer, but it also provides a best-practice model for other employers to follow.

In relation to amendment 7, my hon. Friend raised an important point about consistency with other family-related leave entitlements. The Bill as drafted makes clear which contractual elements are applicable to parental bereavement leave or pay.

Let me now turn to amendment 8. I will begin with words that you have heard already, Madam Deputy Speaker: I agree with the comments made by many Members. It has been made clear that there is no desire to deviate from frameworks supporting existing measures in the landscape of family-related leave and pay, but that must not be at the expense of fairness and proportionality. Someone may be on family-related leave for many different reasons, and the forms of leave involved are a variety of lengths. They can be taken back to back. Sometimes it is natural for that to be the case, but sometimes it is not.

If the amendment were accepted, it might be possible for a bereaved parent who had been on leave for an extended period—perhaps consisting partly of maternity leave and partly of parental bereavement leave—to be entitled to return to the job that they had before going on leave, whereas a colleague who had been on other forms of family-related leave for the same period of time would not have quite the same right to return. We would not want a fixed “right to return” that was out of kilter with the other, existing “rights to return”.

The Government need the flexibility to set all this out through regulation after they have had time to consider all the various forms of leave and how they could interact with each other. I know that that sounds pedantic. Earlier this week, the hon. Member for Barrow and Furness (John Woodcock) accused me of being a nit-picker—there should probably be a Royal Society of Nit-pickers—but in this instance we have to nit-pick, because the detail is critically important. We should set out the rules only after we have considered the issue. That is, after all, the approach taken in the existing legislation on family-related leave and pay rights.

My hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South (Chris Philp) suggested the extension of leave to parents of premature babies. As I have said, all family leave provisions represent a floor. Employers are encouraged to go beyond the minimum when they can. Last year the Government worked with ACAS to produce new guidance on support for staff who have premature babies. The UK offers generous maternity-leave entitlements —some of the best in the world—and I think that they provide for a variety of circumstances. Parents also have access to other types of leave, such as shared parental and annual leave.

--- Later in debate ---

[Will Quince]

This is indeed a great day. I did not come into politics with the thoughts of being a baby loss campaigner, or a campaigner for bereaved parents. It is tragic circumstances that has brought me, and so many others who work so passionately in this field, to this position. I remember the first journalist whom I spoke to on entering Parliament in 2015—she will know this when I reference the story. It was Isabel Hardman of The Spectator. She said, “If you could achieve one thing in Parliament, what would it be?” I said that it would be paid bereavement leave for parents who sadly lose a child. We are getting very close to that point. It has been an enormous team effort. I repeat the comments made by my friend, the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Patricia Gibson), when I say how brilliant the cross-party working on this issue has been.

It has shown Parliament at its best. More than that, what we have seen over the course of the past two or three years is a seismic shift in the way that we approach bereavement, particularly bereavement for parents. We now have the national bereavement care pathway, which is launching nationwide at the end of this year. That is largely owing to the work of the all-party group on bereavement support. Again, we saw some brilliant cross-party working. We have seen the fantastic work of the hon. Member for Swansea East (Carolyn Harris), who I also call my friend, with her child funeral campaign. Now we have this Bill, which will give us one of the best workers’ rights in this area in the world.

I should like to say some thank-yous. The first goes to all the charities that have played such an important role through all the work that they have done in feeding into this process. This is not a new campaign—it is about something they have been calling for some time.

I pay tribute to all the bereaved parents who have contributed to all the consultations and thought processes that led to the Bill. It is really hard for bereaved parents to share their stories and talk about their own tragic loss, but they are willing to do it if they know it is going to make a difference to people who sadly find themselves in similar circumstances. I encourage the Minister, as this process continues, to continue to engage with bereaved parents. I encourage all bereaved parents who might be listening please to get involved in the consultation.

I thank the all-party parliamentary group on baby loss for all the work that has been done, again cross-party, to feed into this process. Lucy Herd, a bereaved mother who set up Jack’s Rainbow, has campaigned tirelessly on this subject. Someone who has not yet been mentioned, but who absolutely deserves it, is Tom Harris, the former Member for Glasgow South. He is another person who has passionately campaigned on this subject, first as an MP back in 2013, and since then as a journalist. I worked with him very closely behind the scenes on my incarnation of the Bill, and I know that he has continued to follow the path of this Bill very closely.

I thank parliamentary colleagues for all the work that they have done across this House to help to publicise the Bill and to get the word out there in supporting it. I also thank all the parties. After my Bill failed at the end of the last Parliament, all three major parties put this into their manifestos as a policy. That was a huge achievement. At the start of this Parliament, regardless of who ended up forming the Government, this was a manifesto commitment—a pledge—by all three major parties, and it was supported by all the smaller parties too.

I thank the Government and the Minister, because this has been, from the very beginning, like pushing against an open door. These things are never easy. We always look at it and think, “Well, of course it will be an easy thing to do”, but it never is—there are always complications and added consequences for any piece of legislation or change that we make, particularly on something as complex as employment law. But from the very beginning, the Secretary of State for the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, the then Minister of State, and Ministers subsequently have all been so supportive of pushing this agenda forward. I thank all the civil servants who supported it too.

There is one person who I have to single out for the biggest thanks, and that is my hon. Friend—my very good friend—the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake). When the ten-minute rule Bill failed at the end of the last Parliament, my hon. Friend, who has twice been lucky in the private Member’s Bill ballot, took it up. It is easy to underestimate the number of people, charities, organisations and colleagues who would have been lobbying him to put their Bill forward—hundreds and hundreds. Yet it only took one call to him. He did not even say, “I’ll think about it and call you back”—he immediately said, “Yes, of course I’ll do it.” That is to the credit of the man. He has passionately, committedly and determinedly put forward this Bill with great steadfastness and commitment. It is a huge credit to him that we have got as far as we have, and I hope that today we will be sending the Bill up to the House of Lords.

It is important when we consider a Bill of this nature to look at where we are now. Numerous Members have said that the vast majority of employers already do the right thing, and yes, they do. The vast majority act with compassion, kindness and sensitivity, and recognise that this is the most emotionally difficult period that their member of staff has had to, and probably ever will have to, come to terms with. But we are not legislating for them. We are legislating for the tiny minority of employers that do not do the right thing—the ones that act without compassion and with complete insensitivity and carelessness.

I had lots of anecdotal evidence before, but ever since the Bill was presented, a number of people have been in touch to say how disgracefully their employers have acted—and we are not just talking about small employers; we are talking about big ones too. I even heard from one individual who was working in our NHS. That should not be happening. People are being told that they have to come back to work or take it as holiday or unpaid leave, and some are not even given time off to go to their child’s funeral. It is an absolute disgrace. If it is just one person who is affected—if just one person has to go through the huge ordeal of questioning, “Do I go back to work even though I’m not ready and my family need me and I’m going through this horrendous ordeal, or do I lose my job and get sacked and therefore not be able to provide for my family?”—this legislation is worthy and right. That is why I wholeheartedly support the Bill and we have to act.

We have discussed grief a lot today. I have had an experience of grief, and I know what my grief was like. I have a small understanding of what my wife’s grief was like, but we all grieve differently. That is why it is so important that we ensure there is flexibility in the Bill and its future incarnations, as we potentially tweak it. We have put two weeks’ leave in the Bill, but we want there to be flexibility in when that can be taken, because not everyone grieves in the same way. One person’s grief will not be the same as someone else’s. I know mine was different from my wife’s. I wanted to get back to work a lot quicker, as a coping mechanism.

It is not just about grief. It is also about the huge amount of administration and processes that you have to go through, whether it is simply going to register the death or dealing with the hospital and, in some cases, coroners and inquiries. There are other things people do not think about, like going home and having to think about the bedroom upstairs that your child used to sleep in. Who is going to do that? Who is going to go through their wardrobe? We do not necessarily think about those things when we have not gone through that tragic experience. It is important that we give parents who go through this emotional tragedy the time to grieve in peace but also to make those all-important arrangements that only they, as parents, can do. That is why the Bill is so important.

We have talked about some of the issues with the Bill. We would like it to be more than two weeks’ leave, but that is very much a floor, not a ceiling. I would like all employers to say to their staff, “You take what time you need.” I was really reassured by what the Minister said he did when he was an employer, and I hope all employers would take that approach. As other Members have rightly said, it not only builds loyalty, but we know the social and economic cost of the mental health issues and family and marital breakdown that happen when parents lose a child and are not properly supported. It is in the employer’s interest to do the right thing. Through the Bill, we will ensure that all employers that are already doing the right thing are supported and recompensed via the statutory paternity or maternity leave process. We are not rewarding employers that are already doing the right thing, but ensuring that they see a benefit from it. This is more about employers that are not doing the right thing.

This is very much meaningful change. A number of Members have talked about the fragility of private Members’ Bills; I remember mentioning it in Committee a lot. At one point, I was not sure we would get to this point, because of the number of amendments, which are all worthy in their own right. I would like to see many of them included in future incarnations of the Bill, but we have to ensure we do not make the perfect the enemy of the good—and this Bill is fundamentally good. It will do good. As I said, we are introducing one of the most advanced workers’ rights in this area in the world. This is world-leading stuff, and we should all be very proud of it. Some members of the public who have a bit of disdain for politicians say, “You MPs do nothing. What do you do for us?” Today, we are doing something for tens of thousands of bereaved parents up and down the country. We know the good that this Bill will do.

My hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton kindly and generously referred to this as Will’s Bill. It is not. All my work in this area is only as a result of my late son Robert, so if anything, it is Robert’s Bill. I cannot thank my hon. Friend enough, and I am hugely indebted to him.

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

Will Quince Excerpts

Wednesday 7th February 2018 Public Bill Committees

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship once again, Mr Gray. I understand the hon. Lady’s argument on making leave arrangements more flexible and I have much sympathy with it. Certainly, we heard such arguments from many different sources, including people who have been bereaved who contacted us through social media. Many charities, such as Cruse Bereavement Care, Elliot’s footprint, Together for Short Lives and the National Bereavement Alliance also made the point that the period of 52 days was too short and they wanted longer. That was for a number of reasons, some of which the hon. Lady outlined, such as autopsies and inquests, which can often happen well beyond those first 52 days.

There are substantive reasons why we might want to look at a longer timescale. We need to strike a balance, of course, between the needs of the employee and the understanding of the employer. We have said throughout consideration of the Bill in Committee that we expect these to be the minimum standards that employers might follow. It would be sensible to consult further on those measures.

[Will Quince (Colchester) (Con)]

That is certainly something I gave due consideration to when drafting the first incarnation of the Bill. I have huge sympathy with the points that the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran made about flexibility. We have heard lots of very good representations from charities and different organisations in the field, but we have not heard from business. We have always said that we have to be fair to business and to those who have suffered this tragic loss.

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

[Will Quince]

rose—

[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 ---

[Patricia Gibson]

Previous discussions in this Committee have made me fearful of asking for much, but amendments 6 and 7 are really important. They refuse to put the loss of a son or daughter on a sliding scale of grief, which I know is not the intention behind the Bill, but I fear may be its unintended consequence. The loss of a son or daughter is traumatic and life-changing, no matter how old they are. It is clear from our sittings last week that we all understand that it is against the natural order of events for any parent to bury their own child. We have the opportunity to recognise that in the Bill. I am sure that no Committee member would accept or even suggest that losing a son or daughter aged 17 is a tragedy that should be treated differently from losing a son or daughter aged 19, 21 or 23.

Amendments 14 and 15 address the Bill’s distinction between offspring who are and are not in full-time education. Such distinctions are artificial, and I do not think that they are appropriate in the context of the death of a son or daughter. Loss is loss, whether or not someone’s son or daughter is their dependant. I ask the Committee to keep in mind that the Bill’s focus—its starting point—is parents, not the circumstances or the age of the child lost.

When a son or daughter is lost at an older age, the discussion becomes more academic—the older they are, the more likely it is that their parents will be retired anyway and will therefore not be covered by the Bill. But imagine losing a daughter aged 24 who has a young child of her own and is perhaps even bringing up that child on her own. As the Bill stands, her bereaved parents will not have the support that the Bill could offer, even though there may be 1,000 reasons why they will need bereavement leave, given the support that their grandchildren may need.

The parents of, say, a son aged 25 years old would not be covered by the Bill. Let us say that that son is serving abroad in the British Army in a fragile area, doing a tour of duty in an area of instability. Do his parents not deserve to be covered by the provisions in the Bill, because he happens to be 25 and not a dependant? I do not think that that is the intention of the Bill, which is why I tabled the amendment.

[Will Quince]

This question was always at the forefront of our minds in preparing and drafting all incarnations of the Bill. The hon. Lady raises a very good question about why we focus on an arbitrary limit—18, in this case, although I think we are coming on in a moment to amendments that consider that in more detail. The question that I would pose back to her is: why then stop at parents? Why are we not including spouses? She rightly raises the example of a 25 or 28-year-old. In such instances, a spouse would be equally traumatised by the death as a parent.

[Patricia Gibson]

I would not want to diminish in any way the loss of a husband or wife, but the Bill was introduced in the first place because of the particularly unnatural order of circumstances in which someone buries their own child. It is entirely different. I do not pretend to judge whether one grief is worse than the other, but it goes against nature for someone to bury their own child. It does not necessarily go against nature to bury a husband or wife. That is in the normal scheme of things that we ultimately all have to face, but nobody expects to bury their own children. A child is a person’s investment in the future. I really do not see the equivalence; otherwise, we could have a Bill about bereavement, not a parental bereavement Bill. It is a parental bereavement Bill because we, as a Parliament, recognise the particular circumstances of someone burying their own son or daughter. I hope that I have answered the question that the hon. Gentleman put to me.

I really hope that the Minister and the whole Committee will reflect on this matter, and consider my amendment a worthy addition to the Bill. As I said last week, the benefits, both social and emotional, will surely outweigh any financial costs, which I really do not think will be significant in terms of overall Treasury spend. The Minister will no doubt want to correct me on that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Patricia Gibson]

That is an important point. Maybe it is a failure in myself, but I do not understand why the issue should be about the age of 18 or financial dependency. This is ultimately a Bill about grief—about losing a son or daughter. The focus is on parents, not the financial circumstances or marital status of the person who is being buried. I cannot get my head round that. It is difficult to choose, but perhaps of all the amendments this one means the most to me because it is making a statement about the enormity of the loss of burying a child, and how that goes against the natural order.

[Will Quince]

The hon. Lady is making a powerful case. She rightly says that the amendment would make a statement, but passing this Bill in itself would make a far greater statement. It has taken a long time to get to this position and my worry is that her request to increase the cost sixfold compared with the Treasury’s current modelling will kill this Bill; the Government would have to withdraw their support, and we would move into the next Parliament. It could come back, but I would feel sad if there was such a delay just because of this amendment.

[Patricia Gibson]

The hon. Gentleman brings me back to earth with a bump; as everybody knows, nobody wants to be responsible for signing this Bill’s death warrant. I do feel strongly about this issue, but I will not do anything to jeopardise the Bill: the important thing is to get it on the statute books—if we have to have a bunfight later, we can.

I urge everybody to reflect on the value of this issue. I am an eternal optimist: if every single one of us agreed to the amendment, I would hope that the Treasury would look at it and say, “Well, this is the right way to go,” because of the weight of that agreement. Maybe I am an eternal optimist. I am walking on glass; I will not do anything to destroy the Bill. However, I would be very sad if the measure was not in the Bill—if not today, then at the end of the process. That is all I have to say.

--- Later in debate ---

[Will Quince]

I will speak to amendments 14 and 15. One of the hardest elements of the Bill is the definition of a child. Amendments 14 and 15 would define a child as a person under the age of 18 or in full-time education, or both. These are probing amendments and I do not intend to press them to a vote, for all of the reasons that I have set out in our previous sessions.

In my ten-minute rule Bill, I defined a child as a person under the age of 18, in compulsory full-time education, or both. I think my amendments are fundamentally flawed, because they say, “in full-time education, or both” but of course somebody can go back to full-time education at a later stage—they could be a mature student. Somebody in their 30s, 40s or 50s could be caught under the scope of the amendments, and that is certainly not the intention.

What I want is to get us all talking about where we should set the legal definition. The hon. Member for Glasgow East referenced teenagers in his points about teenage cancer, but of course teenagers are pre-18 and post-18, because someone who is 19 is also a teenager. The age of 18 is the point at which we all accept that there is a legal responsibility for dependents, and it is also when we can leave full-time education. However, as we all know from our days at school, people can be old for their class—they could be 18 and still in secondary school doing their A-levels. We have to consider that.

I hope the Minister can take the amendments away and look at them. There is that element of “compulsory” —those who are still at school; that would not catch people who are at university. However, there is an argument for doing so, because many students are still wholly dependent on their parents. There is also the issue of apprenticeships and so on, which are not necessarily compulsory post-18; nevertheless, students are on a relatively low income, so will be dependent on their parents. They are often living at home.

I hope the Committee will consider the amendments in more depth, so that we can work out what the right age is. Certainly, considering compulsory full-time education might be one of the potential solutions.

[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—

--- Later in debate ---

Division 2

Ayes: 6

---

Labour: 3
Scottish National Party: 3

Noes: 9

---

Conservative: 8

[Will Quince]

I beg to move amendment 25, in the schedule, page 2, line 35, at end insert

“(see also section 80EE for the application of this Chapter in relation to stillbirths)”.

This amendment is consequential on Amendment 26.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 26, in the schedule, page 4, leave out lines 29 to 35 and insert—

“80EE Application in relation to stillbirths

In this Chapter—

(a) references to a child include a child stillborn after twenty-four weeks of pregnancy, and

(b) references to the death of a child are to be read, in relation to a stillborn child, as references to the birth of the child.”

This amendment extends the provisions about parental bereavement leave to bereaved parents of stillborn children.

Amendment 8, in the schedule, page 4, line 30, leave out “may” and insert “must”.

This amendment would give the Secretary of State a duty, rather than a power, to extend parental bereavement leave to cases where a child is stillborn after twenty-four weeks of pregnancy.

Amendment 27, in the schedule, page 4, line 37, leave out “, 80EE”

This amendment is consequential on Amendment 26.

Amendment 28, in the schedule, page 9, line 18, at end insert

“(see also section 171ZZ15 for the application of this Part in relation to stillbirths)”.

This amendment is consequential on Amendment 29.

Amendment 29, in the schedule, page 10, leave out lines 40 to 46 and insert—

“171ZZ15 Application in relation to stillbirths

In this Part—

(a) references to a child include a child stillborn after twenty-four weeks of pregnancy, and

(b) references to the death of a child are to be read, in relation to a stillborn child, as references to the birth of the child.”

This amendment extends the provisions about statutory parental bereavement pay to bereaved parents of stillborn children.

Amendment 9, in the schedule, page 10, line 41, leave out “may” and insert “must”.

This amendment would give the Secretary of State a duty, rather than a power, to extend parental bereavement pay to cases where a child is stillborn after twenty-four weeks of pregnancy.

Amendment 30, in the schedule, page 11, leave out line 3.

This amendment is consequential on Amendment 29.

[Will Quince]

It seems greedy to table so many amendments on such an important subject: the inclusion of bereaved parents of stillborn babies. The amendments are probing because I want the Committee to give the subject due consideration. For Members who are not aware, a stillbirth is defined as a child stillborn after the 24th week of pregnancy. Anyone who suffers a stillbirth after 24 weeks is entitled to full maternity or paternity leave in the same way that any parent that loses a child who is technically born, who draws breath, is entitled to the same statutory paternity or maternity leave.

As the Bill is drafted, the parents of babies that draw breath would be entitled to statutory parental bereavement leave in addition to their statutory paternity and maternity leave, whereas the parents of stillborn babies would not. The Bill by its nature must have arbitrary cut-offs. We have just debated eligibility in terms of definition, and to some extent this is no different. There is currently a disparity between parents of a child who drew breath and those of a child who did not. Luckily, parents of all babies, whether stillborn or those who die neonatally, would be entitled to those rights afforded at present as part of the statutory maternity and paternity; the discrepancy is between a stillbirth and a live birth. There is a piece of work to be done on including parents of stillborn children, because at the moment there is an unfairness between them and those who lose a child neonatally.

There would be a financial implication from including parents who suffer a stillbirth as well as those who suffer a neonatal death, but it is worth considering nevertheless. For parents who lose a child neonatally, some would say, “Why should they get statutory paternity leave, because they are already entitled to their maternity or paternity rights?” I would argue that it would be bolted on in any event, but do not forget that a lot of parents—men in particular—may take paternity leave and lose their child after those two weeks. It is therefore right that fathers in particular should be entitled to those additional two weeks, and it should also be afforded to mothers in addition to their maternity leave. We should seriously consider including those parents who suffer a stillbirth in the scope of the Bill.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I am not entirely clear about the protocol, so I will ask your advice, Mr Gray. At various stages of the Bill, we have heard moving stories about lives lost of both children who have lived and those who were stillborn. Of course, many of those stories have come from members of the Committee, such as my hon. Friends the Members for Eddisbury and for Banbury and the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran. My hon. Friend the Member for Colchester made an impassioned contribution. If I may, I would like to listen to further remarks before I make my contributions and we decide on any amendments.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I am very grateful to the Minister for his consideration. This is something that we have discussed much in our deliberations, both with Committee members and in the House at various stages.

Stillbirth was first brought to my attention because of my constituents Annika and James Dowson—my hon. Friends the Members for Banbury and for Eddisbury are very aware of their case—and their little daughter, Gypsy. They said they had never heard their baby cry, which must be a desperate state of affairs for anyone who has been through those tragic events. They directed their grief into a very positive campaign to raise money to fund a bereavement suite at Scarborough hospital. It is tremendous to see the resilience and determination that people show in these circumstances; I am not sure I could do the same.

Luke and Ruthie Heron are also constituents of mine. Their little son, Eli, was brought into this world at 23 weeks and six days. He lived for two days. He was stillborn. Had he not lived for those two days, it would have been defined as a miscarriage. This is being discussed in relation to legislation going through the House at the moment. I have constituents who have experience of this.

I am delighted that the Government have agreed to support the amendments. The hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran was the first hon. Member to table an amendment on the matter. I am sure that the Government’s support for the other amendment is a purely technical decision, not a political one—it is about drafting. They have done a tremendous job of ensuring that we get the legislation right, so that we do not suffer any negative consequences later on. I ask the hon. Members for North Ayrshire, for Glasgow East and for Paisley and Renfrewshire North not to press their amendments and instead to support the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester.

[Will Quince]

I place on record my huge thanks to my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton. It is actually a bit of a surprise that the Government support my amendment, which I tabled relatively speculatively because there was a debate to be had. However, the fact that the Government have accepted the argument will be of huge benefit to the parents of the circa 3,000 children who are stillborn every year in this country. I hope that that number will go down year on year; the all-party group on baby loss is certainly working on that. I thank the Minister for his support and the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran for her amendments, which are in a similar vein to mine and would have largely the same effect. We are all on the same page, so I thank all hon. Members for their cross-party support.

Amendment 25 agreed to.

Amendments made: 26, in schedule, page 4, leave out lines 29 to 35 and insert—

“80EE Application in relation to stillbirths

In this Chapter—

(a) references to a child include a child stillborn after twenty-four weeks of pregnancy, and

(b) references to the death of a child are to be read, in relation to a stillborn child, as references to the birth of the child.”

This amendment extends the provisions about parental bereavement leave to bereaved parents of stillborn children.

Amendment 27, in schedule, page 4, line 37, leave out “, 80EE”.—(Will Quince.)

This amendment is consequential on Amendment 26.

[David Linden]

I beg to move amendment 4, in schedule, page 5, leave out lines 10 to 12.

This amendment would remove the condition that an employee needs to be with an employer for a continuous period of 26 weeks in order to receive parental bereavement pay.

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

Will Quince Excerpts

Wednesday 31st January 2018 Public Bill Committees

[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 ---

[Andrew Griffiths]

But it is absolutely right that the way in which people work and are employed, and the way in which consumers engage with services and contractors, has changed dramatically because of technology and the way that our lives are developing. As my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton said, the Government have instigated the Taylor review. Matthew Taylor was commissioned to undertake an in-depth, detailed review last year of modern working practices. The question around the balance of rights and benefits between the employed and the self-employed has become much more relevant as we move away from conventional employment relationships, and there is a greater prevalence of new business models and employment practices.

I met Matthew Taylor just last night to talk about his review and his aspirations. It became clear from that discussion that his review is a stepping stone, and that these kinds of employment practices will continue to change and develop.

[Will Quince]

Many of us, me included, are broadly sympathetic to the points that the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran is making. The concern on the Government side—certainly it is my concern—is about overcomplicating the Bill, thereby putting it in jeopardy. My hon. Friend the Minister mentioned the Taylor review, which is particularly interesting. Could he give me comfort by confirming that this Bill, if it remained unamended in this regard, would fall under the scope of the Taylor review and its recommendations?

[Andrew Griffiths]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and I hope that I can give him the comfort he seeks. The Taylor review made a number of recommendations, including some relating specifically to the self-employed and those on zero-hours contracts, as has been said. It might be helpful for the Committee if I clarified the position on the employment status of people who are engaged on zero-hours contracts.

There is a perception that individuals who have flexible work contracts—or who work on zero-hours contracts, as they are termed—automatically have fewer employment rights. That is not the case and an individual’s employment status is established by the reality of their working relationship. An employer cannot and must not remove statutory rights for an individual simply by getting them to sign up to a contract with flexible hours of work. That means that individuals who are on zero-hours contracts, part-time contracts or any other type of flexible arrangement can still be eligible for the same statutory employment rights as any full-time employee doing the same work. An individual on a zero-hours contract might already qualify for parental bereavement leave under the terms of the Bill. It is important to ensure that that point is not lost in these important discussions.

The Government’s response to the Taylor review is long awaited. We hope we can publish that review very shortly. I cannot at this stage give a definitive time, but I think the term “imminent” is—

--- Later in debate ---

[Kevin Hollinrake]

This is a place of debate and discussion, but there are no words that could possibly describe or give comfort when people talk of their personal experiences of losing a child. We have all heard stories in the Chamber and are humbled by them. It is important that we hear the personal experiences and tragedies to make sure that we consider the points around the legislation and to connect us to the wider world of other people who have suffered terrible experiences.

Defining a parent is without a doubt one of the toughest jobs we have here. In the world we live in, there are lots of different people who would consider themselves parents and lots of children who might define that in different ways than we might. Through the engagement we have had through Facebook and with charities on the issue, stories about all kinds of different elements that need to be properly considered have been relayed.

On Facebook, Mandy Ruston told us about her partner, not a biological parent, who, after they lost their child in a hit-and-run accident, was told by his employer to return to work in the early days after that tragedy. That is a situation that I am sure we would want to cover. Nicky Clifford talks about the child’s grandparents, who felt they suffered a double loss when Mrs Clifford’s son died. Together for Short Lives, along with Holly Simon, who contacted us on Facebook, believe that leave should be extended to legal guardians, working grandparents, aunts and uncles. The Rainbow Trust, which does such fine work providing support for families where children are diagnosed with life-threatening or terminal illnesses, felt we should extend the leave and pay to legal guardians such as foster carers, a point covered by the amendment. Unison, which represents 1.3 million trade union members, proposes the definition of a parent be set as wide as possible, including legal guardians and those with formal parenting responsibility.

I do not think we have time in this Committee to look at such matters in their totality. There is much debate and, although it is useful to consider the issues and it is very good to hear different perspectives from Committee members, I return to the point about the fragility of the Bill and the time we have to consider it in Committee and the Chamber. As my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury stated, this is a framework Bill that allows the powers to be debated and discussed properly and to go through consultation to ensure we get this right.

[Will Quince]

There are all sorts of amendments before us today and lots of us would like the Bill to go further than it does. There are many reasons why that is not practical or necessarily the right thing to do at the moment. Will my hon. Friend confirm that this is the beginning of the process? As we have seen with many other pieces of legislation, they get amended over time to increase the scope, bring more people in and provide further rights, but it has to start with a statute.

[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.

Parental Bereavement (Leave and Pay) Bill

Will Quince Excerpts

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

[Kevin Hollinrake]

My hon. Friend makes a good point. We have left some details out of the Bill to allow more time for consultation on topics just like that one. Clearly the legislation cannot just be about biological parents. Adoptive parents should get the same benefits that the Bill provides. There are other such circumstances to discuss, so we want the maximum possible opportunity for consultation and submission of evidence, and for debate on these matters so that we ensure that we get the Bill right.

Leave will be paid at the statutory rate for those who fulfil the qualifying period of 26 weeks’ service the week before the child’s passing away. The Bill allows the rate to be set in regulations so that it can be uprated regularly in the normal way, but that is the level at which I envisage the rate will be set. That mirrors existing family leave and pay provisions, such as paternity leave, shared parental leave, adoption leave, and maternity leave after the first six weeks. That strikes a fair balance between the rights of the employee and a workable framework for the employer, but it is clearly the minimum we would expect the employer to provide.

My hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart) talked about flexibility, and that is my next point. It is widely recognised that grief affects people in different ways and at different times, and that there are no set rules for how and when to grieve. A level of flexibility over when to take this leave will allow an employee to take it at a time that best suits them, within a fixed period following the bereavement.

Hon. Members will have different opinions about how long that period should be, and there is clearly a balance to be struck between the individual needs of a bereaved employee and the employer’s need for a level of certainty around absences from work so that they can manage those effectively. With that in mind, the Bill provides for the window to be set in regulations, with a minimum of eight weeks within which these two weeks of leave must be taken.

[Will Quince (Colchester) (Con)]

I thank my hon. Friend for his kind and generous words. I know we had a conversation about this in drafting the Bill, and I welcome the 56 days, but we know that fathers, in particular, often bottle up grief and can have issues further down the line, so I would ask that we consider extending the period to six months. I appreciate the concerns about employers, but that would give parents flexibility.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

My hon. Friend makes a good point, and there are so many different circumstances—in certain circumstances, a funeral may be delayed. We need to consider that issue, and I am keen to hear views on it.

Eligibility is another area we need to have a debate on. In terms of my current thinking on who is considered to be a parent, the Government and I did quite a lot of consultation over the summer. It was apparent early on that the issue of who is a parent is key to ensuring the right people are reached and to the success of the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Will Quince (Colchester) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Victoria Prentis), and I agree with her that this is a happy day. In fact, I would go so far as to say that it is a great day. I think I speak for everyone in this House when I say that we went into politics because we wanted to make a difference, whether it is to one person, one family, hundreds of people or thousands of people up and down the country. That is exactly why we do this job, and why we love it so much. Today is one of those days when I know we are making a difference. This will make a difference to the thousands of parents every year in this country who go through the personal tragedy of losing a child. As Members of Parliament, we have a duty and to some extent an obligation, where we can, to use our own personal experiences—good and bad—to improve the lot of others: to make sure that as few as possible people go through the sad experience, but also to make sure that those who do will have the best possible bereavement care and support available.

Thankfully, child loss in this country is as rare as it is tragic, but even so about 5,000 children die every year, and the parents need help and support. We would like to think that they got such support from their employers. Both my wife and I were very lucky to have employers who were excellent. They could not have done more, and we did take two weeks’ leave. As my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake) rightly said, the vast majority of employers are brilliant. They act with compassion, care, kindness and sympathy. Sadly, however, some do not.

Since starting to research this issue nearly two years ago, shortly after entering this place, my inbox has, sadly, been full of cases of people who have been treated horrendously. In fact, only this morning, after I appeared on “Good Morning Britain”, somebody sent me an email saying they were told they had to take a day’s holiday to attend their child’s funeral. That is totally unacceptable. We should not be debating this issue or having to debate it; it should be a matter of course that employers act with compassion, kindness and respect for the tragedy that has occurred to the parents, but, sadly, it is not. That is why the Bill is so important.

Two years ago, I started the research that led to my ten-minute rule Bill, and I must admit I was gutted when we did not manage to get it through during the last Parliament. I remember that when I wrote to the Minister, who is in her place on the Front Bench, I did not expect the response I received, which was, “Come and speak to me, because I think we should have a conversation.” We had a conversation, and she and the Secretary of State could not have been more supportive or helpful. Hon. Members can imagine my pride and delight when I saw that this was a key policy in the Conservative party manifesto. That was the case not just for our party, but for the Labour party and the Liberal Democrats, so we have cross-party consensus on the issue.

I must now turn to my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton, because without him we would not be here today. Yes, he came top among Conservative Members in the private Members’ Bill ballot, but I know that he will have received hundreds of emails from individuals, charities and organisations all across the country, almost begging him to take on their cause or campaign and their Bill. When I picked up the phone to him, however, he did not hesitate in saying yes, and I cannot thank him enough. Anybody who has gone through the experience of child loss will want to make sure that their child’s life, however short, meant something—that a difference was made because of it—and you have enabled that, so I am forever indebted to you. Thank you, Kevin.

This Bill is going to make a difference. For the families concerned, it will give them certainty. They will not have to ask that awkward question about time off when they go into work having suffered such a tragedy. It will make a difference to so many people. Before I get too emotional, I would just like to say, “Please support this Bill”.

Bereavement Leave: Loss of a Child

Will Quince Excerpts

Tuesday 12th September 2017 Westminster Hall

[Will Quince (Colchester) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Brady. First, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for East Renfrewshire (Paul Masterton) on securing this debate on one of the most important topics as we approach the private Member’s Bill season.

There is no question but that losing a child is one of the most traumatic experiences that any parent has to go through. Having gone through that experience myself at the end of 2014, I know that when you become a Member of Parliament, you feel, like any parent who has been bereaved, that you want to do something to try to make a difference. You want to try to do something to ensure that as few people as possible go through the same experience that you did, of losing a child, and where they do, you want to ensure that they have the best bereavement care possible. Some parents do that by raising lots of money for their local bereavement suites and for the fantastic charities that have been mentioned. As Members of Parliament, we have a unique position and a unique voice—when we speak, the nation’s media listen—but we also have an amazing platform in this House to actually change legislation and change Government policy.

There were two things that I wanted to do on entering the House in this specific regard. The first was the formation of an all-party parliamentary group on baby loss, which we did on a cross-party basis with a number of colleagues, in particular with my co-chair, my hon. Friend the Member for Eddisbury (Antoinette Sandbach). We are doing a huge amount of work to try to reduce baby loss and to change Government policy in that regard, and we are having a lot of support from the Government.

This is also about bereavement care, and that is where the parental bereavement leave idea came up. If someone suffers a stillbirth, which we did, they have two weeks as a parent—as a father or, in regular maternity leave, as a mother—in order to grieve and to come to terms with what has just happened, but if you lose a child after six months, you do not have that right. You do not have any right to paid leave.

Although the vast majority of employers up and down this country are excellent employers that act with compassion, kindness and understanding when one of their employees loses a child, sadly there are employers out there that do not act with compassion and act with huge insensitivity. The examples are all out there. Sadly, it is not even just small employers; it is often large employers and, I am sorry to say, even some Government agencies and large public sector bodies. Although people are entitled under law at the moment to some immediate time off and a reasonable amount of time, that is wholly subjective, and sadly there are employers that put huge pressure on their employees to go back to work too soon. That creates huge social and emotional problems for the individual. The leave is really important, because you need that time to grieve and to come to terms with what has just happened, but you also need the time to make some really important arrangements.

I am delighted that my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake) has taken the baton and run with it, with his private Member’s Bill, and that the Government have been so supportive. I would particularly like to praise the Minister and the Secretary of State, who have both been hugely supportive, and indeed the Prime Minister, for ensuring that this went in the Conservative party manifesto. As we all know, private Members’ Bills are very difficult to get through and are nearly always destined to fail without Government support.

This is a common right across Europe. Indeed, it is a relatively common right across the world, to varying degrees. We have an opportunity here, with this private Member’s Bill, to have world-leading rights in this area, by having two weeks’ paid leave for any parent who loses a child. That is an incredible ambition. It is a real statement of intent, not only for the Government but for the House, that we take so seriously the trauma of losing a child. It is not in the natural order. It is not right, and people do need time to come to terms with what has happened and to grieve.

I would like to thank my hon. Friend the Member for East Renfrewshire for securing today’s important debate, my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton for taking the baton and running with it, and the Government for supporting the private Member’s Bill.

Oral Answers to Questions

Will Quince Excerpts

Tuesday 27th June 2017 Commons Chamber

[Greg Clark]

The right hon. Gentleman will know that we have already changed the procurement guidance so that local value can be taken into account. We have anticipated the issue he mentions and this is being done.

[Will Quince (Colchester) (Con)]

The Secretary of State is aware that I have long campaigned for parental bereavement leave, and I was delighted to see this policy in not only the Conservative manifesto, but the Labour manifesto. On that basis, will he kindly set out what steps the Government will take to introduce this important benefit?

[Margot James]

I agree that bereaved parents should have the opportunity to grieve away from the workplace, and we will seek to provide for that. I am willing to meet my hon. Friend to discuss further how we might make such provision.

Exiting the EU and Workers’ Rights

Will Quince Excerpts

Monday 7th November 2016 Commons Chamber

[Greg Clark]

I have been very clear that all of the existing law under the EU will be brought into British law. There is no intention of changing that. In fact, so far from wanting to dilute current law, in many ways, as my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay (Kevin Foster) has said, we go further than the EU in a number of important respects. For example, in the UK all workers are protected by a strong set of core rights that do not depend on the type of contract—full time or part time— an employee may be on. That is not consistently the case in other European countries. In the UK, women who have had a child can enjoy 52 weeks of statutory maternity leave and 39 weeks of pay, not just the 14 weeks under EU law.

[Will Quince (Colchester) (Con)]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that Brexit offers an opportunity to strengthen workers’ rights? [Hon. Members: “Sit down!”] Will he look at my Parental Bereavement Leave (Statutory Entitlement) Bill, which would give the UK the best workers’ rights in the world?

[Greg Clark]

Opposition Members should attend with greater courtesy to my hon. Friend, who speaks with a great deal of experience and knowledge of rights for parents who have suffered bereavement. He has made excellent speeches about that in the House. His private Member’s Bill, which has a huge amount to commend it, would allow bereaved parents to have time off to deal with the consequences of an infant death in their family. I look forward to working with him to make use of his knowledge and wisdom, and to see whether, through the reforms that we will introduce, we can capture the spirit of what he says. I am grateful for his intervention today and his earlier contributions.