Draft National Minimum Wage (Amendment) Regulations 2018

Debate between Andrew Griffiths and Laura Pidcock

Wednesday 21st March 2018 General Committees

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Andrew Griffiths]

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

[Laura Pidcock]

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

[Andrew Griffiths]

And the Low Pay Commission?

[Laura Pidcock]

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Laura Pidcock]

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

[Andrew Griffiths]

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

Corporate Governance and Insolvency

Debate between Andrew Griffiths and Laura Pidcock

Tuesday 20th March 2018 Commons Chamber

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Andrew Griffiths]

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

“launched our own review into corporate governance”.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Debate between Andrew Griffiths and Laura Pidcock

Wednesday 14th March 2018 General Committees

[Andrew Griffiths]

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

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

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

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

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

[Laura Pidcock]

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Griffiths]

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

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

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

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

[Laura Pidcock]

Will the Minister give way?

[Andrew Griffiths]

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Laura Pidcock]

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

[Andrew Griffiths]

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

Hospitality Sector: Tipping

Debate between Andrew Griffiths and Laura Pidcock

Wednesday 7th March 2018 Westminster Hall

[Andrew Griffiths]

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

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

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

[Laura Pidcock]

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

[Andrew Griffiths]

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Griffiths]

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

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

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

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

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

[Laura Pidcock]

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

[Andrew Griffiths]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Carillion: TUPE

Debate between Andrew Griffiths and Laura Pidcock

Wednesday 21st February 2018 Westminster Hall

[Laura Pidcock]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

indicated dissent.

[Laura Pidcock]

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

--- Later in debate ---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Laura Pidcock]

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

[Andrew Griffiths]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Taylor Review

Debate between Andrew Griffiths and Laura Pidcock

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

[Andrew Griffiths]

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

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

Consider!

[Andrew Griffiths]

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

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

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

Debate between Andrew Griffiths and Laura Pidcock

Wednesday 7th February 2018 Public Bill Committees

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Laura Pidcock]

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

[Andrew Griffiths]

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Griffiths]

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

[Laura Pidcock]

I am not—I was just stretching!

[Andrew Griffiths]

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Laura Pidcock]

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

[Andrew Griffiths]

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Laura Pidcock]

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

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

[Andrew Griffiths]

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Laura Pidcock]

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

[Andrew Griffiths]

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

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

Debate between Andrew Griffiths and Laura Pidcock

Wednesday 31st January 2018 Public Bill Committees

[Laura Pidcock]

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

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

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

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

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

[Andrew Griffiths]

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Griffiths]

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

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

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

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

[Laura Pidcock]

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Griffiths]

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

[Laura Pidcock]

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

[Andrew Griffiths]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Andrew Griffiths and Laura Pidcock

Tuesday 30th January 2018 Commons Chamber

[Andrew Griffiths]

I have to point out to the hon. Lady that she may have her figures wrong. CEO pay has fallen, not risen. This Government are keen to ensure that there is more accountability and transparency in relation to the pay of top executives. We want to give the shareholders of companies greater power and ensure that there is greater accountability to shareholders and to the workforce.

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

Since 2010, Carillion has paid out more than £500 million in dividends to shareholders while, over the same period, running up a pensions deficit of £587 million, a deficit that is now threatening the security of thousands of hardworking people. While those people suffer, former Carillion CEO Richard Howson was rewarded with a bonus package worth £1.5 million in 2016. Will the Government join me in condemning this scandal and work with the Labour party to end the failed model of outsourcing using shell companies and in condoning excessive pay, or will it be just business as usual?

[Andrew Griffiths]

Please allow me to assure the hon. Lady that any payments due to directors and executives of Carillion have been stopped; nobody is getting paid and nobody is getting executive bonuses. The moment that the insolvency happened, the Secretary of State wrote both to the Insolvency Service and the FRC to ensure that there was a thorough investigation of all payments to directors. If necessary, PricewaterhouseCoopers and the Insolvency Service have the power to claw back all of those payments. I can assure her that we will be learning the lessons from the Carillion insolvency and ensuring that we do all we can to support businesses going forward.