Nuclear Power

Chris Philp Excerpts

Monday 4th June 2018 Commons Chamber

[Greg Clark]

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

[Chris Philp (Croydon South) (Con)]

I warmly welcome this announcement, which, as the Secretary of State says, will help us to maintain a balanced, low-carbon energy mix. So many of these projects can be beset by delays—Hinkley C is an example—so may I urge him to progress this initiative with a sense of urgency and to carry forward the small modular reactor competition as quickly as possible?

[Greg Clark]

I will indeed. We will have more to say in the sector deal about small modular reactors. I stress to the House that we are entering a period of negotiations, and they have to meet some important requirements, but it is in all our interests that they proceed in an orderly way. The purpose of today’s announcement is to allow us to do precisely that.

Parental Bereavement (Leave and Pay) Bill

Chris Philp Excerpts

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

[Kevin Foster]

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

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

[Chris Philp (Croydon South) (Con)]

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

[Kevin Foster]

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Kevin Foster]

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

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

[Chris Philp]

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

[Kevin Foster]

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Michelle Donelan]

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

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

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

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

[Chris Philp (Croydon South) (Con)]

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

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

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

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

[Kevin Foster]

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

[Chris Philp]

My hon. Friend has put it extremely well, far better than I did. It is, of course, right for us to focus on the primary carer, whoever that may be.

Amendment 21, tabled by my hon. Friends the Members for Torbay and for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Michael Tomlinson), would extend the definition of a child to a son or daughter beyond 18. The hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran has tabled similar amendments—24 and 25. I must say that I was undecided on the merits of the amendments, but, having heard what was said by those Members—as well as the hon. Member for Sefton Central (Bill Esterson)—I can see the force of the argument.

I had initially thought that a line must be drawn somewhere when it comes to these rights, and that if a child of any age is to be included, it might equally be suggested that the same should apply to a deceased sibling, or, indeed, a deceased parent or spouse. The emotional attachments to those other relations are, in many cases, just as strong as the other attachments that we are discussing. Wherever the line is drawn, there will be relations just on the other side of it, with equally strong attachments, to whom the provisions do not apply. The fact that there is a line somewhere does not suggest that there should be no line at all; the question is simply where to draw it. However, I was powerfully moved, in particular, by what my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole—who is not currently in the Chamber—said about his brother. I appreciate that there are very powerful arguments on both sides.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kevin Hollinrake]

indicated assent.

[Chris Philp]

I see that my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton is indicating his agreement with my hon. Friend’s point, and that is certainly good enough for me. I do take comfort from the fact that the “reasonableness” provisions would apply for children over 18. However, it is a difficult question, and we have heard some powerful commentary on it from Members on both sides of the House.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester has just returned to the Chamber, I want to comment on an amendment that he tabled in Committee, which was passed unanimously and which extended the Bill’s provisions to stillborn children born after 24 weeks of gestation. I know that my hon. Friend has had a very tragic personal experience of that. I strongly welcome and support that extension, and I congratulate him on the amendment, but let me observe in passing—to the Minister in particular—that, perhaps not in this Bill but on some future occasion, we might also consider entitlement to parental leave for the parents of very premature children who are lucky enough to survive.

I am one of those parents. My twins were born after 25 weeks and one day, which is extraordinarily premature. They were very lucky—blessed, in fact—to survive. I remember that night in the intensive care unit, where, as the Minister can imagine, there were so many parents who were extremely distressed, whatever the precise circumstances that their children were in. I ask the Minister to consider providing for extra parental leave in the case of very premature births, although this Bill may not be the right place to do it, and it may be too late to introduce amendments. The experience of parents with children in neonatal care units after 20-something weeks of gestation is very difficult. However, the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester at least improves the Bill in that regard.

Amendment 7, also tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay—he has clearly been working extremely hard—makes it clear that, while the employee could receive additional pay from the employer above and beyond the statutory minimum, only the statutory minimum would be reimbursed by the taxpayer. My hon. Friend pointed out in interventions on the hon. Member for Sefton Central that the statutory minimum is just that: it is a floor, not a ceiling. Although that is the extent of taxpayer support, I am sure that Members on both sides of the House would strongly encourage employers to reimburse employees at their full rate of employment during periods of compassionate leave, for that or for any other reason. I hope that any employers who are listening to the debate or reading the report of it will take careful note of that exhortation. As one who set up and ran businesses for 15 years before being elected, I know that my businesses would always have taken such action without question.

[Kevin Foster]

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

[Chris Philp]

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

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

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

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

[Robert Courts (Witney) (Con)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

[Chris Philp]

I appreciate the Minister’s response to my earlier comments. I would point out, however, that the parents of very premature babies have additional caring responsibilities—particularly when the babies are in a neonatal intensive care unit—over and above the ordinary parental requirements involving a normal newborn baby. I therefore ask the Government to consider, at some future time, an additional leave right, over and above the normal one, for parents in those circumstances, when it is necessary for them to be present with the baby as much as possible.

[Richard Harrington]

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

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

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

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

Unpaid Trial Work Periods (Prohibition) Bill

Chris Philp Excerpts

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

[Stewart Malcolm McDonald]

This may be the only time that I have looked forward to using my parliamentary privilege: I am going to name some companies that have come up when I have had this conversation with people.

The first company that came up was Mooboo Bubble Tea. I understand why there are confused looks on some Members’ faces because I do not know what bubble tea is either, but I can tell hon. Members that I will not be trying Mooboo’s. Mooboo was the company—based in Glasgow, with franchises right across the United Kingdom—that asked one of my constituents to work 40 hours for no money whatever. Not only did my constituent not get the job, although I am sure that she made a fine fist of the trial period, but the company just ignored her. It happens too often that people apply for jobs, go through trials and all the rest of it, but then do not even get told yes or no. They just get left hanging in the air. What a cynical and gross way to treat applicants in this day and age!

[Chris Philp (Croydon South) (Con)]

I quite agree with the hon. Gentleman that this case is a shocking example of abuse. Did he report the matter to HMRC for investigation? If he did, will he update the House on the outcome?

[Stewart Malcolm McDonald]

Yes, I did. I sent a letter to the former HMRC Minister, Jane Ellison, who I think is now employed by the Government as a special adviser—[Interruption.] Forgive me, I may have got that wrong. Jane Ellison did deal with the case for me at the time. I had a conversation with her on one of the few occasions that we were in the same Lobby, and she assured me that my complaint was passed on to the right people. Part of the problem with raising an issue via a Minister, rather than directly to the unit, is that we do not actually get told the outcome of the investigation.

If hon. Members come across cases where there is any question that the definition of the national minimum wage has been abused, I encourage them to report the situation to HMRC. I did a Facebook Live broadcast with House of Commons digital officials earlier this week, and I gave lots of examples from members of the public who have gone through such things. People rely on the National Minimum Wage Act 1998, and the low paid rely on it more than any other group in society, so it needs to be enforced with rigour.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Philp (Croydon South) (Con)]

It is a great pleasure to follow the very thoughtful, well-researched and well-considered speech by the hon. Member for Glasgow South (Stewart Malcolm McDonald). I must say that I found myself in agreement with large parts of it, partly because I am a very passionate believer in the national minimum wage.

One of the things I did after I was first elected in 2015 was to seek out the then Chancellor of the Exchequer, George Osborne—I understand he is more than modestly occupied these days—to press him on what I thought was the very strong case for a big increase in the minimum wage, because it is so important, and I was delighted when, a short time later, the Government announced large increases in the minimum wage. I am very proud of the fact that a Conservative Government, between 2010 and today, have increased the minimum wage from £5.93 an hour back in 2010 to £7.83 an hour today, which is a 32% increase. The national living wage is a legally required minimum wage, and I am very proud that a Conservative Government have increased it by 32%. Over that period, inflation has been only 19%, so it has risen by substantially more than inflation.

[Stephen Kerr]

Does my hon. Friend accept that the premise of the Bill is that it is a wonderful thing to learn to work, which is a very important part of growing up? The Bill is particularly about protecting the young, however, so is it not an important lesson for the young to learn that if they go to work and they work hard, they are also entitled to be paid fairly?

[Chris Philp]

Yes, I agree with that principle. As my hon. Friend pointed out in his earlier intervention, the idea that people should be fairly paid for a fair day’s work, or even for a fair few hours’ work, is an important Conservative principle, and I think it is an important fundamental right as well, so I agree entirely with that premise.

I want to put on the record once again my very strong support for the concept of the minimum wage—the national living wage—and the fact that it has been increased by such a large amount. While talking about wages for those on low earnings, I would point out in passing that the increase in the tax-free allowance in the past few years—from £6,500 to £11,500—means that take-home wages for people on the minimum wage, the topic of the Bill, have actually gone up by 37%, because not only has the minimum wage gone up by 32%, but they are also paying proportionately less tax. It is important to bear it in mind that low tax, as well as a decent wage itself, has a role to play in making sure people are properly paid.

We have talked quite a bit already about enforcement. Clearly, a national minimum wage, or national living wage, is only as effective as its enforcement, as the hon. Member for Glasgow South touched on. In the last financial year, 2016-17, HMRC, the body responsible for enforcing the national minimum wage, took action against 1,134 individual businesses—quite a good track record of taking action to enforce the minimum wage; clawed back £10.9 million—a fairly substantial sum; and took action that encompassed 98,000 workers who had been illegally underpaid. That suggests that HMRC is taking its enforcement role very seriously and enjoying some success in making sure that the national living wage and minimum wage are adhered to.

[Bob Stewart]

Just to clarify, HMRC did not keep the money but presumably gave it to those who had lost it. Is that right?

[Chris Philp]

When someone has been illegally underpaid, I believe that they receive retrospective compensation. As to where the funds go, I rather suspect they end up with Her Majesty’s Treasury, but certainly the unfair loss suffered by people who have been underpaid is made good.

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle]

My brother took part in one of these trials for a telephone sales company. He worked for two days unpaid while having to pay for transport up and down. He is a physics graduate—very intelligent—and knows that it is illegal, but he has no confidence that if he reports the matter, it will go anywhere. Is not part of the key to enable easier reporting to HMRC and to require companies to report how many jobs are available, as the Bill requires, and is that not why the Bill is needed?

[Chris Philp]

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

[Kevin Foster (Torbay) (Con)]

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

[Chris Philp]

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

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

[Michelle Donelan (Chippenham) (Con)]

Current legislation states that a job should be intended at the end of a trial period, but in some of the examples we have heard that is not happening. There is a potential problem with the enforcement of current legislation, so perhaps we need a review of that, rather than to duplicate our laws.

[Chris Philp]

If trials are taking place with no certain job at the end, or no vacancy, that is an outrageous abuse.

[Stephen Kerr]

It’s fraud.

[Chris Philp]

It is indeed fraud as my hon. Friend says, and I entirely agree with his interjection. I look forward to the Minister offering his thoughts on that in due course. [Interruption.] Excuse me Madam Deputy Speaker. I am recovering from the remains of a cold that my children kindly gave me last week. [Interruption.] Does the hon. Member for Glasgow Central (Alison Thewliss) wish to intervene?

[Neil Gray]

She was suggesting you could sit down.

[Chris Philp]

That is a very kind suggestion, but I am afraid I have not yet finished. This is an important matter, and we will give it due consideration—[Interruption.] That has made my cough even worse.

As I understand, under current drafting, any period of trial working, even as little as five minutes, would fall foul of the Bill. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Glasgow South is nodding his head in assent. As with any piece of regulation, there is a balance to be struck. I completely agree that all the examples we have heard about are totally unreasonable. Such behaviour should be unlawful, and those companies should be prosecuted and fined. However, there are examples—I am coming to the conclusion of my remarks—of companies that, quite legitimately, want someone to do a reasonable amount of trial work, by which one might mean a few hours. I would consider three or four hours to be the maximum amount of time considered reasonable, and it could be unfair to impose on those businesses the administration involved in setting up payroll, PAYE, national insurance, a return to HMRC and so on, for a short and reasonable period of trial work.

[Stewart Malcolm McDonald]

The hon. Gentleman knows about other instruments that exist for employers, and someone’s skills can be tested. If he applies to work at my coffee shop and I ask him to prove that he can make a cappuccino, he will do what he has to do, and I will be satisfied with that. I do not need to put him on a shift with the rest of my staff and have him working alongside other colleagues, serving customers and contributing to my profit margin without payment.

[Chris Philp]

As we have discussed previously, that would be wholly unreasonable for an entire eight-hour shift. However, a trial for an hour, testing someone serving coffee in a live work environment, for example, gives the potential employer information about that person’s suitability. In the coffee shop example, I would consider it reasonable to have someone work for one hour as a trial and not require payment. Working an eight-hour shift would and should require full payment. My concern is that the one-hour trial would get caught by the Bill as drafted.

[Neil Gray]

I am pretty sure that Members who are employers will have it written into their contracts that all staff start with a probationary period. Is that not a more appropriate way to handle this matter?

[Chris Philp]

I am not sure that it is. If someone is taken on as an employee for a probationary period, the reasonable expectation is for them to work with the company for a few months—a probationary period is typically at least one month, and in some cases three. Asking an employer to employ for between one and three months someone who, it transpires after a few hours, is unsuitable is a little unfair on the employer.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Chris Philp]

I am spoilt for choice, but I will first give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Thornbury and Yate (Luke Hall).

[Luke Hall (Thornbury and Yate) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend accept that some people are much more comfortable doing a trial period of one hour than they are sitting through an interview of 45 minutes, which they might find extremely stressful and uncomfortable, and for which they might be unprepared?

[Chris Philp]

I agree with that point. I set up and ran my own businesses for 15 years before being elected, and found that often interviews are not a very good way of ascertaining someone’s suitability. People can come up with all sorts of nonsense, but if they get to do the job in some way, even for a short period such as an hour, the employer learns a lot about their capability.

[Chris Green (Bolton West) (Con)]

I appreciate the point about the coffee shop and the mechanical process of producing coffee, but would my hon. Friend accept that a far more subtle process is needed to assess social skills before an offer of employment is made?

[Chris Philp]

I agree that it is a subtle process.

[Stewart Malcolm McDonald]

Would you work for free?

[Chris Philp]

In a sense, all of us here have done a gigantic free trial shift: it is called being a parliamentary candidate. I was first selected in December 2006 and ran in the 2010 election. I then proceeded to lose by 42 votes, so that was a pretty extended unsuccessful four-year unpaid trial period.

[Michelle Donelan]

Does my hon. Friend agree that a trial period can be beneficial for those trying out for a job, so they can see if they want and like the job? When I was younger, I did a trial period for a few hours. This is about getting the balance right between rights and responsibilities. We do not want to exploit anybody; we want to create and facilitate opportunities and jobs.

[Chris Philp]

A short trial period—just be clear again, I mean one to two hours—can give an employer the confidence to give someone a job, perhaps someone from a disadvantaged background who does not necessarily come across very strongly in interview. That might give an employer the confidence to employ that person when they might not otherwise do so.

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

I wonder if the hon. Gentleman can clarify something for me. I am listening very carefully to what he says, but I cannot understand why there have to be unpaid trial shifts when it would be much fairer just to put somebody on a temporary contract, then assess them and decide whether to give them a permanent contract.

[Chris Philp]

To be absolutely clear, I do not think that full, unpaid trial shifts are ethical, right or moral. My understanding is that they are illegal already, and if they are not illegal they certainly should be made so. I definitely do not want full, unpaid trial shifts to be legal. However, a short period of time—one or two hours, I would suggest—should not require a temporary contract. Asking someone to enter into a temporary contract entails a certain amount of paperwork and bureaucracy. Notwithstanding the point about the two years, in relation to discrimination it creates immediately binding legal obligations. To do all that for someone who is essentially going through an interview process imposes an unreasonable burden on a prospective employer. If an employer is interviewing 10 people for one position, to have to give all 10 a temporary contract would be excessive in the context of a one or two-hour trial.

I have spoken for a little bit longer than I planned to. Before I conclude, I will take one last intervention.

[Jeremy Quin]

My hon. Friend referred to his time as a parliamentary candidate. As we all know, as a parliamentary candidate one receives a lot of feedback whether we like it or not. One of the powerful points made by the hon. Member for Glasgow South (Stewart Malcolm McDonald) in his excellent speech was in relation to feedback from employers to prospective employees, an excellent idea that should be encouraged. I worry that companies are very nervous about providing honest and helpful feedback. If the Bill moves on to the Committee stage, I hope—as a former employer—that that point is focused on so that a safe harbour can be established.

[Chris Philp]

I agree. We heard from the Scottish National party Benches about a powerful case study. It is a gross discourtesy—an insult, in fact—to interview someone, have them go to the trouble of coming to your place of work, going through an interview and possibly doing some trial work, and not even provide feedback for them. That discourages people from going to interviews.

[Stewart Malcolm McDonald]

If the Bill does not get a Second Reading and go on to Committee, that will continue to happen. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the Bill should go on to the Committee stage?

[Chris Philp]

I have a very open mind. I would like to hear what the Minister has to say in response to the questions I have posed, in particular on whether one or two hours of work is part of current legislation.

In conclusion, there is a balance to strike. If we impose too many barriers to creating employment—this applies to generally onerous employment legislation—there is a risk that rather than protecting people, we prevent jobs from being created. One of the reasons why this country has created 3 million jobs in the past eight years—more than the rest of Europe put together—is that we have a sensible balance between protections for workers on the one hand and avoiding over-burdening employers on the other. I am very nervous about upsetting that delicate balance.

As I said at the beginning, I agree that practices relating to full shifts in this context should not be lawful. I will listen very carefully to the Minister’s comments when he winds up the debate.

Parental Bereavement (Leave and Pay) Bill

Chris Philp Excerpts

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

[Chris Philp (Croydon South) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Washington and Sunderland West (Mrs Hodgson). I am delighted she was able to come off the Front Bench and give the speech she just made. It is a pleasure and privilege to have listened to everything she had to say.

I am delighted to give my strong support to the Bill today. I pay huge tribute to the Members who have brought it here. Of course it stands in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake), who chose to bring it here and introduced it with such eloquence and passion, but, as many others have said, other Members have worked very hard on this issue for a number of years. My hon. Friends the Members for Colchester (Will Quince), for Eddisbury (Antoinette Sandbach) and for Banbury (Victoria Prentis) have shown enormous courage and compassion in bringing difficult personal experiences here to Parliament to ensure that the law will operate for other people in a way that will help them. Their conduct on this issue shows Parliament at its best; it shows Parliament demonstrating compassion, and people coming here with real experience and using it to improve the lives of our fellow citizens. I congratulate and pay huge tribute to all of those Members who have brought us to where we stand today.

Other Members have spoken eloquently about the Bill’s merits. In a way, it is sad that it is even necessary, because if all employers behaved with compassion and sensitivity, it would not be. But we have heard examples where employers, either deliberately or just through carelessness, have not behaved as they should towards bereaved parents. Making sure that it is compulsory that they do behave decently is exactly the right thing to do.

Some Members, particularly my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury and the hon. Member for Washington and Sunderland West, have drawn attention to the pay component. It is not enough simply to give people time off work and to make that automatic; it is important that people get some pay for that, too. That is particularly the case in order to help people on lower incomes, for whom a loss of pay even for a couple of weeks is a really serious matter. I am therefore delighted that the Bill encompasses not only time off, but pay.

I should like to raise an issue, and I hope that the Minister will respond to it. It is closely linked to the issues in the Bill, and it might be something that my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton and the Government could consider in Committee if it were in order to do so. If not, perhaps the Government could consider it more generally. It relates to children who are born incredibly prematurely. My twins were born at 25 weeks and one day. For many parents whose children are born so prematurely, there is not a happy ending. I saw many parents in the University College hospital neonatal unit who had been bereaved following the birth of their children at that level of prematurity. Thanks to the miracles of modern science, however, some children do survive, and thankfully my twins were among them.

A Croydon resident, Catriona Ogilvy, has articulated a good case for giving the parents of extremely premature babies extended maternity leave. The case that Catriona makes is that when the baby comes out of the neonatal intensive care unit, they will often be like any other baby, but while they are in the unit, the parents often have to be present almost 24 hours a day. There is a case for offering parents extended statutory maternity leave with pay when the baby is born before 30 or perhaps 34 weeks’ gestation. I realise that this might be outside the scope of the Bill, given its short and long titles. If it is within the scope of the Bill, I would certainly urge my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton to consider tabling amendments that speak to this point. If it is not, I would be interested to hear what the Minister thinks about Catriona Ogilvy’s suggestion. I believe it would be an improvement to our legislation if we could consider moves in that area.

I put on record once again my congratulations to the Members involved in bringing in the Bill. I strongly commend it to the House and hope that it will progress rapidly through the various stages of parliamentary approval and get on to the nation’s statute book as expeditiously as possible.

Corporate Governance

Chris Philp Excerpts

1st reading: House of Commons
Tuesday 29th November 2016 Commons Chamber

[Greg Clark]

My hon. Friend is right in what he says, and I think Conservative Members would not regard legislation as being the way to cure all ills. I would take issue with him to this extent only: in general, the standards of both governance and behaviour are very high in this country, and most employees have good jobs in successful businesses. We should be proud of the standards that we have, while taking action against those who depart from them.

[Chris Philp (Croydon South) (Con)]

Does the Secretary of State agree that giving shareholders more power has a good chance of curbing corporate excess, including excessive pay, and that in Sweden the use of a shareholder committee to control both the appointment and removal of directors, and to approve executive pay, has had extremely positive effects in both those areas?

[Greg Clark]

I am delighted to see my hon. Friend in this place. When he reads the Green Paper, he will see that the proposal he made in a very well-written paper for a think tank to suggest a shareholder committee in this way is one option we are consulting on. I congratulate him on his influence on this debate and look forward to the responses to it.

Oral Answers to Questions

Chris Philp Excerpts

Tuesday 13th September 2016 Commons Chamber

[Greg Clark]

My right hon. Friend has been vigorous during the summer in going around the world to promote the case for British business, as is his job. Opposition Members will have the support of everyone in this House if they join the efforts we are making to promote the great opportunities there already are in this country and the further opportunities to come.

[Chris Philp (Croydon South) (Con)]

18. Secretary of State, may I ask you whether you agree that free trade is at the heart of a prosperous economy? Will you and your Front-Bench colleagues be resisting any attempts to impose any form of protectionism when we come to negotiating future trade arrangements?