Honda in Swindon
Kevin Hollinrake Excerpts(5 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Greg Clark
The hon. Gentleman mentions Bridgend; I speak to Ford and its VP for Europe, Steve Armstrong, very regularly, and the hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that it is looking to us to resolve this matter. Steve Armstrong says that if we leave without a deal, it would be “pretty disastrous” and that it would
“force us to think about what our future investment strategy for the UK would be”.
However, he also says that the deal that has been negotiated would address these concerns, and I hope that given the hon. Gentleman’s interest in the workers in Bridgend, he will come to resolve this matter by voting for the deal.
Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)
This announcement is very sad news for the workers at Swindon and for the jobs and businesses in the supply chain, but does my right hon. Friend agree that this is much more to do with the EU-Japan trade deal than it is about Brexit? The reality is that free trade deals create winners and losers in the short term, but in the longer term, there are benefits for all from free trade.
Greg Clark
Again, I think it is for the company to account for the reasons for the decision, but my hon. Friend is absolutely right to point to the fact that any new free trade agreement adjusts the pattern of trade; that is evident. To me, this seems to underline the case for us to have a free trade agreement with Japan, and unless and until we do so, not to lose the ability to be part of the EU deal.
Exiting the European Union (Structural and Investment Funds)
Kevin Hollinrake Excerpts(5 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Richard Harrington
Indeed so.
In a no-deal situation, this instrument will repeal the European regulations concerning the European structural funds, while ensuring that the funds can continue operating domestically. It will also repeal the regulations on the Cohesion Fund, for which we are not eligible.
The structural funds include the European regional development fund and its cross-border European territorial co-operation component, and the European social fund. The structural funds are shared management funds that support regional investment across the UK, and they are funded via the EU budget, with co-funding provided by project participants. Typical projects include the recently launched advanced engineering research centre in Sheffield, which supports economic development and upskilling in the local economy. Typical cross-border projects under the European territorial co-operation component of the structural funds include the intelligent community energy project on smart energy. Three UK universities and local small businesses are working in collaboration with French research centres and small and medium-sized enterprises to find local solutions to support low-carbon energy systems.
In a no-deal scenario, the United Kingdom is expected to lose access to European funding. To ensure that this regional funding continues in a no-deal scenario, the Government announced in 2016 that they would guarantee funding for structural funds projects signed before we leave the EU—that was extended last July to cover new projects signed after exit until the end of 2020. That guarantee covers UK beneficiaries and, exceptionally, all beneficiaries of the Peace programme in Ireland and Northern Ireland, and Interreg V-A in Ireland, Northern Ireland and Scotland. This is due to the Government’s continued commitment to support peace and reconciliation in Ireland.
This statutory instrument facilitates the domestic delivery of structural funds in a no-deal scenario. It repeals the European regulations for these funds, as they would become inoperable retained European law and therefore would not work, because the European regulations create a shared management programme between the EU and a member state. Keeping them would create obligations that the managing authorities of the funds could no longer meet after a no-deal exit.
The instrument also ensures that for European regional development fund and European social fund projects started before exit, current fund delivery rules would be upheld through existing funding agreements, without keeping redundant EU regulations. The powers to continue paying project beneficiaries in the UK already exist under our domestic law, so the instrument does not make provision for projects started after exit. Managing authorities for the funds will none the less continue to sign new projects under existing domestic powers and using existing delivery systems, with appropriate simplifications. So the main aim is to provide stability for beneficiaries, and the project rules will continue to be enforced through the same funding agreements. Hon. Members should also note that this instrument ensures that structural funds delivery remains a devolved matter.
Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)
I will refrain from asking my hon. Friend’s opinion on a no-deal. Structural funds are there primarily to try to rebalance our economy, through regional investment right across the UK. Whether we are in the EU or out, and whatever state we are in afterwards, does he agree that it is hugely important that we spend a greater proportion of our investment on infrastructure and other economic development in the regions, rather than in the capital?
Richard Harrington
I totally agree with everything my hon. Friend said, other than not asking my views were on no deal. I think he knows those, and I hope most people in the House do.
Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for setting out the technical details of the statutory instrument so clearly. Here we have yet another statutory instrument that makes provision for the regulatory framework after Brexit if we crash out without a deal. The parliamentary recess has been cancelled because of the sheer volume of SIs to be dealt with before 29 March. Of the 442 laid since June, 269 have yet to be passed. Of the 20 SIs relating to the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy passed in 2019, only two had impact assessments available.
As many of my shadow ministerial colleagues have made clear, the volume and flow of secondary legislation on European Union exit is deeply worrying in the context of accountability and proper scrutiny. The Government have assured the Opposition that no policy decisions are being taken, but the establishment of a regulatory framework inevitably involves matters of judgment and raises questions about resourcing and capacity. In that light, the Opposition wish to put on record our deepest concerns about the process for the regulations.
Labour will not oppose the statutory instrument, given the importance of the European structural and investment funds to the United Kingdom. We recognise the necessity of ensuring that the requisite regulations are in place to allow the UK to manage such funding, but we have serious concerns about the scope of this SI and the Government’s complete failure to take effective action to reduce regional inequality in the UK. The Government have presided over the UK becoming the most regionally unequal country in the European Union. We are the second most unequal country in the OECD, with only Mexico ahead of us. We are home to the richest region in northern Europe—London—but we also have six of the 10 poorest regions. In London, disposable income per household is almost 60% higher than it is in Wales and in many regions in England. Transport spending per head is 15 times higher in London than it is in Yorkshire.
The Government have not only failed to tackle regional inequality, but increased it. Their local government finance settlement shows a party so beholden to ideology that they will willingly deepen the crisis in our councils, which have been
“gutted by a series of government policies.”
Those are not my words, but those of the UN special rapporteur on extreme poverty and human rights. European structural and investment funding plays a significant role in tackling just such economic and developmental disparities between regions. It is all the more important because of the impact of the past 10 years of Tory Government.
Kevin Hollinrake
The hon. Lady refers to some figures that, I think, come from the Institute for Public Policy Research, saying that the spending in Yorkshire is 15 times lower than it is in London.
Kevin Hollinrake
Yes, but those figures are inaccurate. The contribution from central Government is pretty much on a par on a per capita basis. The difference comes when we add in local authority spending on transport infrastructure and private sector investment. It is about 3:1, which is still too great a differential, but it is important that we look at the figures in the round and factually, rather than at some of the headline figures.
Chi Onwurah
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. It is important that we look at the background to the statistics that we use. I can say to him very clearly that, for example, the statistics used by Transport for the North and other reputable bodies show consistently higher per head spending in London than in our regions, including in his and mine.
In the hon. Gentleman’s region, in my region and across the country, ESI funding supports our people, our businesses and our innovation. Those things are simply too important for us to leave questions about transition unanswered. Over the current 2014 to 2020 funding cycle, the European structural and investment funds are worth more than €19 billion to the UK, including €10 billion in direct investment. Wales alone, as one of the poorest regions in the UK, is receiving €2.4 billion in the current period. The impact of that funding is huge; the impact of losing it would be greater.
In the past 10 years, it is estimated that European Union investment has created more than 115,000 jobs and 25,000 businesses. In my constituency, funding from the European regional development fund supported the construction of The Core, part of the Newcastle Helix, and the growth of more than 800 local businesses through Supply Chain North East. Throughout the UK, EU funding has driven growth in the low-carbon economy, particularly through investment in research and innovation, and it has ensured that it is local economies that have benefited. It is not just income that the European Union funds provide: the security guaranteed by the seven-year funding cycle of structural funds allows economic planning in partnership across local authorities, the private and third sectors over a longer period than our domestic funding. That security is crucial to attracting the necessary match funding from donor partners.
The statutory instrument deals purely with projects that start before the Brexit exit day on 29 March and enables them to be administered according to pre-agreed frameworks. None the less, we need more clarity. Does that refer to projects that have been approved before 29 March, or just projects that have actually started, and how is started to be defined? What of projects started after exit? How are those to be administered?
We have been promised that funding for all projects up to 2020 is guaranteed and that projects will continue to be signed under the same terms until 2020. What we have not been told is anything about how these projects are to be run, how decisions are to be made and how funding is to be allocated. According to the instrument, these frameworks are still being drawn up. It states merely that delivery frameworks for future projects will be
“based on the pre-exit framework and the same investment priorities as have been applied for existing Structural Fund projects.”
Who will make these decisions, and how do the Government intend to replace EU structural funding in the longer term?
The Government have committed to a successor fund—the shared prosperity fund—and to holding a consultation on that fund by the end of 2018. In case the Minister has not noticed, it is now 2019. We are just 38 days away from 29 March, but we have yet to hear a single detail about how that fund is supposed to work. How do the Government plan to replicate the security of the seven-year EU funding period, and how do they intend to administer the shared prosperity fund? The Minister said that that was not within the scope of this statutory instrument, but I think that to give confidence in the ongoing funding and the decisions that the Minister is taking, it is necessary that we understand that there is a strategic vision for what will happen after Brexit.
EU structural and investment funding has traditionally been focused through regional and sub-regional bodies and aligned to regional priority programmes. That has given our local areas a strong degree of direct influence and control over resources and the ability to align them with other local and regional investment—an ability that is all too often missing in relation to central Government funding. Unfortunately, because the coalition Government chose to abolish regional development agencies, the current ESIF programme lost much of that local knowledge. Instead we have a national approach with regional allocations, and leadership and administration of funds moving from regional development agencies to central Government Departments. Despite the committed work of local enterprise partnerships and their partners working in the regions, the loss of regional control over funds has resulted in their being targeted less effectively and subjected to significant delay in approvals and delivery, as well as being less responsive to local needs and aspirations.
How does the Minister intend to make the right decisions for regions, given the lack of regional development authorities? We need clarity; we need details, not just empty promises, because real jobs, businesses and communities are at risk. This Government’s continued failure to address regional inequality is the hallmark of a Tory party that places narrow party interests above the good of the country.
The absence of any plans that deal with projects started after exit day and the deafening silence about the shared prosperity fund leave our regional economies in jeopardy. While we are not opposed to the statutory instrument, we want to know how the Government will do more to safeguard the future of our communities. Labour has committed to matching European Union funding for regional development for at least the next decade. Why will the Minister not follow suit? A Labour Government would invest £250 billion in a national transformation fund to meet the infrastructural needs of every part of our country, and create a network of regional development banks to ensure growth in the areas that most need it.
We need a viable plan for sustainable and equitable regional development—one that reflects the needs of the region, one that empowers local people and grows local economies, and one that can guarantee funding for all our communities. It is evidently one that only a Labour Government can provide.
Oral Answers to Questions
Kevin Hollinrake Excerpts(5 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Peter Heaton-Jones (North Devon) (Con)
Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Kelly Tolhurst)
In the past five years we have halved late payments and through our call for evidence we are looking at what more we can do to end the scourge of late payments affecting small businesses. In January, we announced £2 million of funding for our business basics programme, supporting 15 innovative projects. We continue to do that as we try to improve productivity.
Kelly Tolhurst
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. North Devon is a wonderful part of the country. The tourism sector is particularly important for our economy, providing 1.6 million jobs across all regions and contributing £67.7 billion in gross value added. The Government are committed to supporting the sector and to continuing to work with small businesses through our industrial strategy and the sector deal that is under way.
Kevin Hollinrake
Sadly, HBOS managers were found guilty of defrauding their own small business customers, yet the Financial Reporting Council has steadfastly refused to seriously consider whistleblower evidence that KPMG and the bank colluded to cover up bank losses partly attributable to that fraud. What will my hon. Friend do to ensure that this matter is seriously investigated?
Kelly Tolhurst
My hon. Friend raises a really important question. There have been several criticisms of the FRC, which is why the Secretary of State commissioned Sir John Kingman to lead a review of the regulator. We are taking forward Sir John’s recommendations to create a stronger regulator with stronger powers. I assure my hon. Friend that I will continue to meet him on the particular issue he raises, so that we can find a resolution.
Oral Answers to Questions
Kevin Hollinrake Excerpts(5 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Greg Clark
The hon. Lady is quite right that the issue is a matter of concern not just in her constituency, but in others. I will ensure that the meeting happens in the next two weeks.
Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Kelly Tolhurst)
It is right that the FRC refers any concerns it has relating to the insolvency case to the ICAEW, which is a recognised professional body that regulates insolvency practitioners. In this case, I understand that the ICAEW has considered the issues put forward and is investigating a number of matters. I will happily meet my hon. Friend to discuss this issue again, as I already have. It is right that we investigate any concerns that British businesses have about the regulations.
Oral Answers to Questions
Kevin Hollinrake Excerpts(5 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)
Daniel Kawczynski (Shrewsbury and Atcham) (Con)
The Minister for Energy and Clean Growth (Claire Perry)
The Government and my Department remain enthusiastic about the role of solar generation and its role in decarbonisng power in the UK. However, as the market matures and installation is now possible without Government subsidy, we believe that it is the right time to close the feed-in tariff scheme. We already have 13 GW of solar capacity supported under current schemes. Indeed, at one point in May this year, solar provided more power generation than any other source.
Kevin Hollinrake
Rooftop solar is set to lose support from the feed-in tariff and the export tariff, which help to pay for clean power to the grid. Does my right hon. Friend agree that householders should expect some form of payment rather than simply subsidising large energy companies?
Claire Perry
My hon. Friend will know that the FIT scheme has been a huge success, supporting over 800,000 installations nationally, including almost 3,000 in his constituency. It has cost consumers over £4.5 billion to date and is scheduled to cost more than £2 billion a year for at least the next decade. It is therefore right that we consider a new scheme, as the cost has fallen. However, I do completely agree that solar power should not be provided to the grid for free, and that is why I will shortly be announcing the next steps for small-scale renewables.
Post Offices (North Yorkshire)
Kevin Hollinrake Excerpts(5 years, 6 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Andrew Jones
That was indeed a very disappointing part of the Post Office’s response at what was otherwise a very good APPG meeting. I want the consultation to be much more wide-ranging. I want it to consider the views of the people of Harrogate; I am sure the hon. Lady wants the same for the people of York, and my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake) wants the same for his constituents. The issue affects locations right across north Yorkshire.
Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this important debate. Post office services are always critical, but particularly now. Banks in villages and towns such as Kirkbymoorside and Filey in my constituency are closing, handing over responsibility for banking services to post offices and walking away, yet there is no long-term guarantee of how long those post offices will exist. Does he agree that it is critical that we continue to invest in our post offices so that people have physical access to banking services and to the many other services that post offices provide?
Andrew Jones
My hon. Friend makes a valuable point; I totally agree. From a business perspective, I have no doubt that in some parts of our country, post offices are the last opportunity for local banking. They play a critical role, and the need for their preservation has to be a consideration not just for the Post Office but for the Government when they consider how the financial services structure of our country can thrive in the future.
I learned from the correspondence that I received this afternoon that the consultation will start tomorrow; I do wonder whether I would have received the information with quite the same urgency if the debate had not been scheduled for today. I am sure that there will be a big response to the consultation. My campaign to collect local opinions on the proposal has already had hundreds of responses. A summary of the views submitted is that, overwhelmingly, people value their post office and want a secure future for it without loss of service. Consultations on other branches across the country that have moved have been very shallow, so I hope this consultation will be better, instead of being just a paper exercise. I will make sure that all the responses that I have received will be fed into the considerations.
I am not blind to commercial pressures on the high street. I recognise that the internet is changing business models and that the Post Office, like all companies, must evolve—that is a given. The Post Office is to be commended for returning to profit last year for the first time in 16 years. I can see why it may wish to leave the Cambridge Road location, because it is a very large building—the team showed me round some years ago—and much of it is unused. Leaving space empty is bad business, but has the Post Office considered a new smaller stand-alone location more tailored to its future needs, in which it could continue to offer good access and a complete transfer of services without any erosion? I fully recognise that unnecessary overheads make business unsustainable, but a search could easily reveal a location that would make the post office fit for the future.
I ask the Minister to raise in her discussions with Post Office management a few points for consideration about the relocation programme across North Yorkshire and particularly in Harrogate. Are the consultations genuine and proper or are they a paper exercise? Do they address matters of principle or smaller, peripheral matters? Will she review with Post Office management the process for reletting sub-post offices and the speed at which they do it?
We need a new sub-postmaster at Cold Bath Road post office, which has closed. It is a popular branch: when it was earmarked for closure by the Labour Government in 2008-9, we held a protest march, which is quite unusual for Harrogate, that attracted significant attention. We marched from the Cold Bath Road post office to the Crown post office, and we changed the Government’s mind. The post office stayed open and became a valuable part of our local business network and our thriving community. We want it to open again, but it needs a sub-postmaster to run it. The process needs to be speedy, so I ask the Minister to consider the process and speed of reletting sub-post offices. That issue has been highlighted by hon. Members who are not present for our debate because they do not represent North Yorkshire, but who recognise the same issue in their constituency.
At a time at which the Government are taking action to support high streets and make them viable, through significant Budget measures such as the future high streets fund and the changes to business rates, it feels as if the Post Office is taking steps in the opposite direction. People and businesses need post office services, from parcels to banking, and from passports to savings, but a business does not thrive by making it harder for its customers to find and use it. It should do the opposite. Instead of thinking about a retreat to fewer services, we should think about growth towards more.
Those are the points that I will raise with the Post Office, because I want to see all post offices thrive in Harrogate and beyond. I ask the Minister to raise them in her discussions with the Post Office, because the issue affects many parts of our United Kingdom. Post offices are a valuable part of local communities right across the UK.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Kelly Tolhurst)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship for the first time, Sir David.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Andrew Jones) on securing this debate on post office services in North Yorkshire. He has been an energetic and passionate advocate of post office services in his constituency. Post offices play such a vital role at the heart of our local communities, so it is only right that we have opportunities to debate the Post Office and the services it provides locally. The Government recognise and value the economic and social importance of post offices, in particular to communities in North Yorkshire. That is why our manifesto made a commitment to safeguard the post office network and to support the provision of rural services.
I point out that I am the Minister with responsibility for post offices, so it is right for me not only to champion the Post Office but to listen to hon. Members’ concerns. I, also offer challenge directly to Post Office Ltd in our role as its Government owner. I will first look at some facts.
Between 2010 and 2018, the Government provided nearly £2 billion to maintain and invest in a national network of at least 11,500 post offices. Ninety per cent. of the UK population must be within one mile and 99% within three miles of their nearest branch. Government investment has enabled the modernisation of more than 7,000 branches, added more than 200,000 opening hours per week and established the Post Office as the largest network trading on a Sunday.
Kelly Tolhurst
I will make some progress first.
Post office banking services enable 99% of personal and 95% of business banking in any one of 11,500 branches, supporting consumers, businesses and local economies in the face of accelerated bank closures. Financial performance has improved, as my hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough outlined, from a loss of £120 million to a trading profit of £35 million in financial year 2017-18, thereby reducing Government funding from £415 million in 2013-14 to £50 million by 2020-21.
I encourage the House to look objectively at those facts. They clearly show that the network is at the most stable it has been in a generation. All that has been achieved notwithstanding increasingly challenging trading conditions in the Post Office’s core markets and in the wider retail sector. The Post Office offers a huge range of products and services to the UK public, while ensuring that those services remain at the heart of towns and villages throughout the country. In doing so, it offers great value for money for the taxpayer.
Finally, we recognise that changing consumer behaviour presents a significant challenge for small retailers, including the many postmasters up and down the country. In the Budget last week, therefore, we announced a one-third reduction in small retailers’ business rates bills for two years from April 2019. A retailer could save up to about £8,000 per property per year, which will benefit a range of retailers, including post offices.
Kelly Tolhurst
As I said before the debate, I am happy to look at York specifically in the future, asking any questions that the hon. Lady might have of Post Office Ltd directly.
I appreciate that the proposed changes to the delivery of post office services can cause much concern to the communities affected. Post office branches, however, are not closing but are being franchised, whether on site or to be relocated to high streets. Franchises typically provide the same range of post office services as those offered at Crown branches.
Working with a retail partner is a sensible response to the challenges faced by our high street retailers, with the benefit of shared overheads across the combined post office and retail business, including property and staff costs. Franchising is a part of the Post Office’s strategy to ensure that the network is secure, sustainable and successful in the long term. In fact, more than 90% of post offices throughout the UK are operated successfully by independent businesses and retail partners.
Moving the directly managed Crown offices to retail partners has helped to reduce the losses in part of the network from £46 million as recently as four years ago to break-even today. I must stress that franchising is not about closing branches, but about moving a branch to a lower-cost model while continuing to offer high-quality service, more convenient hours and better locations. I understand that my hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough has questioned location, and we can look at that, but Citizens Advice found that franchised branches deliver the same or better standards of service to the customer.
Regarding the recent WHSmith announcement, the communities of Harrogate and Knaresborough, as well as other communities in North Yorkshire, are not losing their post offices, which will be relocated to WHSmith branches, making services more accessible to customers.
Kevin Hollinrake
The Minister makes a good point on the Government’s support for the post office network. The concern is where, because of the closure of banks, post offices end up being the only physical premises at which someone can bank. If the Government were to withdraw their support, those towns will have no banking service. Can we do more either to stop banks closing the last branch in a town, or to give longer-term support to post offices to ensure that that does not happen?
Kelly Tolhurst
My hon. Friend makes an important point about the role that post offices play in the banking sector. As he knows, the Post Office and the banks have an agreement about the enjoyment of post office facilities for use in offering services traditionally provided by high street banks. The Post Office is in negotiation with the banks to renew that agreement. As the Minister responsible, I have been clear about what I believe: the Post Office needs to benefit; customers need to benefit from a banking framework; and the banks need to accept their responsibility for the role now being played by post offices.
For example, those WHSmith changes will add four and a half hours to the opening time of the Harrogate branch in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough. Rest assured, however, that the existing branches will continue to serve the community until the changes are finalised by the Post Office.
My hon. Friend is right that the Coal Bath Road post office closed on 1 October. Post Office Ltd is committed to delivering a new partner or provider for that branch. There have been commercial issues with regard to provider and post office. Sometimes, unfortunately, contractual matters get in the way, but I absolutely accept that it is something we want to deliver.
With regard to the process, my hon. Friend is right that Post Office Ltd will carry out the consultation from tomorrow. Again, I request that anyone who can puts in a response to the Post Office, because it has to look at the consultation to ensure that it answers the questions and deals with the concerns expressed by the community. I will, however, raise the questions of process directly with the Post Office. He is right to challenge me as the Minister responsible to pass that challenge on to the Post Office.
The Post Office runs local consultations to engage local communities and to help shape its plans. That is in line with its code of practice on changes to the network. Citizens Advice reported that the process is increasingly effective, with improvements agreed or reassurances provided in most cases, demonstrating that the Post Office listens to the community. I know that the Post Office will continue to engage with local communities and to consider all options to ensure provision of sustainable post office services before its plans are finalised.
My hon. Friend wants the Post Office to consult on the concept of franchising before it consults on any new locations. However, these decisions must be commercial ones for the business to take within the parameters set by Government to ensure we protect our valued network. Post offices operate in a competitive environment and we should allow the business to assess how best to respond to the challenges it faces in order to meet our shared ambition of securing post offices for the future.
On the reduction of services that my hon. Friend thinks is taking place, he is correct that the biometric enrolment for UK Visas and Immigration, which is currently available at 99 branches, is not easily transferrable. He is absolutely right that that agreement is directly with the Home office, and it will obviously cause him concern.
I understand my hon. Friend’s concerns about first floor access for the disabled to the WH Smith and that post office, and about car parking. We need hon. Members to challenge the Post Office about those directly to ensure that it provides accessible centres within our communities.
Finally, the Government are completely committed to ensuring that we strengthen and support our post office network throughout the UK. To date we have done that effectively and kept branches open, of which I and the Government should be proud. We have seen a reduction, but we should celebrate what we have done.
We want our post offices to remain at the heart of our communities. We want them to provide services that are more accessible for our communities. They have always been at the heart of our communities and I hope they remain so. As the Minister responsible, I assure my hon. Friend that I will do my best to ensure that the Government—the owner of Post Office Ltd—duly represent our constituents regarding any issue he raises about the post office network. I am happy to have further conversations with my hon. Friend over the next few weeks as the consultation progresses. I will happily meet him and any other hon. Member any time to discuss the consultation and any changes.
I thank my hon. Friend for securing this debate. It has been an opportunity to challenge the new franchise system but also to celebrate what the post office system is doing and the value that post offices bring to our communities. Without them, we would be in a very different place. It is absolutely right that the Government continue to back the Post Office. I thank my hon. Friend for giving me the opportunity to mention the individuals who work within the post office network, who are integral to ensuring that those services are delivered day in, day out throughout the country.
Question put and agreed to.
Budget Resolutions
Kevin Hollinrake Excerpts(5 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Greg Clark
I do not agree. I think that the future of the industry is strong in all scenarios. I regard our ability to participate in institutions and research networks as being of great importance, and that is why I hope that the deal that is being negotiated will succeed and that we will be able to move forward based on that confidence.
Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)
Does my right hon. Friend welcome our ranking in the climate change performance index? The UK is fifth in that index, ahead of Finland, France and Germany.
Greg Clark
I do recognise that. The combination of a rigorous commitment to emissions reduction targets and an industrial strategy that makes it possible for us to glean the benefits of that is being admired by many countries around the world.
Drew Hendry
I shall give way in a moment, because I did promise to, but it will have to be very brief. I want to come to a conclusion soon.
The solar industry has been battered by this Government, and now must be the time to reverse the plans to end the solar power export tariff for solar homes, small businesses and community energy projects. Ending that would be pernicious. The Government appear willing to pour unlimited amounts of public money into only one policy, however: they are obsessed with new nuclear.
Reports suggest that the Tory Government will pump £6 billion-worth of equity and about £9 billion of debt support into the failing Wyfla project, where project costs are trailed at about £20 billion. Both that and the huge white elephant that is Hinckley C have strike prices significantly higher than those for offshore wind. The National Audit Office and the Public Accounts Committee warnings about value for money must be acknowledged. The public will be paying for those projects for decades to come, through higher bills. There was nothing in this Budget for the victims of green deal mis-selling.
Kevin Hollinrake
The hon. Gentleman is keen to ask this Government what they are going to do, but what are his Government going to do about the historically slow growth rates in Scotland? Scotland is still growing 30% more slowly than the rest of the UK. Why is he not asking his own Government to deal with those issues?
Drew Hendry
The hon. Gentleman says nothing about productivity levels in Scotland, which continually outstrip those of the UK.
The Institute of Directors and the SNP made a demand for a small and medium-sized enterprises support line to help them deal with Brexit. The Chancellor also failed to deliver that. Meanwhile, in Scotland, the Scottish Government help business with a £96 million investment to deliver the most attractive business rates package throughout the nations of the UK. Already, more than 100,000 businesses in Scotland pay no rates at all through the small business bonus scheme. Significantly, the Scottish Government are setting aside resources of £340 million to provide capitalisation for the Scottish national investment bank.
I wanted to talk about much more, but I shall cut a lot out to aid the process today. Before I finish, however, I want to cover the fair treatment of workers. Westminster has failed to end wage discrimination and give young people the real living wage. Young people are used to being short-changed by this Tory Government, as are those whose rights are infringed by the gig economy and unpaid work trials. In the SNP, we believe that a fair day’s work should result in a fair day’s pay.
Contrast the Chancellor’s failure with the success of the Scottish Government’s real living wage accreditation scheme, which ensures that more than 1,000 employers now pay the real living wage and that, as a result, nearly 82% of workers in Scotland are earning it—the highest level in the nations of the UK. Imagine what more we could do if we had the power in Scotland to do so. In the meantime, the UK Government must stop ducking their responsibilities on pay. These measures are not only about doing the right and fair thing; they aid the economy by increasing productivity and boosting revenue through tax takes to spend on services. If the Government will not live up to their responsibilities for fair pay, fair conditions and young people, we should have the power in Scotland to do so ourselves.
I shall end on two things. First, in city deals around Scotland, the UK Government have fallen nearly £400 million short of the Scottish Government’s investment—so much for the 50:50 partnership. The Chancellor came up £50 million short on the Tay region deal and failed to confirm 100% coverage of Scotland, as promised by the Chief Secretary to the Treasury—good at making promises, bad at keeping them. But of course that is nothing new. We saw that in the highlands with the Inverness and Highland city region deal, where the UK Government put in only about 20% of the funding—their £53 million dwarfed by the Scottish Government’s £135 million.
Healthy economies need healthy communities. This week’s Budget had one massive failure. That was the failure to deal effectively with the problem that is universal credit. It should have been halted, fixed and properly funded. Instead, like everything else, it only got lip service. After five and a half years, since the pilot to full roll-out in the highlands, we have seen the misery that people have had to endure. Despite all the begging, cajoling, demanding and asking of Government to listen, they failed to do so. They have made promises to people that they were unwilling to keep. It is about time that the Government took responsibility and sorted that out.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
The Prime Minister declared austerity to be over and the Chancellor downgraded the prediction to say that it is coming to an end, but the reality is that each Department is having to make 3% cuts, which hardly backs up those statements. Of course, the corporate giants will still enjoy their £110 billion corporate tax giveaway, while 1,000 people have seen their personal wealth increase by £274 billion over the past five years. For my constituents and many like them up and down the country, the harsh reality of services slashed and under increasing pressure and the daily experience of living in poverty or just scraping by was not addressed by this Budget. We all know that the money is going to the wrong places, and it will take a radical Labour Government to restructure and transform our economy to make sure that we invest in people’s future.
I want to turn to the high streets. On 8 March 2017, resulting from the valuation process and the sharp rises in business rates, we were promised a full business rates review, but it has not happened. Instead, temporary relief schemes have been provided to local authorities, badly managed by local authorities and then withdrawn. We did not hear on Monday about how all the temporary relief has been withdrawn from small businesses. That has had an impact on pubs, which are losing £1,000, and on other small businesses, as well as medium-sized businesses—the anchors of our high streets—which will not be eligible for the one third reduction in their business rates. Again, this will have a massive impact on our high streets, but we did not hear about that from the Chancellor on Monday.
The announcement on business rates was again a short-term one—just two years. All such funding is so short-term; it is about the crisis management of our high streets, although businesses have to sign long— 10-year—leases. They cannot make such long-term investments if the Government do not back them up. We are still seeing the inequality between our high streets and the out-of-town retail sector and between our high streets and online shopping, and they were not properly addressed either. Plasters were thrown out last year and bandages this year, but what we need is surgery—with real reform taking place—on our business rates system. I will not give up until we get real reform.
We need to address the causation of this problem, about which I have yet to hear from this Government. We have investors—mainly offshore investors—owning properties on our high streets, and while the revenue they get from tenants is helpful, it is pocket money compared with the scale of their investments in pension schemes and other investments. That has not been tackled, and until it is, we will continue to have a crisis on our high streets. The escalation in rental values in places such as York is extortionate. The Government are providing relief for such corporate greed, but we need to address the greed where it sits. We are seeing the creation of a bubble on our high streets, and when it bursts, there will be a real collapse. I therefore urge the Chancellor to address the real problem of business rates.
I want to highlight the suggestions that have been made about a turnover or profit-based tax, which is far fairer and will create the greater equality that we need. I want to mention one of my streets, Coney Street, in York. We have about 50 empty properties in York, and footfall in Coney Street fell by 9.3% on the previous year and by 15% in the past two years. That is just short of 27,000 fewer shoppers.
Rachael Maskell
I am sorry, but I do not have time to give way. The hon. Gentleman had the opportunity to put in to speak in the debate.
Since September 2016, there has been real decline on Coney Street: this year alone, 12 stores have closed. Unbelievably, that—a place where there is no traffic—is where the WH Smith that is meant to be hosting the new post office is based. The current post office, on a prime site in Lendal—the busiest thoroughfare of our city—is to close. It has been there since 1884. That is the most perverse decision, and I urge the Business Secretary, who is listening, to consider the case of York and reverse that decision so that we can have a vibrant post office, rather than losing that public service in a good place on our high streets. Yet another year passes. The Government are ducking the real challenges on our high streets. We need a Labour Government to revive our high streets and communities.
John Howell (Henley) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Albert Owen). I spoke to him in the Tea Room about fusion, and I think we both remain very excited about the potential of that project. I want to start by looking at unemployment. There was a time when the Library produced monthly assessments of constituencies, and my own constituency was invariably either at the top or near it in terms of best performance in dealing with employment. It should therefore come as no surprise that less than 1% of the economically engaged population in my constituency is unemployed at the moment. The number of young unemployed people—those under the age of 24—across the whole constituency amounts to 50. It is often argued that I know them all. I do not, but I wish I did.
Those figures illustrate an interesting point, which is that there is not a sufficient population within the constituency to fill the jobs necessary for growth and expanding businesses there. Two things need to happen in that regard. First, we need innovative solutions to the transport issue. I am pleased that the county council has helped to engineer smaller buses and lots of local buses, but I would like to see a little more help for this in next year’s spending review. Secondly, we need to make houses really affordable. A number of speakers have already mentioned the fact that houses are not genuinely affordable. There is one policy in the Budget that will help in this regard, and it is interesting that no one has mentioned it so far. It relates to the Chancellor’s attempt to use the discount on houses to keep them for local people. I fully support that policy, and I do so in my role as a Government champion for neighbourhood planning.
John Howell
Thank you. The whole point is to ensure that this is done through the neighbourhood planning process. This will give people an enormous incentive to undertake a neighbourhood plan, because they know that it might give them the opportunity to say that the houses involved are genuinely to be allocated to local people.
Moving on, business rates reform will be a real help for businesses, and I do not know why the Opposition are downplaying it. In Henley—I think that the same is true in Thame—the problem is not so much about high rents, but business rates, and the local paper maintains an empty-shop watch to note any fluctuations. I sought some information before this debate, and the number of smaller properties in the Henley area that will benefit from this third reduction in business rates is something like 250,000—a phenomenal number.
I mentioned fusion in several interventions, and it is something that I have kept a close eye on not only because the JET Culham Centre for Fusion Energy is in my constituency, but because I am the chair of the all-party parliamentary group on nuclear fusion. I am therefore pleased that an additional £20 million will be spent on the fusion project, an element of which was recently opened by Prince William. As I pointed out in an earlier intervention, that is a useful sum of money because it is not the commercial project, which is being undertaken in France.
Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Dan Carden). I look at self-management slightly differently, in that I have been in business for most of my life. I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I rise to commend many of the policies in the Budget, and particularly its support for small and medium-sized enterprises. For many years, I also played rugby union for the York Railway Institute, and I look back fondly on those times. However, there were one or two clubs at which I did not enjoy playing quite so much. One in particular was Halifax Vandals, where the ground sloped at what seemed like 45° from one set of posts to the other. Trying to get out of the low-end 22 seemed virtually impossible, particularly with the additional challenge of a head wind and ankle-deep mud. At least it was the same for both sides, but for many SMEs, there is no half-time turnaround. They seem to face a consistent uphill battle with head winds that many big businesses do not have to cope with.
An example of this involves some of the digital businesses, which spend an average of 0.6% of their turnover on business rates, compared with high street retailers that spend around 2.3%, according to the Centre for Retail Research. SMEs also compete with the likes of Amazon, Apple, Google and Facebook, which are able to shift either sales or profits to the lowest corporation tax jurisdiction to avoid paying their fair share of tax while still revelling in their claims to do no evil and in their corporate social responsibility credentials. I therefore welcome the Chancellor’s commitment to business rate reductions for smaller businesses and the introduction of a digital services tax. Our job here is to level the playing field—not to pick winners—and his actions are doing exactly that.
The other area in which SMEs are at a critical disadvantage is when they are in dispute with their bank. It is now abundantly evident—particularly since the Treasury Committee released the full report on the RBS global restructuring group scandal in February 2018—that banks took businesses apart and stripped them of their assets to replenish their own balance sheets. Thousands of viable, significant and substantial businesses were involved. There were similar occurrences at Lloyds and others, yet incredibly, we leave the victims at the mercy of these very banks when they claim for compensation and consequential loss.
The Financial Ombudsman Service has very limited jurisdiction, with a maximum compensation level of £150,000 and limited competence to adjudicate such claims, and the courts are simply out of reach. Lloyds bank, for example, has a £1 billion per annum budget for legal fees. It is impossible to get justice in court against a high street bank. The proposed extension of the Financial Ombudsman Service is to be welcomed, given the vital improvements to its level of competence, but all four of the major reviews of bank dispute resolution over the past year—from our all-party parliamentary group on fair business banking and finance, the Treasury Committee, the Financial Conduct Authority and the Walker review—have concluded that there will still be a gap in the access to justice. Around 86% of businesses will not have access to justice, even with the Financial Ombudsman Service’s extended jurisdiction, and the lack of confidence between banks and businesses will mean lost start-up and scale operations, which will damage our economic prospects.
Three of the four reviews support the establishment of a financial services tribunal that would work in a similar way to an employment tribunal in that the claimant would not suffer the costs of the defendant—the bank—should they lose. That simple but effective measure is supported by the all-party parliamentary group on fair business banking and finance, the Treasury Committee, the Financial Conduct Authority, the FSB, the Small Business Commissioner, several banks and just about every parliamentarian. We cannot have businesses playing uphill and downwind against a much stronger opponent, and it is our duty as legislators to level this most important of playing fields.
Shale Gas Exploration: Planning Permission
Kevin Hollinrake Excerpts(5 years, 8 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Lee Rowley
I will give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake) and then to the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr Skinner).
Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on bringing this important debate. As he knows, I am far more positive about the prospects for shale gas exploration than he is. Nevertheless, I and the Select Committee that I sit on have raised genuine concerns about the permitted development process, the clarity around it, and whether it relates to simply drilling a hole on an existing well pad or the construction of an entire well pad, which is heavy industrial construction and could literally go anywhere in any one of our constituencies. There are real concerns and we need clarity on that specific point.
Construction Sector Deal
Kevin Hollinrake Excerpts(5 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Speaker
Order. We are immensely grateful to the Minister, from whom we had a Cook’s tour of his personal experiences as a constituency representative. We are deeply indebted to the Minister, although I was wondering at one point whether his response to the shadow Minister would be longer than his original statement, but there we go. I call Mr Kevin Hollinrake, whose beaming countenance is most suitable.
Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)
I welcome the statement. It mentions the patient capital review, which aims to increase the availability of long-term finance for innovative firms, so will the Minister confirm that that will be targeted at small and medium-sized construction companies?
Richard Harrington
I will try not to mention a constituency example here, Mr Speaker.
I thank my hon. Friend for that question. Capital is important. It is often spoken about in terms of large fundraising exercises, such as bond issues and initial public offerings, but it is important that small firm financing is also taken into account. The banks are proud of the fact that they are significantly increasing their small business lending, and we intend to monitor that carefully.
Parental Bereavement (Leave and Pay) Bill
Kevin Hollinrake ExcerptsFriday 11th May 2018
(6 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Parental Bereavement (Leave and Pay) Act 2018 View all Parental Bereavement (Leave and Pay) Act 2018 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Consideration of Bill Amendments as at 11 May 2018 - (11 May 2018)
Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)
My hon. Friend is making some strong points. He will be aware that there is already a requirement for employers to give reasonable time off when people suffer such tragedies but, as he says, the Bill seeks to ensure that the employers who would not normally be generous and sympathetic also give people the time off that they need at times of great tragedy and grief.
Kevin Foster
My hon. Friend is right that a reasonable employer will behave differently from the type of person at whom the legislation is aimed. To be blunt, the legislation will target the sort of person who adopts the employment practices of Scrooge and Marley—an admittedly small number of employers—but I do not want the Bill to offer a get-out for people who may want to act inappropriately. We must ensure that Parliament’s intention is clear in the legislation that we pass.
Kevin Foster
I take the points my hon. Friend is making. As I said at the outset, I fully support the Bill—I have no intention of giving a five-hour speech as an attempt to talk it out. When it comes to the key moment, I will not seek a decision on these amendments if that would endanger the Bill. However, it is right that we have this discussion today so that Ministers can listen to the opinions of the House. Sadly, tribunals and courts will be called on to interpret the Bill, but our discussion means they will be able to see clearly that Parliament was not setting a maximum and saying that the provision should stop there, but deciding where the floor—the minimum—should be.
Kevin Hollinrake
My hon. Friend is making some excellent points. The Bill has an impact on the Treasury, with an annual cost of about £3.2 million, because the taxpayer—not the Treasury itself, clearly—will be picking up the tab for the statutory pay element. We have to take that key consideration into account. We must also consider costs for businesses, especially small businesses, as they will suffer the effects more than larger businesses. Small businesses find it much more difficult to cater for absence. As there is already a predicted cost of £2.6 million a year for small businesses, does my hon. Friend agree that we need to strike a balance by taking into account the interests of both business and the individuals who suffer these tragedies?
Kevin Foster
Obviously my hon. Friend is right to say that a balance needs to be struck. On issues such as how much leave there should be, who this applies to and how it applies, we need to strike a balance against cost, particularly to small businesses. It is worth pointing out, as my hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge) rightly mentioned, that many small businesses are likely to be the most reasonable with their employees in any case.
My hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton is a great champion of small businesses in this Chamber. Sometimes we rightly talk about not wishing to impose this cost or that cost, but a lot of the time we find that some of the worst examples of poorer employment practice are in one or two larger employers, where a rigid rule is applied fiercely to try to squeeze the last pound out, whereas smaller businesses work more as a team. If we walked into the room and were asked to guess who the owner of a small business was, we would not be able to do so, as the business works as a collective. I can think of hotels in Torbay where the owner of a hotel that is worth millions can be found serving the spuds, as the hotel does silver service—they do literally every job in the hotel, as well as being the owner and manager. However, I accept that there is a balance to be struck.
Kevin Foster
I think that I am about to hear it now, so I happily give way.
Kevin Hollinrake
I am happy to come back on this point. We are clearly dealing with a minimum here. We expect employers to be—our evidence absolutely supports the fact that they are—generous and sympathetic in such situations. Many of them give full pay and provide whatever time is needed for the parent to try to recover—or to move on—from the tragedy. We are trying to cater for the isolated numbers of employers who do not take that approach. We believe that one in 10 does not provide a sympathetic and generous policy when these things happen. So we are trying to strike a balance while sending a signal to those employers that they should be generous and sympathetic in such situations.
Kevin Foster
I take on board my hon. Friend’s point, but legislating is not just about sending a signal—we can do that by tabling a motion, making a speech or putting a question to a Minister. This is about setting down a piece of law that is not signalling what employers should do, but telling them what they must do. He is right to say that the Bill will not make much difference at all to 90% of employers. The small business that works as a team and the larger employer that values its staff will be able to sit back and think, “This is pretty much what we do already,” with the exception that the Bill provides for statutory parental bereavement leave and for the taxpayer to make certain payments. The Bill is about dealing with that 10%.
Kevin Foster
I recognise that for some employers, particularly microbusinesses in which there might be only two, three or even four employees, it is not about wanting to be nasty, but about the position of a business that is operating hand to mouth incurring the costs of agency staff and so on. That is why it is right that the taxpayer is involved in supporting people at a difficult time. I do not think that any of us object to the taxpayer sharing some of the costs of this provision, rather than it all being loaded on to employers. I accept that there is a balance between what we expect employers to do and what the taxpayer should be asked to pay for.
Having discussed microbusinesses, perhaps this is a good time to move on to amendment 8. I will be interested to hear the thoughts of the Minister and my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton about what type of job will be covered. Many people might think, “Really? You have a job and you get paid. That’s simple enough.” Unfortunately, it is not quite that simple in the modern economy. It is not like the situation in decades past when it was perhaps quite easy to identify someone’s employer.
The Bill refers to jobs of a kind specified by regulations, and I am particularly keen to know that there will not be a sort of shopping list of the jobs covered such that if someone delivers milk in the morning, they are be fine, but if someone works on a farm milking a cow, they will not be covered because that job is not listed. My amendment deals with the question of whether someone is employed, and we have a good definition of that in law. Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs is only too keen to define people as employed so that they can be taxed appropriately on their income from their employment.
I hope that we can explore exactly how we will cover some of the new models of employment, in which someone may not have a job with one employer but regularly works for a group. I am thinking particularly of the gig economy, in which someone might be working irregular shifts, but are to all intents and purposes an employee of an employer. How do we deal with different types of employment model? I accept that we will not be able to cover absolutely every single situation in which someone is paid to do something on someone else’s behalf. There will always be debates about how we treat self-employment. Indeed, the debate about national insurance contributions and what the self-employed are eligible to claim from the welfare and benefits system showed the difficulties with these things.
Kevin Hollinrake
My hon. Friend makes a strong point. The world of work is certainly changing. He will be aware of the Matthew Taylor review, which has been examining issues relating to the gig economy and how we define someone as an employee or a worker, as well as all the different categories of employment and self-employment. We want to keep options open in the Bill so that we can mirror the outcomes of the Taylor review when those issues are settled. We therefore will not have measures in the Bill that we cannot change; we will have flexibility to make sure that people who deserve to be covered by the Bill are covered.
Kevin Foster
I thank my hon. Friend for helping to bring some clarity to the matter. I did not want to get back to the old idea of what a “proper job” is that some of us used to hear at school. It is amazing how many people thought that certain things were proper jobs, and it has to be said that it was mostly men and that a proper job was one that was traditionally male orientated—surprise, surprise—and other things were just basic jobs. However, the sorts of jobs that were once dismissed—in care, healthcare and other areas—are vital in today’s economy, and we need people to be doing them and to see them as the type of job and career that they want to go into.
While exploring the Bill, I was concerned that we should not end up with Parliament in effect asking the Minister to draw up a list of every job he could possibly think of and every type of employment activity that could ever be done for an employer, so amendment 8 is about targeting whether someone is employed. I am conscious that we have to make sure that our language and intentions are fairly clear. We should bear in mind our brief debate on another private Member’s Bill, the Unpaid Trial Work Periods (Prohibition) Bill. Most of us would think that a trial was a very short period—perhaps an hour or two, just to see how someone mixed with a team—but the hon. Member for Glasgow South (Stewart Malcolm McDonald) gave an example of a place that had interpreted a trial as several weeks of working for nothing. Clearly, none of us would view that as a trial; the process was just about trying to dodge minimum and living wage legislation. We need to make sure that there is no opportunity to misuse what we all might think are reasonable words in the English language.
I am conscious of time and wish to give others the opportunity to speak. I shall listen carefully to the arguments made by the Minister and the Bill’s promoter, my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton, when they speak about my amendments. I have been reassured by some of the interventions I have taken from my hon. Friend, and I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester for his interventions, which have helped to clarify some points. To be clear, I will support the Bill even if my amendments are not accepted. It would not be beneficial for anyone if the Bill was not passed.
This welcome Bill will help many in the darkest times of their lives. My hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton can take great pride in the difference that his Bill will make to those people, and my hon. Friends the Members for Eddisbury and for Colchester can take great pride in how they have used their personal experience to help others who end up in the same position. I support the Bill wholeheartedly and hope that the discussion of my amendments will help to make it even better.
Kevin Hollinrake
May I put on record my thanks to the hon. Lady for her work on this Bill, particularly during Committee stage. Earlier, she said that we had worked together to improve this Bill. I and my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester (Will Quince) were delighted that the Government were willing to accept her amendment on stillbirth. That is a clear sign of how cross-party working can improve legislation as it goes through the House. That particular amendment will always be attributed to my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester and the hon. Lady.
Patricia Gibson
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his kind words. What the Bill has shown, across this House, is the best of what the House of Commons can be. It is unfortunate that we cannot work in a more consensual manner on many more issues. On an issue such as this, when it is about human beings, compassion and feelings for our fellow man, this House has come out today looking much better than it often does. I thank the hon. Gentleman for his words.
To face the death of a son or daughter with no entitlement to paid leave under the law is a terrible injustice that generations of people before us have suffered. I am proud to say that, today, we will correct that. The Bill sets out a minimum leave period of two weeks. I know that that is not very long, but given that currently there is no entitlement at all, it offers a start and provides legal recognition that the response to such a life-changing event can no longer be—and should no longer be—a matter of discretion for employers. This is one of those days when, whatever criticism people make of the House of Commons, either justified or unjustified, we can feel that we are making a real and practical difference to people’s lives as they face the worst circumstances imaginable—the death of their child.
Let me turn to amendments 22 and 23. We know the trauma that accompanies the death of a child. The first reaction is shock and disbelief, especially in the case of a sudden death. A parent may initially refuse to accept the loss and try to continue as normal, blocking out the experience, which is a common feature of trauma. For some parents, going on as far as possible as though the death is not “real” will be a reaction that helps them cope. Keeping busy is a coping strategy that many use and one that, to a great extent, my own husband used when our baby was stillborn at full term. People cope with the devastation of losing a child in a variety of ways. As the hon. Member for Torbay pointed out, there is no right or wrong way to do this. That is why the amendments are important. If they are passed, they will provide a signal to bereaved parents. The Bill is saying, “We recognise the trauma of your loss and we recognise its life-changing nature, but it is important that you take your leave between these particular weeks, from this date to that date.” I do not believe that that is really what we wish to do; it is not the message that we want to send out, which is why flexibility is so important.
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)
This is an important and sensitive issue. I am acutely aware that some Members who have been involved with the Bill throughout its passage have direct experience of losing a child, and I commend the bravery with which they have used their personal experiences to do good for others. In my family, my mum experienced the loss of my older sister who I never knew. She died some years before I was born, and for the rest of her life my mum was unable to speak about the loss of her daughter—I know that others have mentioned such experiences. It is something that has been present throughout my lifetime, unmentioned but always there in our family in the background. My sister’s name was Rebecca, which is also the name that my other sister gave to her daughter in her memory.
This Bill can only be a positive step. I am aware of the anxieties about it, but I am sure that none of us wish to do anything to scupper its progress. All those who are going through the ordeal and trauma of losing a child should at least be able to have some paid time away from their employment to deal with the practical elements of a bereavement, as well as the undoubted grief and pain associated with the death of a child.
Families, family relationships and caring relationships in our society are beautifully diverse, and it is right that legislation that offers entitlement to leave because of someone’s relationship with a child reflects that diversity. Often, those who are primary carers are not the biological mother or father of the child. They could be grandparents, other members of the extended family, or those who have opted to care for the child through formal means such as fostering, in a residential care home, or through adoption—my wife and I have gone through that experience and we have two adopted children.
In this country we—including under this Government—encourage foster carers to build loving relationships with children in their care, and rightly so. It is therefore only right and proper to make provision in law, so that people who are caring for a child, in whatever circumstances, are given paid leave if that child dies. That is in recognition of the fact that although those people may not be biological parents, they will often be parents, perhaps even legally, and they will form deep and meaningful relationships with the children in their care. They will suffer pain if they lose that child, and they will need time to make practical arrangements, including a funeral, and of course time to grieve.
How and when grief hits a parent can vary, as does the time at which practical arrangements associated with bereavement are needed. Arranging a funeral is just one of a huge list of responsibilities in the wake of the death of a child. There could be involvement with a coroner, and an ability to take the leave entitlement at varying points and not all at once would be welcome. People may need a day off to register the death, and they may need more time off weeks later because they are too low or upset to attend work. Grief does not come and go in a neat two-week period; it is something that stays with people, as I described with my mum’s experience. Although it is not practical to extend the leave entitlement to an undefined period, that entitlement should be valid for a sensibly long period of time—a year seems reasonable. It should also be possible to take the leave at more than one time.
Kevin Hollinrake
The hon. Gentleman is making good points and speaking very movingly. Does he accept that this is principally a signal to employers? There are many different circumstances involving this kind of tragedy, and everybody’s situation is different. Fundamentally, we are trying to ensure that all employers are generous, sympathetic and flexible in how they treat such situations, and that they provide leave and pay that is fair in all different circumstances. However, we cannot necessarily provide for all those things in legislation.
Bill Esterson
The hon. Gentleman is right and I commend him on promoting this Bill. I would like to pick up on some of the points he made about employment, self-employment, and the impact of the Bill on businesses. A good employer would certainly want to look after its staff—indeed, it is in its interests to do so. If an employer wants to retain staff, it should look after them, and that is also the right thing to do more generally. As we have heard, the vast majority of employers already do what is set out in the Bill in practice, and the Bill rightly ensures that all employers have a minimum set of standards to follow.
I take on board the point about whether this is the right time to consider broadening the provision to cover adult children, but we are talking about a relatively small number of people who would qualify for an entitlement to leave. We are talking about someone who loses a child, whether that child is under or over the age of 18—the hon. Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Michael Tomlinson) described losing his brother who was 24. It does not matter at what age this happens; it is an extremely painful situation for family members, and I understand that my hon. Friend the Member for North West Durham (Laura Pidcock) reminded the Committee of just that point. In the mind of a parent the pain never ceases, whatever the age of the child.
Although an older child might have a family of their own to help with practical arrangements, that is not always the case. Indeed, some older children are dependent on their parents—for example, parents may still care for a disabled adult. It is perfectly possible that a worker aged 60 could have a daughter or son who dies aged 30 or older, and it is reasonable for them to be afforded paid leave for all the reasons given for younger children. Lifting the age limit of what it means to be a child could be done either in the Bill or later, in recognition of just how exceptional these circumstances are.
Out of all the employment rights currently written into law, parental bereavement leave and pay is something that no one in the Chamber would ever want to apply for. Increasing leave entitlement from zero days and no pay to two weeks’ paid leave at a statutory minimum rate is a welcome step, although I am sure that many people who have lost a child would tell us that two weeks is nowhere near long enough, and perhaps a longer period of leave might be right. However, for purposes of the Bill we are discussing two weeks’ paid leave, which would be a significant and important step forward.
It is crucial that bereavement pay is paid immediately after the death of a child. A parent or carer should not have to worry about whether they can afford to take time off, and that should not be another thing added to the extreme stress that bereavement often creates. The statutory minimum rate is certainly better than nothing, although I fear, having had to take a hit on pay, that if pay is not given in full that may still exclude some from taking leave. Certainly the statutory minimum is better than nothing, and a step forward for those employers that currently do not provide such support.
Michelle Donelan
I completely echo my hon. Friend’s comments. I pay tribute to my hon. Friends the Members for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake) and for Colchester (Will Quince), as well as everybody else in the House who has contributed to the Bill, including all members of the Public Bill Committee. The Bill commands cross-party support, as well as support from the public, who will note today’s debate and see that Parliament sometimes really is in touch with people and their needs.
I echo comments about the fact that when employers are very generous towards their employees, it fosters a sense of loyalty and respect among them. I am sure that employers’ ability to offer this additional support will go some way towards developing that even further. Some of the amendments relate to the amount of leave that can be given. I honestly think that we can never quantify the length of time that it takes to get over a loss—in fact, we never really do get fully over a loss, be that of a child or anybody else who is significant in our lives—so I question whether the time being allowed is enough, although it is a good start. The whole point is that the Bill is supposed to set out the minimum, and we might revisit this and look to increase the time through secondary legislation.
We have discussed when people can take leave. There is a strong argument that an eight-week period is too arbitrary and very strict, because of such things as inquests, anniversaries and the dates when it really hits home. We must also remember that the Bill offers statutory pay, and people who only get that might not be able to afford to take time within those eight weeks. They might have to save up or make provision as a result of debts or the unexpected bills that people have to pay when someone dies. They might also not be ready for those losses. We cannot expect that somehow their financial burdens will suddenly disappear—that can take time.
We have heard an interesting discussion about the age of the child. It is important to remember that no matter how old someone’s child is, they are still that person’s child. Whether someone is 18 or 40, the loss is still huge, and Members have mentioned their personal experiences of that today. There is an argument for increasing the age from 18. We might not be able to do that in this Bill, but perhaps we can look at the position again. I echo the comment from my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Michael Tomlinson) that the burden would probably not increase fivefold, because a lot of people will be retired by the time their child is lost. It is important to remember that not everybody will take up the offer, and some employers would offer their own scheme, so their employees would not be looking at the statutory benefit. We can explore this area more, and I think that further research and investigation needs to determine the cost to the taxpayer if the provision were extended.
Kevin Hollinrake
My hon. Friend is making some excellent points. As I am sure she is aware, there is a consultation on many of the issues to which she refers. I absolutely accept that we need to consider the eight-week window, for example, and that is one matter that is subject to consultation. I urge her and any Members who may have an interest in this, as well as constituents and charities, to submit evidence to the consultation, which I believe expires at 11.45 pm on 8 June.
Michelle Donelan
I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention and for clarifying that very specific time of 11.45 pm. I will urge all my constituents to contribute to the consultation, especially those who can bring their own experience to it.
James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)
My hon. Friend is making a very good speech. Some powerful arguments have been made on both sides about the 18 threshold. Is my hon. Friend at least reassured that, as I understand it, parents of those over 18 would be covered by the “reasonableness” provisions?
Chris Philp
I see that my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton is indicating his agreement with my hon. Friend’s point, and that is certainly good enough for me. I do take comfort from the fact that the “reasonableness” provisions would apply for children over 18. However, it is a difficult question, and we have heard some powerful commentary on it from Members on both sides of the House.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester has just returned to the Chamber, I want to comment on an amendment that he tabled in Committee, which was passed unanimously and which extended the Bill’s provisions to stillborn children born after 24 weeks of gestation. I know that my hon. Friend has had a very tragic personal experience of that. I strongly welcome and support that extension, and I congratulate him on the amendment, but let me observe in passing—to the Minister in particular—that, perhaps not in this Bill but on some future occasion, we might also consider entitlement to parental leave for the parents of very premature children who are lucky enough to survive.
I am one of those parents. My twins were born after 25 weeks and one day, which is extraordinarily premature. They were very lucky—blessed, in fact—to survive. I remember that night in the intensive care unit, where, as the Minister can imagine, there were so many parents who were extremely distressed, whatever the precise circumstances that their children were in. I ask the Minister to consider providing for extra parental leave in the case of very premature births, although this Bill may not be the right place to do it, and it may be too late to introduce amendments. The experience of parents with children in neonatal care units after 20-something weeks of gestation is very difficult. However, the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester at least improves the Bill in that regard.
Amendment 7, also tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay—he has clearly been working extremely hard—makes it clear that, while the employee could receive additional pay from the employer above and beyond the statutory minimum, only the statutory minimum would be reimbursed by the taxpayer. My hon. Friend pointed out in interventions on the hon. Member for Sefton Central that the statutory minimum is just that: it is a floor, not a ceiling. Although that is the extent of taxpayer support, I am sure that Members on both sides of the House would strongly encourage employers to reimburse employees at their full rate of employment during periods of compassionate leave, for that or for any other reason. I hope that any employers who are listening to the debate or reading the report of it will take careful note of that exhortation. As one who set up and ran businesses for 15 years before being elected, I know that my businesses would always have taken such action without question.
James Cartlidge
It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Worcestershire (Nigel Huddleston), who made an excellent speech. I join him and others in congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake) on introducing the Bill.
While this has been a cross-party effort—I congratulate everyone who has contributed—I am particularly proud to be part of a cohort of heart-on-sleeve-wearing compassionate Conservatives who have done their constituents and their country proud by delivering change in an area that really matters to people. The cost of the Bill is tiny, as we have heard, but the cost to people who experience bereavement is immeasurable. I hope that I never experience such bereavement. Indeed, I regard myself as incredibly fortunate to have had four healthy children.
I rise to speak to amendments 22 and 8, and briefly to amendments 21, 24 and 25 on the cut-off point. On amendment 22, the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Patricia Gibson) and my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay (Kevin Foster) spoke extremely well about the way in which the period of leave will be taken and the need for flexibility.
I have four children, and I was a self-employed company owner. When I had the first two, the company was basically just me, so I did not really take leave. When I had Nos. 3 and 4, I was fortunate that the company had a few more staff, so I was able to take proper leave— Nos. 3 and 4 came at the same time, meaning there was somewhat more need for my support. That period soon ran into the selection process for my constituency and a lot of time pressure, so I was pleased to be in that position, but of course many people are not.
The consultation, entirely reasonably and rationally, says that in considering the structure of the time block for this leave, we will consider the existing arrangements for maternity and paternity leave. Whenever we legislate, it is entirely rational that we look at existing measures so that we do not reinvent the wheel. Page 13 of the consultation says:
“The Bill has mirrored existing provisions for family related leave and pay rights where possible and, in particular, Paternity Leave and Pay. But where the detail is left to be set in regulations, the regulations could be different to those for existing rights.”
This is the key point:
“Paternity Leave and Pay cannot be taken in separate blocks of a week: a father or partner is merely able to choose whether to take just one or both of the weeks available.”
I have been particularly moved by the arguments made today that underline why bereavement leave is very different from paternity leave, and why the circumstances could require extra flexibility.
The hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran gave good examples of why we might want flexibility. She talked about court hearings—I think there is a different phrase for inquiries in Scotland—and the fact that more flexibility might be needed in such circumstances. It is important that what we do in this place mirrors what happens in the real world.
In contrast, when I think back to being a new dad, it seems rational that paternity leave is taken in a single block, ideally when the child is born, when help is most needed. With my first child—my daughter—I well remember the intensity of those early days, when I prayed every hour that the baby would at some point sleep through the night. There is an early period of intensity that a parent sincerely hopes will reduce, which is why there is sense in taking the block together. That is a rational position. We have heard powerful examples from hon. Members about the need for flexibility on bereavement leave, however, so I hope that the Minister will respond to them.
Kevin Hollinrake
My hon. Friend is making some excellent points. It might not seem that we have best reason for taking this approach; as he rightly points out, the flexibility required in the circumstances of bereavement is entirely different from that needed in the case of paternity leave. However, the difficulty we are dealing with relates to processes in Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs and its ability to deal with statutory pay. The bureaucracies that support the decisions we make in this House should not necessarily drive our thinking, but they are a consideration to which we must pay due regard.
James Cartlidge
I thank my hon. Friend for clarifying the point. Indeed, I did note that from the consultation document, which referred to that fact that the benefit itself limits the flexibility. We all know how difficult it is to change systems, and we can well imagine the difficulty in the social security system, with employer software and so on, in giving out the benefit on the basis of sporadic days. However, there would still be merit in someone having the ability to take unpaid one-off days. I think most people would rather have that freedom, even if it is not possible for it to be covered by the statutory pay they would receive because of the limitations of HMRC’s and other systems.
Kevin Hollinrake
My hon. Friend makes a good point. Underpinning all this are the general principles and our expectation that employers would be understanding, sympathetic and flexible in how they deal with this situation. We are setting out the minimum requirements, but we would expect employers to show that compassion and flexibility when dealing with how people take the leave.
James Cartlidge
I am grateful for that intervention and do agree with it. If we were to have the single block but there was an exceptional reason to grant an additional day—or even that—at a future point, most employers would be prepared to do so. In most cases, employers will act reasonably as long as a reasonable request is made.
Amendment 8, which was tabled by my hon. Friends the Members for Torbay and for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Michael Tomlinson), is important as it touches on defining the employment status that someone must have to be eligible for these new rights. Proposed new section 80EB (1)(c) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 states:
“an employee who is absent on leave under that section is entitled to return from leave to a job of a kind prescribed by regulations”.
That prescription therefore relates to the type of employment, with the word “employee” being crucial. The issues arising from the Taylor review and the changing nature of employment have already been mentioned, and we have to discuss the extent to which these rights would be available to employees in those newly growing, ambiguous areas.
My hon. Friend the Member for Chippenham (Michelle Donelan) referred to the self-employed, but of course we are not talking about a homogenous group. Before the general election, when I served on the Work and Pensions Committee, we held an inquiry on the gig economy—this growing army of the self-employed. We heard evidence about cases in which people are, to all intents and purposes, employees. On this amendment, my question for the Minister is: in defining jobs and defining people as an “employee”, are we able to award these benefits—these rights—to those defined now as “workers”? I refer to those people in between employment and self-employment. Are we able to do that, or do we need to introduce separate regulations to do so?
That is an important point, so it is handy that I have a copy of the Taylor review. The Bill amends the primary piece of legislation to which it relates—the 1996 Act—and we are dealing with the important distinction between an employee and a worker. I remind the House that the 1996 Act states that an
“‘employee’ means an individual who has entered into or works under…a contract of employment.”
I will not go into the detailed definition in the report, but a worker is someone who has some form of contract.
Kevin Hollinrake
I thank the Minister for his very clear representation of the Bill and his responses to the amendments, which I will not cover in great detail because he did an excellent job of that. I also thank the small business Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Burton (Andrew Griffiths), for all his work in taking this Bill forward. He cannot be here today, but I know he very much wanted to be present to see the Bill, hopefully, through its final stages.
I also thank all Members who have contributed today and throughout the passage of the Bill. We have heard excellent speeches that have helped to shape the Bill. I thank in particular those Members who have been willing to share their personal experiences; there is nothing better to make sure that the Bill is fit for purpose as it goes through this House and the other place than hearing from Members from both sides of the House who have suffered such experiences. I have been lucky in my life, as I have four very healthy children. We have had a few mishaps along the way, but nothing along the lines of a stillbirth or the loss of a child. It amazes me—I find it inspirational—that Members are able to talk about their experiences in this Chamber.
I have had experiences from another relevant perspective—as an employer. Prior to entering this House I was an employer for 25 years, and I am still associated with the business. A number of people who worked for us have suffered these terrible tragedies, and I cannot think it ever entered our minds that we would not give people the leave that they needed for as long as they needed it, and to pay them without any deduction from their normal pay. That is the approach we have always taken, and I absolutely believe that it is the approach that the vast majority of employers in this country take, too. It is important to recognise that all the proposals and amendments are, understandably, trying to deal with the minority—the one in 10 who do not do the right thing—but those contributions are nevertheless incredibly important.
I want to thank a number of people individually. The first of them must be my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester (Will Quince). I am definitely the baton-carrier —if that is the right expression—for this Bill, as he brought forward a very similar Bill in the last Parliament but could not get it through in time. We absolutely would not have this Bill without him. Thousands of parents every year suffer these tragedies, so this is a hugely important proposal.
I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Eddisbury (Antoinette Sandbach) for all her contributions, and my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Victoria Prentis), who cannot be here today but I know would have wanted to be.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)
Order. I hesitate to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but I am listening carefully to what he is saying, and while of course he can thank his colleagues and other hon. Members as often as he wishes—I have no objection; that is perfectly in order—I gently remind him that at the moment he should be addressing the amendments that we have been dealing with since 9.35 this morning. Once he has done that and we come to the end of this process, we will go on to Third Reading, when it is customary for the thanks to come, but of course the hon. Gentleman may wish to make his thanks more than once, and there is nothing wrong with that. If he does so more than twice or three times, I will have to say he is being repetitive, but I never discourage courtesy in this place—I am merely pointing him in this direction.
Kevin Hollinrake
I am very grateful for that informative interruption to my remarks. I was going to move on to the amendments, but the contributions of my colleagues and Opposition Members have helped to inform the discussion around them. However, of course I will respect your views, Madam Deputy Speaker, and move on now to the amendments themselves.
The principal amendments on which most of the debate has been focused are those dealing with the definition of a bereaved parent: amendments 1, 2, 12 and 14. My hon. Friends the Members for Torbay (Kevin Foster) and for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Michael Tomlinson) talked about primary care givers and grandparents. We have had a number of contributions on this matter, not only from hon. Members but from charities and individuals who have contacted me on Facebook. We had a Facebook debate on the issue, in which Nicky Clifford said that she wanted the measure to extend to grandparents when they were the child’s primary carer. Mrs Clifford felt that the grandparents had suffered a double loss when her son died. The charity Together for Short Lives said that the right to leave should be extended to legal guardians, as did the Rainbow Trust, which also mentioned foster carers. There is certainly a wide breadth of opinion on how the regulations should be set, hence the need for a consultation. The Government are consulting on these issues now, and the consultation should come to an end at 11.45 pm on 8 June. I urge all Members to make submissions to the consultation on the definition of a parent before that is set in regulations.
The other key amendments were amendments 3, 5, 20 and 23, which relate to the window during which leave can be taken. The hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Patricia Gibson) talked about the shock and disbelief that is felt when these things happen. Of course every case is entirely different, so it is absolutely right that we should be flexible. The same point was made by my hon. Friends the Members for Torbay and for Mid Dorset and North Poole. This was the principal area into which charities had an input. Faye Williams said on Facebook that her partner had been allowed two weeks leave, but that the funeral was not arranged in time within that window. Louise Wright said that her son’s inquest was in October, five months after he had passed away. Cruse Bereavement Care said that the leave entitlement should be spread over a longer period of 52 weeks. Interestingly, one of the bereaved mothers who made a submission to the consultation through Cruse stated:
“When my child was born, I was entitled to a year off, but when he died I wasn’t entitled to a day off.”
That is an excellent reason for bringing forward this Bill.
We need to take all these things into account. It is right that there should be a baseline minimum—amendment 5 would take out that minimum—but it is also right that we should look to increase it. I am certainly sympathetic to increasing it from eight weeks to a longer period of perhaps six or 12 months. I am sure that the Minister will listen to such representations. However, we also need to keep the legislation simple for reasons of administration, and for the sake of the businesses that deal with these problems.
My hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge) talked about whether the leave needed to be taken as a two-week block. This is really about HMRC’s systems, but we would expect employers to be more flexible. On the point about extending the period of pay from two weeks to four weeks, we would need to look at the costs involved. The Bill has been carefully costed, and the cost to the Treasury will be £3.2 million per annum. The taxpayer will pay for the statutory pay, but employers will pay as well. The annual cost to businesses will be around £2.6 million, and we need to take that into account.
Amendments 6, 24, 21 and 25 focus on the age limit, and we had some good contributions on this point. From a parent’s perspective, there is no difference between the grief for someone who was 18 and that for someone who was 19. I quite understand that, and we had a number of similar submissions from the charities on this point.
My hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South (Chris Philp) mentioned this, but we need more discussion about the 24-week cut-off point between miscarriage and stillbirth, and the private Member’s Bill of my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) seeks to consider that issue. There must be a cut-off somewhere, and our friends at the Treasury certainly want to know exactly what the proposals will cost. We have already passed the money resolution, so I suggest to hon. Members that now is not the right time to try to amend the Bill in that way.
I thank hon. Members on both sides of the House for their constructive, informed and human contributions. I politely suggest that Members do not press their amendments to a Division so that we ensure that the Bill can proceed.
Michael Tomlinson
My hon. Friend mentioned the consultation and invited us to withdraw our amendments. Does he agree that it would be otiose—unnecessary—for us to repeat the suggestions that we have already made? This debate should be formally submitted to the consultation so that Members of Parliament do not need to write further submissions. Those involved in the consultation could simply read the Hansard reports of Second Reading, our Committee proceedings, Report and, hopefully, Third Reading.
Kevin Hollinrake
I was pleased that my hon. Friend explained what otiose means. He is absolutely right that the Bill has been shaped as it has passed through the House. The consultation is a key part of that, and it is fair to expect that some of the Bill’s provisions will be different from those that we see today. Finally, I politely ask Members not to press their amendments to a Division and to allow the Bill to pass through the House and on to the statute book as quickly as possible so that we help more parents who suffer these terrible tragedies in their hour of greatest need.
Kevin Foster
It has been fascinating to listen to the past few hours of debate, and I am pleased by the discussion of the amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Michael Tomlinson) and I. I was reassured to hear the Minister’s comments about the consultation, particularly that this is about setting a minimum, not a ceiling, and about practice in the civil service. I hope that the matters we have discussed today will be automatically included in the consultation, as my hon. Friend just said, without us having to write another letter stating, “As I said in the House of Commons on Friday 11 May, these are my views.” I look forward to the matter coming back for debate after the consultation has concluded, when I am sure there will be opportunities for discussion on the Floor of the House. Having listened to the Bill’s sponsor and the Minister, I beg to ask to leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Third Reading
Queen’s consent signified.
Kevin Hollinrake
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
With your leave, Madam Deputy Speaker, I want to thank hon. Members from both sides of the House. I thank the hon. Member for Glasgow East (David Linden) for his contributions in Committee and his forbearance in the process, because I know that there are things that he would have liked to have taken forward. I thank the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Patricia Gibson)—a constituency almost as beautiful as Thirsk and Malton. I also thank the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Sefton Central (Bill Esterson), and those who played their part in Committee, particularly the hon. Member for Swansea East (Carolyn Harris), who spoke so powerfully.
It is remarkable what we can achieve when we work across parties, so it has been a fantastic experience for me, and I am sure for other colleagues, to be associated with this Bill, which is about not just a new automatic entitlement to two weeks’ leave but, as we have discussed many times, a cultural change among some employers in this country to make sure everybody steps up to the mark when people suffer these tragedies.
From our research and from third-party contributions, we know that nine out of 10 employers do the right thing, but we must make sure that all employers do. We must continue to raise the bar to ensure that our employers do more and more to respect people when they have significant difficulties and are in their hour of greatest need.
This kind of debate and this kind of legislation brings out the best in this House. The debate on 10 October 2017 on Baby Loss Awareness Week was attended by Members on both sides of the House, and my hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Mr Dunne), who was the Minister on duty that day, described it as the most moving experience he had ever had in this Chamber. It was incredible to be here to listen to those speeches from Members on both sides of the House.
Again, Members spoke movingly on Second Reading of this Bill on 20 October 2017, including my hon. Friends the Member for Eddisbury (Antoinette Sandbach) and for Banbury (Victoria Prentis) and the hon. Members for Swansea East and for North Ayrshire and Arran. My hon. Friend the Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Mr Tomlinson) told the touching story of his own experiences and how well such experiences can inform debate in this House. At times this needs to be a more human Chamber, and today the Chamber has been more human.
Principally, of course, I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester (Will Quince) for his inspirational leadership and steadfast commitment. As he knows, I think this Bill should be called Will’s Bill as a result. I also thank the individuals and charities that have informed this debate, and certainly my constituents Annika and James Dowson, whose stillborn baby Gypsy was my first experience, as a Member of Parliament, of some of the difficulties that people experience. I am delighted to be able to stand here to represent the Dowsons today.
Members on both sides of the House have improved the Bill. We made some important amendments in Committee to include stillbirths, and those amendments were a result of the contributions from the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran and my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester.
I thank the Government and Ministers for their support, and I thank the Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, the hon. Member for Watford (Richard Harrington) for his excellent words. I also thank his officials for their tremendous service—they have made all this possible.
I very much hope this Bill will proceed from this House and swiftly pass through the other place. I am delighted to help move this issue forward, and I am keen to see Will’s Bill become Will’s Act.