Online Safety Bill

Debate between Jim Shannon and Paul Scully

Report stage
Monday 5th December 2022 Commons Chamber

[Paul Scully]

Ofcom will be working with the platforms over the next few months—in the lead-up to the commencement of the Bill and afterwards—to ensure that the provisions are operational, so that we get them up and running as soon as practicably possible. My right hon. Friend is right to raise the point.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

In Northern Ireland we face the specific issue of the glorification of terrorism. Glorifying terrorism encourages terrorism. Is it possible that the Bill will stop that type of glorification, and therefore stop the terrorism that comes off the back of it?

[Paul Scully]

I will try to cover the hon. Member’s comments a little bit later, if I may, when I talk about some of the changes coming up later in the process.

Moving away from CSEA, I am pleased to say that new clause 53 fulfils a commitment given by my predecessor in Committee to bring forward reforms to address epilepsy trolling. It creates the two specific offences of sending and showing flashing images to an individual with epilepsy with the intention of causing them harm. Those offences will apply in England, Wales and Northern Ireland, providing people with epilepsy with specific protection from this appalling abuse. I would like to place on record our thanks to the Epilepsy Society for working with the Ministry of Justice to develop the new clause.

The offence of sending flashing images captures situations in which an individual sends a communication in a scatter-gun manner—for example, by sharing a flashing image on social media—and the more targeted sending of flashing images to a person who the sender knows or suspects is a person with epilepsy. It can be committed by a person who forwards or shares such an electronic communication as well as by the person sending it. The separate offence of showing flashing images will apply if a person shows flashing images to someone they know or suspect to have epilepsy by means of an electronic communications device—for example, on a mobile phone or a TV screen.

The Government have listened to parliamentarians and stakeholders about the impact and consequences of this reprehensible behaviour, and my thanks go to my hon. Friends the Members for Watford (Dean Russell), for Stourbridge (Suzanne Webb), for Blackpool North and Cleveleys (Paul Maynard) and for Ipswich (Tom Hunt) for their work and campaigning. [Interruption.] Indeed, and the hon. Member for Batley and Spen (Kim Leadbeater), who I am sure will be speaking on this later.

New clause 53 creates offences that are legally robust and enforceable so that those seeking to cause harm to people with epilepsy will face appropriate criminal sanctions. I hope that will reassure the House that the deeply pernicious activity of epilepsy trolling will be punishable by law.

--- Later in debate ---

[Paul Scully]

Thank you, Mr Speaker; I will try to keep my remarks very much in scope.

The harmful communications offence in clause 151 was a reform to communication offences proposed in the Bill. Since the Bill has been made public, parliamentarians and stakeholders have expressed concern that the threshold that would trigger prosecution for the offence of causing serious distress could bring robust but legitimate conversation into the illegal space. In the light of that concern, we have decided not to take forward the harmful communications offence for now. That will give the Government an opportunity to consider further how the criminal law can best protect individuals from harmful communications, and ensure that protections for free speech are robust.

[Jim Shannon]

This is about the protection of young people, and we are all here for the same reason, including the Minister. We welcome the changes that he is putting forward, but the Royal College of Psychiatrists has expressed a real concern about the mental health of children, and particularly about how screen time affects them. NHS Digital has referred to one in eight 11 to 16-year-olds being bullied. I am not sure whether we see in the Bill an opportunity to protect them, so perhaps the Minister can tell me the right way to do that.

[Paul Scully]

The hon. Gentleman talks about the wider use of screens and screen time, and that is why Ofcom’s media literacy programme, and DCMS’s media literacy strategy—

Holocaust Memorial and Learning Centre

Debate between Jim Shannon and Paul Scully

Thursday 21st July 2022 Commons Chamber

[Paul Scully]

The memorial for the holocaust remains a manifesto commitment of the Government and we will clearly look at the court decision and work out where to go next. It will be a decision for the next Prime Minister, but my hon. Friend has fought for this and spoken out about the holocaust on several occasions, and I know that she will continue to do so.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I get the impression that the Minister greatly understands the concerns of everybody in the Chamber, but can he outline what discussions have taken place with members of the Jewish community to underline the fact that this discouraging news will not deter the Government from taking appropriate steps to facilitate a central permanent holocaust memorial centre to show that this great nation—the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland—is united in ensuring that future generations understand the importance of remembering the holocaust as a horrifically sad and bloody lesson for everyone?

[Paul Scully]

I always commend the hon. Gentleman for his work on religious freedom and tackling religious hatred, including antisemitism. With the court’s decision being so fresh, it is early to have had those conversations with the Jewish community, but this is the first signal of our intention to stick to our manifesto commitment of building a holocaust memorial. As the newly installed Minister for faith, I will have talks with the Jewish community across the summer.

Post Office: Compensation for Horizon Scandal

Debate between Jim Shannon and Paul Scully

Thursday 30th June 2022 Commons Chamber

[Paul Scully]

We want to ensure that, by drawing a line under this historic miscarriage of justice and scandal, we can work on the future of the Post Office. To do that, we need to make sure we are engaging everybody—rural, coastal and city-wide post offices—on how we get the right balance between the Post Office’s economic value and its social value. I will continue to work with the APPG and with Members on both sides of the House to get this right.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the Minister for grasping the core of the issue and getting the job done. The Chamber is unanimous in thanking him, and I add my thanks, too. I welcome that those who initially missed out on the scheme now have the opportunity to apply. It is good to see fairness and equity set as the standard for those who have passed away. Will their sponsors or next of kin be eligible to apply?

[Paul Scully]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his kind words. The solicitors will work with the estates of postmasters who were subject to overturned convictions or historical shortfalls, or indeed the original 555. It is important that we get the equity he seeks.

Fire and Rehire Tactics

Debate between Jim Shannon and Paul Scully

Wednesday 15th June 2022 Westminster Hall

[Paul Scully]

I will come to the statutory code in a second and explain how that works. Even the hon. Member for Brent North (Barry Gardiner), who talked of banning fire and rehire and ran a campaign that involved many Members here, actually explained in the debate in the Chamber that his Bill would not ban fire and rehire. It would limit it but not ban it. Even he understood that, in certain circumstances, there needs to be that flexibility.

The statutory code includes practical steps that employers should follow if they are considering changes to terms and conditions and there is the prospect of dismissal and re-engagement. A court or employment tribunal will take the code into account when considering relevant cases, including those related to unfair dismissal. The tribunals will have the power to apply an uplift of up to 25% of an employee’s compensation if an employer unreasonably fails to comply with the code where it applies.

Most employers do their best to comply with the law, but the code will clarify best practice standards and deter those employers who try to cut corners, pushing the bar even higher for employers who seek to do the wrong thing. We will hold a public consultation soon, to seek views from across employers, individuals, unions and beyond.

[Jim Shannon]

I know that the Minister genuinely wishes to see betterment, as we all do. We gave some examples. Three or four Members referred to P&O Ferries. The Minister and the Government condemned the chief executive of P&O Ferries for his tactics, and they were right to do so. British Gas is another example of doing it totally the wrong way and disregarding the workers. I note that 20% of my constituents in Northern Ireland found that fire and rehire tactics were wrong. What will the Minister and the Government do to protect workers where, as the Minister and the Prime Minister have said, companies have done wrong?

[Paul Scully]

I will come to P&O Ferries now before I address the other points that Members have raised. The Government have been clear that the dismissal by P&O Ferries of 800 loyal seafarers without any notification or consultation was absolutely unacceptable. I was sat behind the chief executive—literally, not figuratively—during the Select Committee hearing. Like everyone else, I was appalled when I heard him say that he would do the same thing again. That was absolutely horrific to hear.

Subsidy Control Bill

Debate between Jim Shannon and Paul Scully

Consideration of Lords amendments
Wednesday 20th April 2022 Commons Chamber

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the Minister for what he is saying. He referred to the fact that there had been thorough discussions in this House and in the other place. I am wondering whether those thorough discussions involved the devolved Administrations, particularly the Northern Ireland Assembly, but also the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly. If there is disagreement, how do the Minister and the Government intend to deal with it?

[Paul Scully]

The hon. Gentleman makes a really good point. We tried to work with all the devolved Administrations right the way through the process from beginning to end, and we have continued conversations with each of them over this period. Clearly there are, and will be, differences in the process. This needs to work for the whole of the United Kingdom, so I am keen that we continue the dialogue, whether it is with Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland, to ensure that we can do as much as we can to reach agreement, though clearly that will not always be possible; that is the nature of dialogue.

[Paul Scully]

No. However, the UK Government have a reserved power over subsidy control, so it is the UK Government who act on that reserved power.

Finally, we have introduced an amendment specifying that the Secretary of State may provide statutory guidance to public authorities on pre-action information requests—that is, the provision of information following a request about a subsidy decision to an interested party that is considering whether to ask the Competition Appeal Tribunal to review the subsidy.

I shall now move on to two amendments related to levelling up. Lords amendment 50 makes it clear that addressing local or regional disadvantage is considered to be an equity rationale for the purpose of assessing compliance with principle A. This puts beyond any doubt that a subsidy to address local or regional disadvantage can be given, provided that the other principles and requirements of the regime are met. Lords amendment 9 exempts from the prohibition on relocation those relocation subsidies that have the effect of reducing social or economic disadvantage. The subsidy must, of course, also comply with the principles and other requirements.

[Jim Shannon]

On the issue of levelling up, I know that the Government and the Prime Minister have given a commitment to levelling up all the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, but I am always conscious that we want to see that actually happen, not just words. Can the Minister give me some assurance that Northern Ireland—where the cost of living is higher, wages are lower and products and consumer goods are higher in price—will, through the Northern Ireland Assembly, receive the levelling up that we should?

[Paul Scully]

Indeed, yes. Levelling up does not exclude any one area of the United Kingdom. It also does not exclude levelling up within regions; that is really important. This legislation only provides the framework; the levelling-up fund, the shared prosperity fund and other measures that can use the framework will, I am sure, benefit the hon. Gentleman’s constituency and Northern Ireland as a whole. It is really important that we get this right.

I am happy to report that we produced Lords amendments 1, 5 to 8, 10 to 12, 39 and 40 to respond to concerns about the Bill in the 17th report of this Session by the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee. Lords amendment 1 addresses a concern with clause 10. Parliamentary scrutiny of streamlined subsidy schemes made under clause 10 has been strengthened by giving either House the ability to annul any streamlined schemes after they have been made, by applying the negative procedure.

Lords amendments 5 to 8 replace the direction-making power in clause 16 relating to the designation of marketable risk countries with a power to make regulations for the same purpose. Lords amendments 10 to 12 relate to the powers in clauses 25 to 27 to change definitions in secondary legislation. Those powers will be removed. Finally in this group, Lords amendments 39 and 40 address concerns raised by the DPRRC about secrecy regarding the financial stability direction-making power in clause 47. These amendments make it clear that such directions will need to be published in due course. In addition, the Economic Secretary to the Treasury has written to the Public Accounts Committee and the Treasury Committee to commit to notifying the Chairs of those Committees confidentially about the use of a financial stability direction.

I turn to Lords amendments 41 to 43 and 49, relating to the Competition and Markets Authority and the Subsidy Advice Unit. Although the Secretary of State could already direct the SAU to complete a monitoring report for a specified time period under clause 65(4), these amendments make specific provision in the Bill for more frequent scrutiny in the early years of the new regime. Instead of mandating a report within five years of the implementation of the regime, the tabled amendments require an initial report after only three years, to be followed up with a further report after another three years. After that, reporting will revert to a five-year cycle. The Secretary of State will retain the ability to direct that a report be made at a specified period after the publication of the second three-year report. The sunsetting provisions in clause 87(6) have been extended so that they take effect after the second three-year report. Lords amendments 2 to 4 and 48 are minor and technical in nature. They clarify definitions under clauses 11 and 82.

In summary, this substantial package of amendments represents an improved set of measures that will strengthen the new domestic subsidy control regime and make it more transparent and accountable. There will now be greater transparency of subsidies awarded, and improved oversight and monitoring of the regime by Parliament and the CMA. I am grateful to colleagues in both Houses for their hard work on, and attention to, this important Bill. They have helped to bring about these improvements, which I hope will be endorsed by Members from across this House.

Sub-Postmasters: Compensation

Debate between Jim Shannon and Paul Scully

Tuesday 22nd March 2022 Commons Chamber

[Paul Scully]

I pay tribute to the CCRC. It is because of its resource that we want to ensure that people can go directly to the Court of Appeal to try to circumvent overloading it. I pay tribute to the work that it has done to get us this far.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the right hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) for his endeavours and for his tenacity. I also commend the Minister for delivering on it; it is always good to have a Minister who does that, so I thank him. I welcome the news that payments will be equalised, but this is the second time in two days that I have come across a case where those who paid for litigation and went through the stress of a court case ended up worse off than those who did nothing. Could consideration be given to the court costs being covered as an act of good faith for those postmasters whose lives and reputations have been decimated?

[Paul Scully]

In terms of the original funding, the court cases will absolutely be taken into account—that is the entire process. They will be compensated as if they were going through the HSS and as if they had not gone through the court case in the first place and had those court fees and legal fees taken away from them. I totally agree with the hon. Gentleman.

Post Office: Horizon Compensation Arrangements

Debate between Jim Shannon and Paul Scully

Thursday 24th February 2022 Commons Chamber

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I concur with those who have thanked the Minister in particular for his genuine interest and commitment, which we all recognise.

The report produced by the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee makes difficult reading for those who took their cases to court and are worse off than those who did not. Constituents of mine who are affected have been asking, where is the equality for all that was promised? Their reputations are shattered and they are financially bereft. Will the Minister direct his team to right this wrong as quickly as possible?

[Paul Scully]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his kind words and for his ongoing interest. I am pleased to say that, as the first week of evidence to his inquiry finishes, Sir Wyn will be travelling around the country. He will go to Cardiff, and also to Belfast. It is important for him to hear from people close to where they live, so that they can feel comfortable and confident about giving evidence. However, the hon. Gentleman is right: we need to crack on with this and secure the equality that he seeks.

Economic Crime: Planned Government Bill

Debate between Jim Shannon and Paul Scully

Wednesday 26th January 2022 Commons Chamber

[Paul Scully]

I thank my hon. Friend for welcoming the Government’s cyber strategy. He is absolutely right to highlight the importance of this area, which the Government are tackling. We will continue to do more as time allows and as we get more and more information. The legislation needs to be right for the 21st century. It needs to keep up with the areas—cyber, the dark web and so on—that criminals are using.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the Minister for his answers so far, but after the recent resignation of Lord Agnew following a lack of consideration for an economic crime Bill, there have been many calls for that decision to be reconsidered or reviewed. The Bill was set to protect and better manage the UK’s economic prosperity. May I gently remind the Minister of the £26 million robbery of the Northern Bank in Northern Ireland by the IRA? Experts state that moneys have been laundered through legitimate businesses. Alongside that, there is the £396 million of fuel duty that has been lost to the Chancellor. Through an economic crime Bill, we can address the issues relating to the IRA’s illegal and murderous activities. Will the Minister confirm to the House that every action will be taken to ensure the Bill is introduced as soon as possible to take on those who live off the backs of others?

[Paul Scully]

I thank the hon. Member, as ever. He raises the really good point that not all economic crime is international. There is a lot of home-grown economic crime and he cites just one of a number of crimes happening in Northern Ireland and across the UK. Yes, we will ensure that we bring forward measures to this place to be scrutinised and pushed through as soon as possible.

Covid-19: Requirements for Employees to be Vaccinated

Debate between Jim Shannon and Paul Scully

Monday 24th January 2022 Westminster Hall

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Paisley. I congratulate the Petitions Committee on securing the debate, and the hon. Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk (Martyn Day) on the way that he presented it on the Committee’s behalf. Clearly, this is an issue that can divide opinion, with people on both sides holding very strong views. I am grateful to everyone who contributed. As many Members will know, I sat on the Petitions Committee for a number of years. Now, as a Minister, I am sitting on the other side of the fence, accounting for the Government’s position, so I understand how invaluable the work of the Committee is.

As we all know, today’s debate was prompted by an online petition to prohibit employers from requiring staff to be vaccinated against covid-19. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) asked why I was present, and whether I was substituting. Although the petition referenced the public sector and the NHS, I am afraid that it is because of the wide-ranging wording of the petition that he has got me. However, I will clearly touch on many of the issues that have been raised, because the debate has been focused on the NHS, and understandably so. The petition has been signed by more than 190,000 people, which goes to show the strength of the issue.

There is concern among those who have signed the e-petition, and all MPs who have spoken, about the steps that the Government have taken to make vaccination a condition of deployment in certain settings. There is also concern more generally that some employers outside those sectors are seeking to mandate the covid-19 vaccines for their workforce. I will come to that, but the Government’s starting point, as I think all Members have said today, is that vaccines are our best defence against covid-19.

The overwhelming majority of us have taken the positive step of accepting the offer of vaccination. Some 79% of eligible adults in England have now had a booster, including over 91% of over-50s, who are more vulnerable to the virus. We are the most boosted large country in the world. Recent data from the UK Health Security Agency shows that around three months after those aged 65 and over receive their booster, their protection against hospitalisation remains around 90%. The vaccines work.

However, those vaccines do not just protect us and our loved ones against covid-19. It is because of the vaccines that we have one of the most open economies in the world, so if we are to maintain the collective protection that we have built up, we need everybody to choose responsibly and get vaccinated. That will ensure greater freedom for us all.

[Jim Shannon]

In my contribution, I referred to the fact that a year ago, we were clapping NHS workers across the whole of the United Kingdom. Everybody, including the Prime Minister and everyone in this room, did that. Does the Minister not understand—I say this very respectfully—the deep feeling of hurt that those people have? We clapped them, and now we are telling them that we no longer need them unless they do what they are told.

[Paul Scully]

I will come to the issue of NHS workers in a second, and show what we are doing regarding non-patient-facing NHS workers and the moves we are taking to help people get vaccinated.

Fireworks: Sale and Use

Debate between Jim Shannon and Paul Scully

Monday 8th November 2021 Westminster Hall

[Paul Scully]

I understand my hon. Friend’s point. I would differentiate between a constant noise of 120 dB in a confined area and the more individual use of fireworks in an outdoor area, but none the less I take his point.

The Government are also committed to giving the police what they need to support local communities, including through the recruitment of an additional 20,000 police officers by March 2023 and investment in measures to make communities safer through the safer streets fund. That being said, I understand the challenges faced by enforcement authorities, and I assure Members that the Government are not complacent in this area.

[Jim Shannon]

Has the Minister had the opportunity to discuss the Northern Ireland legislation with the devolved Administration and the responsible Minister at the Assembly? I understand that there are exceptional circumstances, but that legislation seems at least to have led to some control over this issue.

[Paul Scully]

I have not had a discussion at ministerial level, but officials look at what is happening in Northern Ireland, Wales and Scotland—and in other countries. Clearly, there is a difference in the law in Northern Ireland, predominantly because of troubles and the historical context there; however, officials from the Office for Product Safety and Standards do look at that.

Beauty and Wellbeing Sector Workforce

Debate between Jim Shannon and Paul Scully

Wednesday 23rd June 2021 Westminster Hall

[Paul Scully]

I talked about the fact that the Chancellor went long and was overly generous—well, not overly generous. He erred on the side of generosity in the Budget to cope with the possibility of an extension. On the grant scheme, I have written, along with the Under-Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Worcestershire (Nigel Huddleston), to local authorities to ensure that the additional restrictions grant can be widened. We have offered £425 million more to top up the additional restrictions grant, but that will be given to councils only if they have spent their original allocation. There are two ways that they can do that: they can either give businesses to which they are already paying grants more money or widen the number of businesses to include some of those that have fallen between the cracks, of which we know there are many.

Interestingly, different sectors are saying different things about furlough. It is a drag on bringing people back into work for some sectors, such as in some parts of the hospitality sector, but others, such as the personal care sector, are saying that they want to extend it. That is why it is really important that the Chancellor looks at it in a holistic way, right across the economy. Although these debates are so important to highlight the pleas and plight of a particular sector, the Chancellor has to take a macro view, while understanding that there is a human cost within all of this. When I say a macro view, it is not all about spreadsheets; it is about personal loss in terms of people’s jobs and businesses. That is why we have had to wrap our arms around the economy so much.

A number of contributors to the debate talked about VAT. It is interesting to note that the majority of businesses within the personal care sector are not registered for VAT in the first place, so it was considered by the Chancellor as probably not the best way of getting support directly out to a number of the small businesses affected. VAT is one of the larger and more costly measures for the Treasury, so the Chancellor again has to take a holistic view. From memory, the cost of the VAT cut to the hospitality sector was something like £27 billion, contrasted with about £12 billion for the business rates sector. That was a figure from around January, so it may be slightly out of date, but not by much.

Turning to jobs and skills, it is really good that the sector is accessible and flexible, and that it benefits young people and women, including those who have to balance work with looking after their children. In 2018, 65,000 qualifications were achieved in hair and beauty, and the hair profession specifically saw approximately 10,000 new apprenticeships—the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) raised this issue—being taken up in England, but I recognise how the deeply challenging restrictions caused by the pandemic have affected employers’ ability to hire new staff, especially apprentices, due to capacity restrictions and financial hardship.

[Jim Shannon]

Is it the Government’s intention to help hair and beauty salons to employ apprentices in order to have in place, as I said earlier, the next generation of those who can do the job?

[Paul Scully]

The hon. Gentleman, as ever, predicts the next few paragraphs of my speech. Yes, we want to encourage and work with the sector, and incentivise it to take on more apprentices. I am aware of how highly skilled and valued practitioners are, but they are tempted to start careers in different industries because they have lost confidence in the sector’s future viability. That is why it is important that we talk about it, support the sector and demonstrate how viable and flexible it is, and how it very much has a key role in the high street ecosystem that I talked about earlier.

Anti-loitering Devices: Safety

Debate between Jim Shannon and Paul Scully

Wednesday 16th June 2021 Commons Chamber

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

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Clacton (Giles Watling) on securing today’s important debate. I assure him that, although the House did not need an anti-loitering device to empty this evening, that was in no way a reflection of his excellent speech, in which he outlined his concerns about this important issue.

As Consumer Minister, the safety of these products falls under my ministerial portfolio, and the safety of the public is a key priority for the Government. The safety of such products contributes to ensuring the safety of the public and, in particular, children and young people, so I am pleased to be able to discuss this important issue, and I thank my hon. Friend for the opportunity for us to exchange views on it. I am aware that he had an exchange of letters with my predecessor on the subject and that, as he has outlined, he has a long history of discussing and raising his concerns.

Many of the issues raised go beyond safety and fall within the remit of ministerial colleagues in other Departments. I will ensure that my officials draw the Hansard of the debate to the attention of relevant counterparts and continue to join up on this issue. I am more than happy to meet my hon. Friend to discuss the issues further, as he has requested.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the hon. Member for Clacton (Giles Watling) for bringing the debate forward; it is on an excellent issue. On the safety of the general public, the Minister knows, as do I and others, about the effect of autism and the number of children and adults with autism across the whole of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Does the Minister agree that, for the safety of the general public, children and adults with autism must be taken on board as a priority?

[Paul Scully]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention, which was as wise as always. It is important that we protect all children, but especially vulnerable children, and he raises an interesting point. I will talk a bit more about safety in a second.

It might be useful if I set out the context of the regulatory and enforcement regime with which products such as anti-loitering devices must comply. As my hon. Friend mentioned, OPSS is the UK’s national product safety regulator. It was established in 2018 to lead and co-ordinate the product safety system, providing national capacity and supporting local enforcement, and it plays a key role in protecting consumers from unsafe products and providing an environment that enables businesses to thrive. It works closely with a wide range of market surveillance authorities, including local authority trading standards in Great Britain and environmental health in Northern Ireland, which have responsibility for enforcing product safety and compliance in the UK.

The UK product safety system is one of the most robust in the world. It places strict obligations on those best placed to control or mitigate risk. We have a comprehensive regulatory framework in place for product safety, with stringent requirements on producers and distributors to ensure that their products are safe before they are placed on the market. Its approach places an obligation on those best placed to control and mitigate the risk.

The safety of acoustic anti-loitering devices, commonly known as mosquito devices, is regulated by the General Product Safety Regulations 2005 and other product-specific laws, such as the Electrical Equipment (Safety) Regulations 2016. These provide a baseline of safety for applicable products, requiring that only safe products, in their normal or reasonably foreseeable usage, can be placed on the market. Where product-specific legislation applies, such as the Electrical Equipment (Safety) Regulations 2016, a product must comply with a specific set of essential safety requirements before it can be placed on the market. Once their products are on the market, businesses have a continuing responsibility to monitor them and to act if a safety issue is identified.

The current regulatory framework enables the relevant enforcing authority—either local authorities or the OPSS—to investigate specific allegations of unsafe products and take action where it is appropriate to do so. That includes prompting businesses to take corrective action and to provide additional advice to consumers or instigate a recall. I can confirm that there have been no reports of dangerous anti-loitering devices on the UK product safety database, which is used by regulators to share information about safety risks and ensure that appropriate action is taken.

When the Government last reviewed and set out their position on the safety of these products, in 2010, the Health and Safety Executive concluded that there was little likelihood of any long-term ill effects associated with them, and that the use of anti-loitering devices should remain an option available to local authorities in tackling antisocial behaviour. That decision followed testing that was carried out by the National Physical Laboratory, which determined that mosquito devices did not operate at a high enough volume to damage hearing. However, we continue to monitor reports of safety in relation to all products. If, as my predecessor said, there is further evidence or data on the use and impact of anti-loitering devices, clearly we will review it. The 2005 regulations already provide protection for consumers from unsafe products. Where specific products are found to be unsafe, they can be removed from the market, so there are no current plans to introduce a licensing regime for anti-loitering devices on the basis of safety, as our current assessment is that such devices do not present a safety risk.

What we are discussing today, several years after that testing was done, goes beyond safety and regulation by the 2005 regulations. The basis of the debate broadens to include considerations of human rights and potential psychological impacts, and the need to understand the potential for certain vulnerable groups to experience greater harms. My Department recognises that concern but maintains that the 2005 regulations already provide protection for consumers from unsafe products.

I want to take a few moments to talk about the wider protections already in place and what the Government are doing to ensure that the freedoms of individuals are protected while also protecting the public. While these are matters for my ministerial colleagues in other Departments, I feel that it would be useful to set these out to provide the broader context for our debate. Concern has been expressed about the impact of anti-loitering devices on the freedom of assembly. The Government are committed to upholding the right to freedom of assembly and association for all, as protected by article 11 of the European convention on human rights, which is given further effect domestically by the Human Rights Act 1998.

The Government are also committed to tackling and preventing antisocial behaviour, because we know the serious impact that persistent antisocial behaviour can have on both individuals and communities. Everybody has a right to feel safe in their own homes and neighbourhoods. The Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 seeks to put victims first, giving power to local people and enabling professionals to find the best solutions for their local area. To do this, local enforcement agencies have a range of tools and powers that they can use to respond quickly and effectively to antisocial behaviour through the 2014 Act. It is up to local areas to decide how best to deploy such powers, depending on the specific circumstances. That is because they are best placed to understand what is driving the behaviour in question, the impact that it is having, and to determine the most appropriate response.

The Home Office issued statutory guidance for the 2014 Act, which was updated in January 2021, to support agencies to make appropriate and proportionate use of the powers, when they target specific problems in a public setting, depending on the circumstances. In a similar vein, where these devices are misused and create a noise nuisance for members of the public, there are statutory protections in place to deal with such nuisance.

The potential impact of anti-loitering devices on children’s rights has been discussed. The UK Government regularly report to the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child on the work that we have been doing across the UK to implement the United Nations convention on the rights of the child and to promote children’s rights. The UN committee published a list of issues for the UK to report against early next year. One of these issues relates to anti-loitering mosquito devices and the measures taken to guarantee children’s right to freedom of movement and peaceful assembly.

The UK Government response will involve the input of a number of Government Departments and devolved Administrations, including the Crown dependencies and British overseas territories, and children’s rights stakeholders to record progress. I will ensure that my hon. Friend receives a copy of that response when it is issued.

In conclusion, I thank my hon. Friend for bringing this topic for debate today. It is really important that the Government continue to keep such issues, with wide-ranging interests and potential impacts, under close review, and I thank him for his dogged work in raising these concerns across Government. I would also like to reassure him, the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), who is in his place today, and others that the Government will always take steps, where appropriate, to ensure safety and to protect the public.

Question put and agreed to.

Social Distancing Restrictions: Support for the Night-Time Economy

Debate between Jim Shannon and Paul Scully

Tuesday 8th June 2021 Westminster Hall

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hosie. I congratulate the hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Lloyd Russell-Moyle) on securing today’s important debate. I thank him for his work and all those colleagues on the all-party parliamentary group for the night time economy, which is a hugely important sector, culturally, economically and for people’s wellbeing.

This area of the economy is being hard-pressed because it is not a binary situation like retail, which is either open or not—obviously there are measures within, but on the whole it is either open or not open. Clearly, restrictions are being put on the hospitality sector, the night-time economy and the wider hospitality sector, such as weddings, and that is happening at a cost, with extra staffing and reduced capacity for those venues. They have been incredibly hard-pressed.

The sector also creates millions of local jobs. Many sectors and industries within hospitality—events and entertainment, healthcare, security, cleaning, transport, logistics, retail, health and fitness centres—are all part of the hospitality ecosystem. The sector is also key in driving other vital sectors of the economy, including tourism, entertainment, the arts and cultural activities, such as theatres and comedy clubs. We recognise the huge disruptions that the covid-19 pandemic has caused to people’s lives. It has presented unprecedented challenges to those sectors.

The Prime Minister’s road map is an important step towards reopening the night-time economy, but we need to be driven by the data and proceed cautiously towards step four. That is why we have opened the economy in gradual steps, as it is vital that we do not jeopardise the success of the vaccination programme. I hope this debate will go some way to restoring public confidence and kick-starting recovery for the industry to make sure that people in the sector know that everybody in this place, from either side of the House, is fully committed to making sure that we can restore our night-time industry.

The hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown talked about December and what happened at Christmas. For that reason we are going through the gears gradually, carefully and slowly. We have been at pains to talk about the fact that it is “data not dates”. Everyone will obviously put their hook on 21 June, but although—to provide enough certainty—we have said that that is what we are aiming for, we have been really careful to say that the decision needs to be based on data. Caseload, case rates, the effect of the vaccination on variants, the roll-out of the vaccination programme, and obviously hospitalisations and the pressure on the NHS, are among the things that we are testing and gathering evidence for. Every day that we continue with that process, we are getting richer data.

The promise has been clear that the decision will be made and announced on 14 June. I appreciate that, for some businesses—especially those producing real ale, as it takes a couple of weeks to brew and, as the hon. Gentleman says, it has a short shelf life—that will not be enough time. However, the key thing is that the full opening up would not be before 21 June. Media speculation does not help and I have been at pains, when speaking to newspapers and TV, to ask them not to speculate for speculation’s sake. That causes cancellations, especially for events that require planning, such as certain nightclubs, weddings or ticketed events. That speculation is harming business.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

First, I congratulate the hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Lloyd Russell-Moyle) on bringing the matter forward. He is right; it is the uncertainty. We understand the issues to do with the timescale and then it falls back, but I want to make a plea, to back up the hon. Gentleman, for those workers. In my constituency, I know that some have had real uncertainty over the future of their jobs. First, they are on furlough. Then, they are off furlough. Then, something else happens and they find themselves off furlough and they cannot get back on again. Can the Minister say what consideration the Government have given for businesses that have furloughed some of their staff, have taken them off with an option of opening and then find themselves in the predicament where they wish they had not taken them off furlough to start with? Also, what discussion has the Minister had with the devolved Administrations?

Redundancy Protection: Women and New Parents

Debate between Jim Shannon and Paul Scully

Wednesday 28th April 2021 Westminster Hall

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dame Angela. I congratulate the hon. Member for East Renfrewshire (Kirsten Oswald) on securing today’s important debate on extending redundancy protections for women and new parents. I can assure her that simply going back to how things were, as she talks about, will not be the case, as I will outline. As we get through to the Employment Bill and further consultation and discussions with businesses and other groups, including Pregnant Then Screwed, I hope we will end up in a far better place to ensure that we can tackle some of those issues.

From the correspondence I receive as a constituency MP and as a Minister, I know what a crucial issue this is, and the pernicious effect that discrimination can have on both the immediate and the longer-term prospects of women in work. More generally, there is the drag that that can put on equality and productivity. Last month, the hon. Member for Glasgow Central (Alison Thewliss) brought a number of representative organisations to talk to me about the challenges that pregnant women and new mothers are facing as a result of covid, so I am aware of the many issues that some women face.

I will start by being crystal clear about two things. First, there can be absolutely no excuse for discrimination against pregnant women or women on maternity leave. There is no excuse for any form of discrimination; it is unlawful. It can have absolutely no place as we start to build back better after the pandemic. We cannot effectively level up if we continue to allow some groups to be treated poorly simply because of who or what they are.

Secondly, I will not hide from the fact that there is a real issue here. The research that we jointly funded with EHRC has been cited and makes for uncomfortable reading. It is worth reminding ourselves of some of the key findings. Around one in nine mothers reported that they were dismissed, made compulsorily redundant when others in their workplace were not, or treated so poorly that they felt that they had to leave their jobs.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the hon. Member for East Renfrewshire (Kirsten Oswald) for setting the scene so well. From his comments, I understand the Minister is sympathetic to this issue. Overall, three in four mothers, 77%, said they had a negative or possibly discriminatory experience during pregnancy, maternity leave and/or return from maternity leave. They have an issue that needs to be addressed. I understand that the Government will respond in a positive way but even though the Government are indicating welcome measures, such as extension of time protection on return from maternity leave, there are wider aspects that need to be addressed, such as shared parental leave, and the stigma that still attaches to a father taking that essential leave. When the Minister makes his good points, will he also address that?

[Paul Scully]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. There are plenty of wider issues to be considered, including the right to request flexible working that we have heard about. Making that a default option is something we have talked about significantly and want to ensure is at the heart of the Employment Bill, when parliamentary time allows that to come forward.

We still need to do plenty of work with shared parental leave. We have collected a lot of data through the consultation as part of the formal evaluation of the shared parental leave and pay scheme. That will give us a fuller picture of how well the current system of parental leave and pay overall is working for parents and employers. Some of the examples that we hear time and again in the Chamber and Westminster Hall indicate that it is not working, so there is plenty more that we can do.

To return to the findings I was talking about before the hon. Gentleman’s intervention, if they are scaled up to the general population, it could mean as many as 54,000 mothers a year are losing their jobs, in many cases simply because they have had a child. Furthermore, our research found that one in five mothers said they had experienced harassment or negative comments related to pregnancy or flexible working from their employer or colleagues. If scaled up, again, to the general population, that could mean as many as 100,000 mothers having similar negative experiences. That can never be right.

The case for Government action is as clear as day. That is why we consulted on measures to improve redundancy protection for pregnant women and new parents. Following that consultation, the Government’s formal response said that we will: ensure the redundancy protection period applies from the point the employee informs the employer that she is pregnant; extend the redundancy protection period for six months once a new mother has returned to work; extend redundancy protection into a period of return to work for those taking adoption leave, following the same approach as the extended protection provided for those returning from maternity leave; and extend redundancy protection into a period of return to work for those taking shared parental leave. We have been clear that we will introduce these measures as soon as parliamentary time allows.

The ten-minute rule Bill from my right hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mrs Miller) was raised. I am aware of calls for us to do things differently. Indeed, I met my right hon. Friend and other colleagues to discuss her proposal, which follows aspects of the German approach, and my predecessors held similar meetings. It is not the objective that we disagree on but the means of achieving it, and even then we share a lot of common ground. The key difference is that the Government’s preferred approach retains and extends the current position of giving the pregnant woman or new parent preferential treatment so that, in effect, they are first in the queue for suitable remaining jobs in a redundancy situation. Others suggest removing the current framework and replacing it with a comprehensive redundancy band with some very limited exceptions so that, in effect, that a pregnant woman or new mother could only be made redundant when a business is closing down. The Government have not yet been convinced by that argument.

At its simplest, taking that approach could require employers to continue to employ people even when there is no work for them to do if the business continued to exist. That burden would fall particularly heavily on small businesses. That is why we continue to believe that extending the existing framework remains the right approach. We believe that we are more likely to promote the culture change we seek by placing a slightly more flexible requirement on employers for an extended period. The six-month extension of additional redundancy protection into a return-to-work period will provide a period of up to 27 months when pregnant women and new mothers will be first in the queue for suitable remaining jobs in a redundancy situation. I believe that will represent a considerable and significant step forward in redundancy protection for pregnant women and new mothers.

I have heard the arguments that there ought to be a role for state enforcement in redundancies involving a pregnant woman or new mother. We need to tread carefully when looking at state roles within those sort of areas. All redundancies should be fair, and it would not be rational to treat one group within the workplace any differently from another by giving them a different arbiter in the redundancy process. I appreciate the pressure and strain that the employment tribunal system is under and will be under owing to the covid pandemic, but none the less it has considerable strengths. For instance, it allows for careful consideration of employment disputes, which are often complex or may not be clear-cut, by those with appropriate expertise. Case law from employment tribunals allows our laws to evolve and develop to reflect changing working practices.

However, I am only too aware that improving redundancy protection only goes so far. The majority of employers report that it is in their interest to support pregnant women and those on maternity leave, with the main reasons being to increase staff retention and to create better morale among employees, but we know that many employers feel that women should declare up front during recruitment whether they are pregnant. EHRC and Department for Business, Innovation and Skills research back in 2016 put a figure of 70% on this. Further, the same research found that a quarter of employers felt that it was reasonable during recruitment to ask women about their plans to have children, so clearly there is some way to go.

Tackling the challenge of pregnancy and maternity discrimination will require action on many fronts. That is why we committed to set up an employer and family representative group, which I want to make recommendations on what improvements can be made to the information available to employers and families on pregnancy and maternity discrimination. Rather than focusing on the end of the process, redundancy, I want the group to look at earlier stages of the employment lifecycle, because we need to shift the whole focus of the debate on pregnancy and maternity discrimination so that employers get it right in the first place, rather than focusing only on what happens when things go wrong. I want the group to develop an action plan on the steps organisations can take to make it easier for pregnant women and new mothers to stay in work and for them to progress throughout their careers.

We are having final discussions with business and family representative groups. Indeed, only the week before last, Maternity Action wrote to the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy on behalf of a number of trade unions and family groups to set out views on areas that might usefully be covered. This discussion is therefore very much a live one, and I hope to be able to announce the group’s membership and first meeting date soon.

I congratulate once again the hon. Member for East Renfrewshire on securing this important debate and for keeping this issue in the public eye. I started off by talking about how most employers realise the value of investing in their workforce and supporting them throughout their career. There are clearly actions that we need to take and issues we must address, as she and the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) outlined eloquently. I look forward to working with the taskforce, seeing what it has to offer, listening to further debates both in this place and in responding to it and tackling many of these issues, as parliamentary time allows.

Question put and agreed to.

National Minimum Wage Enforcement

Debate between Jim Shannon and Paul Scully

Wednesday 28th April 2021 Commons Chamber

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

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for South West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous) on securing today’s important debate and, indeed, his tenacity in supporting and representing his constituent. I am proud to serve as the Minister responsible for the national minimum wage, the national living wage and workers’ rights, among my other responsibilities. I very much value his generous words on the benefits of the national minimum wage to make sure that we can encourage people, as he rightly says, and ensure that work pays. We must protect people on the lowest pay grades, but make sure that they stay in work and have a fruitful career.

The Government are committed to building an economy that works for everyone. Through the national minimum wage and the national living wage, we continue to ensure that the lowest paid in society are rewarded fairly for their contribution to the economy. In April, we increased the national living wage by 2.2% to £8.91, which is the highest ever UK minimum wage. A full-time worker on the national living wage will see their annual earnings rise by over £345. That amounts to a total increase of more than £4,000 since the national living wage was announced in 2015.

We have lowered the age threshold for the national living wage to 23 and, as a result, 23-year-olds and 24-year-olds will get a 71p increase. We have increased the time for which employers must keep minimum wage records from three to six years. That means that workers will get more of the historical arrears that they are owed. The Government are committed to cracking down on employers who fail to pay the national minimum or national living wage.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank hon. Member for South West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous) for introducing the debate. I am always encouraged by what the Minister says, and it is encouraging to hear the things that have been done. However, there are loopholes that allow the hours of casual workers not to be recorded and an appropriate minimum wage is not enforced, so does he not agree that they must be closed? Do his Government intend to ensure that employers will begin doing the right thing instead of being able to avoid it, as they can at the moment?

[Paul Scully]

The hon. Gentleman makes an important, twofold point. First, on anomalies, ignorance is no defence when it comes to paying the national minimum wage, and secondly, that is where enforcement comes in. I shall expand on that in a second. He is absolutely right to raise these issues, to make sure, as I have said, that companies are not balancing their books on the poorest paid in their workforce and in society.

We relaunched the minimum wage naming scheme on 31 December, naming and shaming 139 employers, including some of the UK’s biggest household names, for failing to pay the minimum wage. We have also more than doubled the budget for minimum wage enforcement and compliance since 2015. There are now over 400 officers in Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs dedicated to ensuring compliance with the minimum wage.

I should like briefly to share the results of HMRC’s work in the 2020-21 financial year. As we have heard, it was a really challenging year for the whole country. Many of HMRC’s investigations are carried out face to face. Its officers can arrive unannounced at business premises to check minimum wage records or to interview employers and workers. Those face-to-face visits clearly had to be limited in line with covid restrictions, and with many businesses closing their doors. Nevertheless, the Government believe that the pandemic is no excuse for failing to pay staff correctly, especially in sectors such as social care and retail, which have provided invaluable services over the past year. I am pleased that HMRC continued its enforcement and compliance work, prioritising desk work where possible and expanding its educational work with employers and workers.

Despite the pandemic, in 2020-21 HMRC closed over 2,700 cases, securing more than £16.7 million in arrears for more than 155,000 workers. It issued 575 penalties worth over £14 million. HMRC also contacted more than 770,000 employers and workers to improve awareness of the minimum wage. As part of this, it sent over 400,000 texts to apprentices regarding the risks of underpayment from unpaid training time. It wrote to nearly 200,000 employers and workers. HRMC produced a variety of webinars and educational videos that accumulated nearly 20,000 views. One of those webinars is aimed specifically at the social care sector, covering travel time, waiting time and breaks. About 12,000 letters are being sent to Care Quality Commission-registered providers of home care service to highlight that webinar.

The Government acknowledge the particular challenges in enforcing the minimum wage in the care sector. We estimate that approximately 27,000 social care workers were underpaid the national living wage or national minimum wage in 2020. That represents just over 3% of all workers in the sector and is in line with previous years. All workers deserve the wage they are legally entitled to, but particularly key workers in the current context of the coronavirus pandemic. The Government therefore asked HRMC to focus on the sector in its targeted enforcement activity. We have also recently published comprehensive revised minimum wage guidance for all employers. That includes guidance on the recent Supreme Court judgment on sleep-in shifts, where we now have clarity after years of revolving court judgments.

But I am well aware of my hon. Friend’s concerns about social care workers. We met late last year, as he outlined, to discuss the issue of care workers providing care to individuals with direct payment arrangements, also known as personal budget holders. I appreciate that the situation with personal budget holders is particularly tricky as they are vulnerable individuals, but in minimum wage terms they are often the employers of their carers. That means, under minimum wage legislation, that any enforcement action by HMRC for underpayment of their care workers can only be taken against these individuals. I would like to give some assurances on how enforcement works in practice in such cases. Where complaints are received, HMRC works with all parties to ensure that personal budget holders receive the necessary help and support while also continuing to protect the rights of workers. As my hon. Friend said, local authorities have a duty of care under the Care Act 2014 to give personal budget holders clear advice about their responsibilities as an employer. Local authorities must also be satisfied that a personal budget holder is capable of managing direct payments, and should put in place an effective monitoring process related to those direct payments. Crucially, this involves checking to ensure that the individual is fulfilling their responsibilities as an employer. I understand that there are examples of local authorities stepping up to financially assist personal budget holders where minimum wage cases are brought against them. I strongly encourage this, and it is in line with the local authority’s Care Act duties, but ultimately HMRC needs to protect the rights of any underpaid worker.

Where arrears have been repaid to the worker, HMRC has discretion on whether to issue a formal notice of underpayment. HMRC rightly makes limited use of its discretion in practice, but cases brought against personal budget holders are instances where I would expect it to consider using that discretion. I therefore urge workers who care for personal budget holders and who believe them to have been underpaid, such as my hon. Friend’s constituent, to complain to HMRC or contact ACAS for advice. I understand, having spoken to my hon. Friend, that this is clearly an issue—although I cannot comment on his individual case in detail—that is a good few years old. As I say, I admire his tenacity in working with the council as well, pushing the council to do more and also speaking to my predecessor as well as to me. I know that my hon. Friend is calling for HMRC to be able to enforce directly against local authorities in such cases, but HMRC can enforce only against the employer—that is laid out in primary legislation.

It is right that there is a clear line so that employers are always clear about their responsibilities and workers are always clear about their rights. Any change could call into question the other scenarios in which multiple parties are involved in employment, such as in respect of agency workers, umbrella companies or contractors. That could lead to protracted court cases to determine who is responsible for paying the minimum wage, which would only delay workers getting the pay to which they are legally entitled. We therefore have no plans to change the minimum wage legislation.

We are extremely proud of all our health and social care staff and recognise their extraordinary commitment, especially during the covid pandemic. The 1.5 million people who make up the paid social care workforce provide an invaluable service to the nation, especially during the pandemic. Putting social care on a sustainable footing where everybody is treated with dignity and respect is one of the biggest challenges our society faces. There are complex questions to address and we want to give them our full consideration in the light of current circumstances, which is why the Government are committed to the sustainable improvement of the adult social care system. The Department for Health and Social Care will bring forward plans for workforce reform later this year.

We are providing an extra £341 million for adult social care, to pay for infection, prevention and control measures and to support rapid testing to the end of June 2021. That will bring specific funding for adult social care during the pandemic to almost £1.8 billion. We are also providing councils with access to more than £1 billion of additional funding for social care in 2021-22, on top of the significant support provided over the past year to support the sector in dealing with covid-19.

My hon. Friend talked about the single enforcement body, which is indeed something we are consulting on and working through, not least as we move towards the introduction of an employment Bill. We are taking the time to reflect on the lessons that we have learned from the covid-19 situation—the baked-in behaviour changes to work practices in the wider sense of the employment Bill—and the single enforcement body will be a really important part of that. I look forward to my hon. Friend’s contributions to the debate when we introduce forward legislation to bring that new body into existence.

My hon. Friend made some important points and I am really pleased to have had the opportunity to respond. The Government are committed to ensuring that all workers are paid at least the minimum wage, which is their legal entitlement. We also recognise that personal budget holders and individuals who arrange their own care are often among the most vulnerable in society. When complaints are received, HMRC will work with all parties to ensure that individuals receive the help and support that they need, while continuing to protect the rights of workers. I look forward to continuing to work with ministerial colleagues to ensure that all care workers are paid appropriately under the National Minimum Wage Act.

Finally, Mr Deputy Speaker, may I associate myself with your words and wish you a very good Prorogation—or whatever the term is? Members, staff and your team have played an amazing role in allowing us to continue the scrutiny of the Government’s work and our work as a fully functioning democracy.

Coronavirus: Supporting Businesses and Individuals

Debate between Jim Shannon and Paul Scully

Tuesday 23rd February 2021 Commons Chamber

[Paul Scully]

The discretionary grant is there to show flexibility. Local authorities have been charged to come up with their own plans to reflect their own local economies and their own needs in order to capture as many people and businesses as possible.

In January, the Chancellor announced that a further £500 million of discretionary funding was being made available to local authorities. That is in addition to £1.1 billion already allocated back in November 2020. That business grant scheme has continued to provide business with vital funding during both the national and local restrictions.

[Jim Shannon]

One way the Government could help the self-employed is to provide some help with low tax returns for 2019-20 to be included in the SEISS claims. Would the Government, or the Minister, consider that as a possible option to help those self-employed people who are under real pressure?

[Paul Scully]

I have met representatives from ExcludedUK. We continue to talk to them, we continue to flex and we continue to work out what more we can do to help the economy and to help jobs and livelihoods. The Chancellor will set out his position next week.

In addition to the grant schemes, businesses have received £70 billion in loan guarantees as of 24 January. That has provided a lifeline to more than 1.5 million businesses across the nations and regions of the UK. We have extended the application deadline to apply for those loans to the end of March 2021.

Last year, we changed the bounce back loan scheme rules to allow those businesses that had originally borrowed less than their maximum to top up their existing loans. We also announced the pay as you grow measures, which give all businesses that borrowed under the bounce back loans the option to repay their loan over a period of up to 10 years and to access an additional six months repayment holiday as well as interest-only repayment periods.

On 8 February, we announced that these measures will be made more generous, removing the requirement to make six payments before accessing the six months repayment holiday. Businesses can use these options either individually or in combination with each other, and lenders have begun contacting borrowers to let them know how they can access the pay as you grow measures. These flexible repayment options will give businesses the time that they need to recover from the pandemic and the confidence to build back better.

The Chancellor has also announced our intention to allow lenders to extend the repayment for coronavirus business interruption loans where this is needed to a maximum of 10 years, and we have announced that more support will be available beyond March through a successor loan scheme, more details of which will be announced in due course.

From the outset of this pandemic, we have acted decisively to protect jobs and people’s livelihoods. The coronavirus job retention scheme, the first intervention of its kind in UK history, delivers country-wide support to protect millions of British workers. It has already helped 1.2 million employers across the UK furlough 9.9 million jobs. That scheme has been extended until the end of April 2021 for all parts of the UK, but the Chancellor has always been clear that the Government will keep the situation under review, adapting their approach as the context evolves. The Government will set out the next phase of the plan to tackle the virus and to protect jobs at the Budget next week.

A healthy hospitality sector is critical for the UK economy. It not only accounts for 2.4 million jobs and generates more than £59 billion of economic benefit, but underpins other economic sectors, including tourism and, indeed, our high streets. It is also an important part of our society, supporting social cohesion, cultural integration and mental health. It is a gathering place for communities, and we must continue to support it. The pandemic has hit the hospitality sector hard. I have worked extremely closely with the sector since March 2020 to understand the issues as far as possible so that we can strike the right balance between restrictions and business support.

Not only have the Government provided over £280 billion to support businesses, including hospitality, but we have provided support for commercial rents and deregulated to allow the better use of public spaces for outdoor hospitality. We will continue to keep all that support under review. I want the sector to open up. I want businesses to start to recover and thrive, but it must be done safely, led by the data, as the Prime Minister outlined yesterday.

The retail sector is vital not only to the UK economy, but to the communities that it serves, and I am grateful for the continued efforts of those retail staff who have kept this crucial service going throughout. I recognise that the pandemic has impacted on the sector in different ways and brought significant challenges, but while we have seen a welcome boost in the food sector and online sales, we have also witnessed a more challenging outlook for those not permitted to open, and I appreciate that it has been a really uncertain time for many retail staff. Regrettably, we have seen the closure of some well-known household retail brands, with resulting job losses, impacting on young people and women in particular.

The Government have acted to support as many businesses and employees as possible with that economic package worth over £280 billion, and those measures are carefully designed to complement one another to ensure that we protect jobs and livelihoods. However, as I said, we cannot save every business or job and the support can in no way fully compensate businesses for the loss of trade as a result of the restrictions. Retailers, pubs and hotels have been able to benefit from 100% business rates relief, worth about £10 billion in total, and we have frozen the business rates multiplier for 2021-22, saving businesses in England £575 million over the next five years.

I know that many businesses are eager for an extension to the rates relief beyond the current financial year. The next round of covid-19 support measures will be set out in the Budget next week, but the Prime Minister has written to local authorities in the meantime advising them to delay issuing business rates bills until after the Budget, which, hopefully is good news for businesses.

I know that businesses may be disappointed by the decision to delay publication of the final report into the fundamental review of business rates until the autumn, but an interim report will be published on 23 March, and the final report will be published once there is more clarity on the long-term state of the economy and public finances. I encourage the sector to continue engaging with Government on these important issues.

Supporting people back into employment is also a key priority. Our plan for jobs includes a series of measures to protect, support and create jobs, and we are helping those who have lost jobs in the pandemic back into employment through our job entry targeted support programme. A £2 billion kickstart scheme has also been launched to create opportunities for young people, and we are taking action to help the high street to evolve. In September 2020, we brought forward over £80 million-worth of investment to support immediate improvements in 101 towns selected for deals to build back better in the wake of covid-19.

On 26 December 2020, the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government confirmed £255 million for 15 areas for the future high streets fund, with a further 57 areas receiving provisional funding offers totalling up to £576 million. We are also launching a £4 billion levelling-up fund, investing in local infrastructure that has a visible impact on people and their communities and supporting economic recovery. We will publish a prospectus for that fund soon.

To date, we have provided the largest package of emergency support in post-war history. As highlighted by the Office for Budget Responsibility and the Bank of England, without the action taken by the Government, the outlook could be so much worse. The co-ordinated approach of the UK’s authorities has also been praised internationally by the International Monetary Fund as one of the best examples of co-ordinated action globally that has helped to mitigate the damage, holding down unemployment and insolvencies. Given the current climate, it is right that we focus on supporting individuals and businesses through the pandemic. In the past, the Government have ensured that businesses and people have that certainty by extending the furlough and business grants. The announcements at the Budget will reflect the steps set out in the Prime Minister’s road map, ensuring that the next phase of our economic support package continues to deliver tailored support for individuals and businesses.

What businesses want now is that road map. They want to able to give a safe and warm welcome back to their customers, clients and people using their services, but in the meantime, as the Chancellor will set out next week, we will continue to work with businesses and individuals to protect jobs and livelihoods as we see the light at the end of the tunnel in this pandemic.

United Kingdom Internal Market Bill

Debate between Jim Shannon and Paul Scully

Consideration of Lords amendments
Wednesday 16th December 2020 Commons Chamber

[Paul Scully]

Clearly it is disappointing that the Welsh Government have chosen to issue that statement, especially in the light of the productive working relationship that we have enjoyed with their Ministers and officials during the passage of the Bill. I know that the common frameworks have been subject to much debate, and I hope I will be able to clarify this as we go through. There will be more discussion in the new year about the frameworks and how they will work moving forward, because they have been productive in a number of areas to date, and I know that that will continue.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I, too, thank the Minister for what he has brought forward, but I seek clarification, as I often do, on the position of Northern Ireland within the United Kingdom. Will the final decisions on any movement of goods, east-west, north-south, or whatever it may be, lie with the Northern Ireland Assembly or with this place? Also, what discussions has he had with the Northern Ireland Assembly, the First Minister, the Deputy First Minister and the Minister at the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment?

[Paul Scully]

Ironically, not particularly on common frameworks or the United Kingdom Internal Market Bill, although I have taken over from my ministerial colleague, my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Nadhim Zahawi), in the quad discussions with the devolved Administrations. We had my first one this morning, and I look forward to further conversations. As for what happens to Northern Ireland goods to GB and vice versa, we have had an agreement in the Joint Committee. I look forward to seeing the results of the talks that are continuing in Brussels, because ultimately if there is a pathway to a deal, that will help to smooth the transition process. Ultimately, however, the long-term aim of what happens to the workings of the Northern Ireland protocol will sit with the elected representatives of Northern Ireland, given their vote in a few years’ time.

The Government here are demonstrating their commitment to the programme by, first, placing common frameworks on the face of the Bill, through our amendments yesterday in the other place, and, secondly, clarifying the relationship that we see between agreements made under the common frameworks processes and the internal market principles established by the Bill. Specifically, we are making it clear, through amendments 8P to 8S, that delegated powers under clauses 10 and 17 may be utilised to, among other things, make provision to reflect common framework agreements. In such cases, the Secretary of State would be able to bring to the House a statutory instrument to exclude from market access principles a specific agreed area of divergence. That would follow consensus being reached between the UK Governments and all the relevant parties that that was appropriate, in respect of a specific defined topic within a common framework.

For parts 1 and 2 of the Bill, previous amendments are provided for consent to be sought from the devolved Administrations. If that is not forthcoming within a month, MPs and peers from all parts of the UK would thereafter be able to debate and, if appropriate, agree to the change. We do not currently expect such cases to arise very frequently, but want to be clear that appropriate means are in place to respect them when they do.

The amendments to clauses 10 and 17 are complemented by amendments 8T and 8U. In line with other Government amendments to enhance the overall transparency of the United Kingdom Internal Market Bill and the role of the Office for the Internal Market, these amendments demonstrate our commitment to transparency and evidence building regarding the interaction between the market access principles and the common frameworks programme. As part of the OIM’s five-yearly review into the effectiveness of parts 1 to 3 in supporting a healthy internal market, the OIM will now also address how parts 1 to 3 have affected the operation of agreements under common frameworks, including the effect that those agreements have had on the operation of the internal market. This will ensure proper scrutiny of both regulatory changes and the progress made under common frameworks.

The Government are confident that these amendments provide an appropriate way to ensure that market access principles in the Bill can act to ensure certainty and a seamlessly functioning internal market for all British businesses and citizens. They do this while allowing a degree of agreed flexibility, reflecting different circumstances in particular parts of the UK. In reaching agreement on these amendments and thus agreeing on the final outstanding issues of the Bill, both Houses will be protecting and preserving the United Kingdom’s internal market, which has been the bedrock of our shared prosperity for centuries.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Jim Shannon and Paul Scully

Tuesday 15th December 2020 Commons Chamber

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

What discussions he has had with the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the Government’s proposed review of alcohol duty; and if he will make a statement.

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

We are in regular contact with the Chancellor on measures to support hospitality businesses. The alcohol duty review aims to improve the current system to make it simpler, more economically rational, and less administratively burdensome on businesses and Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs.

[Jim Shannon]

I thank the Minister for his response, but can he outline what steps have been taken to address the binge culture, which has been enhanced by supermarket offers, especially in these times when we all need to have our wits about us?

[Paul Scully]

We looked at the curfew, for example, when there were stories coming back to us about people coming out of pubs and going straight into supermarkets to buy more drinks. That was an unintended consequence, so it is good that we reviewed that and changed it. The alcohol duty review will take into account the balance between supermarkets and hospitality.

United Kingdom Internal Market Bill

Debate between Jim Shannon and Paul Scully

Consideration of Lords amendments & Ping Pong & Ping Pong: House of Commons
Monday 7th December 2020 Commons Chamber

[Paul Scully]

Discussions on that are ongoing and it is right that we have them. On the common frameworks, the devolved Administrations and representatives of England in the UK Parliament have made their views well known.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

We have a strong agrifood sector in Northern Ireland. There needs to be an understanding between the Northern Ireland Assembly and this place, to ensure that our agrifood sector can continue to expand and sell its products around the world. Will the Minister reassure us that that will happen and that nothing will hinder it?

[Paul Scully]

The whole purpose of this is that we can get the internal market right. We do not want to hamper any business, wherever it is in the UK, from being able to trade overseas with the opportunities afforded by global Britain at the end of the transition phase and beyond.

I want to make progress because I want to get across some detail and allow other Members to have their say. The common framework programme was never designed to be an all-encompassing solution to the maintenance of the internal market. This Bill will instead provide the additional legislative protection to internal UK trade, which is required for business certainty. As an aside, I note that half of the active frameworks have little or no interactions with this Bill, as they do not pertain to the internal market. That has sometimes been forgotten in recent debates.

The flexibility that underpins the framework programme is key to its success. It was set up in 2017 with an objective to manage regulatory coherence in specific devolved policy areas of returning EU law. While the frameworks are envisaged in very high-level terms in schedule 3 to the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018, they are taken forward by voluntary agreement, which is the reason why neither the UK Government nor the devolved Administrations have so far felt the need to codify the common frameworks process in legislation. I thank the noble and learned Lord Hope for his considered contributions to the debate and for his thoughtful amendments to the Bill. However, while the Government have carefully considered the arguments made in both Houses about putting common frameworks on the face of the Bill, we feel that that may not sit well with the flexible and voluntary nature of the common frameworks programme.

In addition to their voluntary nature, we must also bear in mind that the current frameworks are jointly owned by the devolved Administrations. Any proposal to legislate them into this Bill would need to take into account their involvement in the programme overall. I am therefore concerned that the Lords amendments would automatically disapply mutual recognition and non-discrimination principles. This would create a very broad exclusions regime and uncertainty for businesses and consumers over the terms of trade within which they are operating. That is clearly not in keeping with the aim of this Bill, which is to provide maximum certainty and a stable trading environment.

United Kingdom Internal Market Bill

Debate between Jim Shannon and Paul Scully

Report stage & 3rd reading & 3rd reading: House of Commons & Report stage: House of Commons
Tuesday 29th September 2020 Commons Chamber

[Paul Scully]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, but the answer is no. To ensure we take that political football totally off the table and return the Bill to what is was always designed to be about—giving businesses in Scotland and all parts of the UK the business continuity and certainty they need without such distractions—the technical amendment dots the i’s and crosses the t’s.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

For Northern Ireland to be a successful part of the United Kingdom, may I gently suggest that the Minister should work with us on new clause 7, which my party has tabled? It is an imperative tool to ensure that Northern Ireland is not left behind in Brexit in terms of being an integrated member of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland—in other words, that we are treated equally.

[Paul Scully]

I will turn to new clause 7 in a second, but clearly we will treat Northern Ireland equally.

Amendments 2 to 11, 24, 27, 28 and 35 to 38 are technical changes to remove sources of potential confusion in the drafting. Amendments 19 and 21 provide fuller clarification that a wide range of agricultural processes are considered to be in scope when we refer to the production of goods. Amendment 20 ensures that the UK Government and devolved Administrations can continue to respond to specific biosecurity threats arising from the movement of animals and high-risk plants and that they are excluded from the mutual recognition and non-discrimination principles of the Bill.

Amendments 22 and 23 clarify the meaning of clause 16 that a change to the conditions attached to an authorisation requirement would bring it in scope of part 2 of the Bill. Amendment 26 ensures that the exemption in clause 23 covers the replication of non-statutory rules as well as a re-enactment of legislation. Amendments 12 to 15 ensure that the higher courts in England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland may make declarations of incompatibility in respect of the regulations under clauses 42 and 43, but may not quash them. That will ensure that, in the unlikely event of a violation of convention rights, there is a remedy available through the courts.

Regulatory Impact Assessments (Legislative Scrutiny)

Debate between Jim Shannon and Paul Scully

Wednesday 2nd September 2020 Commons Chamber

[Paul Scully]

I think that rather than gusts of public pressure, the Government have been working in what is, in effect, as close to real-time decision making as we are ever going to get, and it is based on health advice and the business response. My right hon. Friend talked about the press and the media; I direct him to the example with which my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch started—male eyebrow trimming and beard trimming—because that was never actually in the guidance. The guidance, which I worked on, was such that male beard trimming could work out, apart from detailing at the front if there was close, face-to-face, near contact. That was exactly the same as female eyebrow trimming, so there was no sense that men could go and get their eyebrows trimmed and women could not. The rhetoric in the media that men were getting a better deal than females, which understandably upset beauticians, just was not the actuality—it was not what was happening—but unfortunately, as we know, it is sometimes difficult to work with the media to stop a good story.

We must continue to engage. We do want to get back to the formality of regulatory impact assessments but, as I say, we need to engage at pace, so we will continue to listen to businesses. Sometimes, the consultations on the guidance we have been working on have lasted literally 12 hours on a Sunday. That guidance has come to me, to the unions and to businesses and we have all been acting within the same time constraints. We have not been hiding things away from businesses and those people who are most affected by this situation.

[Jim Shannon]

I must say that I am impressed by the number of people and businesses the Minister has met; that is an indication of the knowledge that he has gauged from them. May I make a quick suggestion on weddings? It is possible, in a bigger venue, to have people self-distanced and to have more than 30 people. It is also possible at weddings to have clusters of families who live closely together: there could be tables of 10 people —genuinely—which could increase the numbers who can go to weddings. To go back to the issue of regulatory impact assessments, if that was done, more people could attend weddings.

[Paul Scully]

As I say, weddings have been a big source of concern for me and others and, understandably, that argument has been put to me. The huge difference between weddings and, say, restaurants—an example that has often been cited—is that the wedding parties tend to know each other, whereas in a restaurant people have little interest in speaking to those at the table next door. Clearly, if someone’s grandmother or extended family are sitting at the next table, as the wedding and the evening develops, social distance suddenly starts to fall by the wayside.

I totally get the fact that wedding organisers know everybody who is there, so they can register and have test and trace working effectively, but it is a concern to the scientists. We are trying to balance the economy from the economic point of view, the human behaviour point of view and the science point of view, which is a difficult mix to deal with. Because we are working at pace, the regulatory impact assessments, which are the source of this debate, are not always easy to compile. For the reasons that the Leader of the House gave—I understand the concern of my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch about the way that was worded—when compiling a formal regulatory impact assessment while working at pace, it is not always possible to go through that procedure.

We are reminding Departments of the importance of ensuring that appropriate resources are invested in gathering and analysing evidence about the regulatory impacts of the affected policies, and to publish it, where appropriate, throughout the period, if not at that particular time.

Corporate Insolvency and Governance Bill

Debate between Jim Shannon and Paul Scully

Consideration of Lords amendments & Ping Pong & Ping Pong: House of Commons
Thursday 25th June 2020 Commons Chamber

[Paul Scully]

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that intervention. He will note that the Government have extended the moratorium on the forfeiture of leases due to covid-19 debts to 30 September, with which the amendments in the Bill have become aligned. In my conversations with retail and hospitality in particular, but not solely with them, I have been exercised by property and the balance between landlord and tenant. We must keep an eye on that.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I recognise that what the Minister is bringing forward is important. We thank the Government and him for what they are doing. In relation to circumstances in the regional devolved Administrations—the Northern Ireland Assembly, the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly—there may be peculiarities in those systems that mean businesses are particularly under threat or having problems specific to those regions. Does the Minister feel that within the Bill we can get help through the devolved Administrations, and in Northern Ireland through the Assembly, to those businesses and, in particular, tourism?

[Paul Scully]

I agree with the hon. Gentleman that it is so important that we work with all parts of the nation and all the devolved Administrations, which we do regularly. My colleague my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Nadhim Zahawi) has regular conversations from our Department, and other Departments liaise closely with the devolved Administrations to ensure that local economies are protected, as well as looking at the overall national picture.

The measures that the Bill introduces will give our businesses the vital support they need to keep afloat, preserving jobs, maintaining productive capacity and enabling the foundations to be laid for the country’s economic recovery. Saving lives and livelihoods is at the heart of what we are seeking to achieve. Measures such as the new moratorium and restructuring plan, together with a prohibition on contractual termination clauses, will help more businesses in future to survive rather than become insolvent. Many of the permanent measures have been improved through scrutiny in the other place, and I will set out some details of the amendments that the Government have brought forward to ensure that the measures work as intended.

I turn first to the financial services super priority amendments.  The Government want to prevent firms gaming the system through a moratorium. Our amendments seek to disincentivise financial services creditors from seeking to accelerate their pre-moratorium debt solely to benefit from super priority should the company fail, or to obtain protection from compromise if a restructuring proposal was put to them. The amendments exclude pre-moratorium financial services debts from having super priority status in a subsequent administration or liquidation where the financial services debt has been accelerated for payment during the moratorium. That ensures that the correct incentives are in place for the moratorium to work effectively and not be brought to an end prematurely.

On amendments relating to pensions, the aim of the measures in the Bill is to rescue a company, which is ultimately the best outcome for its pension scheme. Nevertheless, the Government have been alive to the concern that the new procedures could result in a pension scheme being disadvantaged as an unsecured creditor of the company. As a result, we agreed that there is a need to build in specific protections. Amendments made in the other place ensure that the pensions regulator and the Pension Protection Fund get appropriate information in the case of both a moratorium and a restructuring plan and that the PPF can challenge through the courts, the directors and the monitor of a company in a moratorium. There is also a regulation-making power, which will allow the PPF to be given creditor rights in both procedures in certain circumstances. I hope that hon. and right hon. Members will agree that these are important and fair amendments to the Bill.

We have also made amendments to the temporary measures in the Bill. These temporary measures allow businesses to focus on what is important for their survival through this extraordinary period, rather than having to respond to aggressive creditor actions, or struggle with statutory filing or meeting requirements during the disruption. The amendments to the temporary insolvency provisions in the Bill extend the life of those provisions beyond what was proposed when the Bill first came to the House. They will now expire, as I have said, on 30 September.

It is already clear that businesses will need these measures in place for longer than we first anticipated, and we brought forward amendments in the other place to take account of that. The provisions retain the capacity to be extended further through a regulation-making power should it be required, and the affirmative procedure will apply to such regulations.

Amendments have been made in the Bill in relation to pre-pack sales in administrations. Pre-packs are a valuable tool for saving businesses and jobs. However, concerns have been raised about the lack of scrutiny of them. The amendments reinstate a power that had elapsed earlier this year for the Government to regulate pre-pack sales in administrations to connected parties. The Government will look carefully at pre-packs and I can inform the House that a commitment was made by my ministerial colleague, Lord Callanan, to review current practices in the summer before making any decision on regulatory changes.

Finally, a number of technical amendments have been made to the Bill where it was judged necessary. These include changes that will restrict the period for which certain powers have been given in the Bill that will be available to Ministers, changes to clarify the intended effect of the legislation, and changes which place a condition on the use of some powers. We have ensured that there is appropriate parliamentary scrutiny of any regulation made under the Bill, as well as appropriate safeguards on these powers. Where they relate to powers for a Scottish or Welsh Minister or a Northern Ireland Department, the corresponding change has been made to ensure equal scrutiny for all the Parliaments of the UK.

This Bill has been improved by the scrutiny of the House of Lords Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, as well as by the incredible work of the Government’s own parliamentary counsel and their legal advisers. I hope that the House will agree that making good, accurate, appropriately balanced and clear legislation is very much in the interests of all, not least of businesses that rely on this legal clarity. I am confident that we have now achieved that in this package, which we have, nevertheless, brought forward as quickly as possible to respond to the covid emergency. Taken together, these amendments improve this important and much-needed Bill. The debates and discussions in this House, as well as in the other place, have shown quite what this Parliament can achieve, even if socially distanced, when we share that common aim to save and support businesses in this emergency context. I therefore call on Members to support all the Lords amendments.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Jim Shannon and Paul Scully

Wednesday 11th March 2020 Commons Chamber

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

Schools and nurseries need to take the latest scientific advice, which at the moment is to stay open. Employees are entitled to take time off work to help someone who depends on them in an emergency, and that would apply to situations to do with coronavirus—for example, if they have to look after their children because the school is closed. There is no statutory right to pay for that time off, but some enlightened employers will pay.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

T4. Has there been any discussion with the Department for International Trade regarding the fair payment of women farmers in any trade deals post Brexit as a foundational principle?