Kevin Hollinrake
MP for Thirsk and Malton · Conservative · United Kingdom
“That issue is one of the many things that the people who signed the petition are concerned about, Dr Huq. One of the big things that the Government promised, which I agree with them about, is the need to encourage faster growth in our economy. Of course that is right, but look at where that growth is.”
“The UK economy went through many challenges, of course, some of them caused by Brexit; the reality is that a change like that was bound to have a short-term effect—but only a short-term effect. The country grew faster than Germany and France during that period of time.”
“As I said before, governing is not easy; we had many challenges ourselves, and we did not get everything right, but what we did during that difficult period of time—those 14 years—was get 1.2 million more people employed in our economy. Unemployment was halved during our time in office.”
“Of course, many Government Members supported his leadership challenge. We are here now, looking forward to a general election coming down the track. We are ready for a general election when the Government are, because, unlike them, we have a strong leader—against their weak leader.”
“I was, absolutely. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (John Lamont) for his excellent opening speech. He made so many good points, not least about the level of support for this petition.”
“Members on the Government side of the House also feel betrayed and angry with their own leadership, for marching them up to the top of the hill and marching them back down again on many of these issues, but they do not feel as betrayed as the businesspeople in this country in particular.”
The complete record
Every one of 3,516 lines we hold for Kevin Hollinrake, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 53 of 71.
“We feel there are provisions that will be implemented through this Bill that will provide safeguards against such behaviour. Suitable coverage is already provided by the existing rules, and there are new powers in the Bill that give the registrar of companies a power to compel people to provide information in the context of the examination of information on the register, and to interrogate and share that data with other authorities.”
“As the right hon. Lady knows, new clause 15, which we tabled today, is based on some of the debate we had and the ideas she brought forward in Committee. So I say to her that she should keep bringing forward the ideas, and we will certainly consider them. The Companies Act already requires traded companies to maintain up-to-date lists of their shareholders and report any changes in shareholders above 5% on an annual basis. New clause 37—and indeed amendment 112—on phoenixing, which was debated by the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North (Gavin Newlands), requires the registrar to block the registration of companies that share common characteristics with more than three companies wound up in the preceding five-year period. Successive companies being wound up in this manner is known as phoenixing.”
“(3) An appointment made in contravention of this section is void.”’— (Seema Malhotra.) This new clause would disqualify any individual convicted of an offence for a serious breach of the National Minimum Wage Act 1998, such as a deliberate refusal to pay National Minimum Wage, from serving as a company director. Brought up, and read the First time. Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.”
“(2) After Clause 5A (Disqualification for certain convictions abroad) insert— “5B Person convicted under National Minimum Wage Act not to be appointed as director (1) A person may not be appointed a director of a company if the person is convicted of a criminal offence under section 31 of the National Minimum Wage Act 1998 on or after the day on which section 32(2) of the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2022 comes fully into force. (2) It is an offence for such a person to act as director of a company or directly or indirectly to take part in or be concerned in the promotion, formation or management of a company, without the leave of the High Court.”
“(2) The first report must be laid within the period of 6 months beginning with the day on which this Act is passed. (3) Each subsequent report must be laid within the period of 12 months beginning with the day on which the previous report was laid. (4) But the duty to prepare and lay reports under subsection (1) ceases with the laying of the first report on or after 1 January 2030.” — (Kevin Hollinrake.) This new clause imposes a duty on the Secretary of State to prepare and lay before Parliament reports about the implementation and operation of Parts 1 to 3. Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill. New Clause 22 Person convicted under National Minimum Wage Act not to be appointed as director ‘(1) The Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986 is amended as follows.”
“(5) A note may be removed if it no longer serves any useful purpose. (6) In this section “the index of names” means the index kept by the registrar under section 1099 of the Companies Act 2006.’”— (Kevin Hollinrake.) This new clause requires the registrar to remove a limited partnership from the index of names as soon as practicable following dissolution or deregistration. The registrar must place a note in the register when a limited partnership is so removed and publish a notice in the Gazette in certain circumstances. Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill. New Clause 15 Reports on the implementation and operation of Parts 1 to 3 “(1) The Secretary of State must— (a) prepare reports on the implementation and operation of Parts 1 to 3, and (b) lay a copy of each report before Parliament.”
“(2) If the registrar removes a limited partnership from the index of names, the registrar must include a note in the register of limited partnerships stating either— (a) that the limited partnership has been removed from the index of names because of its dissolution, or (b) that the limited partnership has been removed from the index of names because of its deregistration under section 26. (3) The registrar must also publish a notice of the removal in the Gazette if the limited partnership is removed from the index of names other than following the publication of a dissolution notice under section 19 or a deregistration notice under section 26. (4) Notes included in the register of limited partnerships in accordance with subsection (2) are part of the register of limited partnerships.”
“New Clause 13 Removal of limited partnership from index of names “After section 26 of the Limited Partnerships Act 1907 (inserted by section 138 of this Act) insert— ‘ 26A Removal of limited partnership from index of names (1) The registrar must remove a limited partnership from the index of names as soon as reasonably practicable if the registrar— (a) becomes aware that the limited partnership is dissolved (whether on the receipt of a notice under section 18, the publication of a dissolution notice under section 19(6) or otherwise), or (b) publishes a deregistration notice under section 26 in respect of the limited partnership.”
“(3) After paragraph (1) insert— ‘(1A) In the application of the definition of “EEA AIF”, “Gibraltar AIF” and “UK AIF” to an AIF that is a limited partnership, a reference to the AIF’s registered office is to be read as a reference to its principal place of business.’”— (Kevin Hollinrake.) This new clause would mean that whether or not a limited partnership is an EEA AIF, Gibraltar AIF, UK AIF or established in the UK does not change solely because it complies with the new requirement introduced by clause 112 of the Bill to have a registered office in the UK. Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.”
“(2) In paragraph (1)— (a) at the end of paragraph (a) of the definition of ‘EEA AIF’ insert ‘(but see paragraph (1A) if the AIF is a limited partnership)’; (b) at the end of the definition of ‘Gibraltar AIF’ insert ‘(but see paragraph (1A) if the AIF is a limited partnership)’; (c) at the end of paragraph (b) of the definition of ‘UK AIF’ insert ‘(but see paragraph (1A) if the AIF is a limited partnership)’; (d) at the appropriate places insert— ‘“established”: a reference to the place where an AIF is established (however expressed) is, in relation to an AIF that is a limited partnership, a reference to— (a) the country in which the AIF is authorised or registered, or (b) if the AIF is not authorised or registered, the country in which it has its principal place of business;’; ‘“limited partnership” means a limited partnership registered under the Limited Partnerships Act 1907;’.”
“(5) For paragraph (4A) substitute— ‘(4A) In this Article “relevant provisions of the companies legislation” has the meaning given by Article 6(3ZA).’”— (Kevin Hollinrake.) This new clause replicates the effect of the amendments made by clauses 42(3) and 103(3) (which are left out by Amendments 8 and 16). The restructuring of the material is in consequence of NC10. Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill. New Clause 12 A limited partnership’s registered office: consequential amendments “(1) Regulation 2 of the Alternative Investment Fund Managers Regulations 2013 (S.I. 2013/1773) (interpretation) is amended as follows.”
“(3A) For these purposes, there is a relevant finding of guilt in relation to the person if — (a) the person is convicted of an offence counting for the purposes of this Article (including the offence of which the person is convicted as mentioned in paragraph (2) and any other offence of which the person is convicted on the same occasion), (b) a financial penalty of the kind mentioned in Article 6(3)(aa) is imposed on the person, or (c) a default order within the meaning of Article 6(3)(b) is made against the person.’ (4) Omit paragraph (4).”
“(2) In paragraph (1), for the words from ‘provision of the companies legislation’ to ‘the registrar’ substitute ‘of the relevant provisions of the companies legislation’. (3) For paragraph (3) substitute— ‘(3) Those circumstances are that, during the 5 years ending with the date of the conviction, there have been no fewer than 3 relevant findings of guilt in relation to the person.”
“(4) In Article 25B (application of Order to credit unions), in paragraph (3)(b), for ‘Articles 6(1) and 8(1) references’ substitute ‘Article 6(3ZA)(a) the reference’.”— (Kevin Hollinrake.) This new clause replicates the effect of the amendments made by clauses 42(2) and 103(2) (which are left out by Amendments 8 and 16) and contains changes to ensure that a person can be disqualified for breaches of obligations under Part 1 of the Economic Crime (Transparency and Enforcement) Act 2022 etc. Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill. New Clause 11 Disqualification on summary conviction: NI “(1) Article 8 of the Company Directors Disqualification (Northern Ireland) Order 2002 (S.I. 2002/3150 (N.I. 4)) (disqualification on summary conviction) is amended as follows.”
“(2) In Article 6 (disqualification for persistent breaches of companies legislation)— (a) in paragraph (1), for the words from ‘provisions of the companies legislation’ to the end substitute ‘relevant provisions of the companies legislation (see paragraph (3ZA))’; (b) in paragraph (2), for ‘such provisions as are mentioned in paragraph (1)’ substitute ‘relevant provisions of the companies legislation’; (c) in paragraph (3), after sub-paragraph (a) (but before the ‘or’ at the end of that sub-paragraph) insert— ‘(aa) a financial penalty is imposed on the person by the registrar in respect of such an offence by virtue of regulations under— section 1132A of the Companies Act 2006, or section 39 of the Economic Crime (Transparency and Enforcement) Act 2022,’; (d) after paragraph (3) insert— ‘(3ZA) In this Article “relevant provisions of the companies legislation” means— (a) any provision of the companies legislation requiring any return, account or other document to be filed with, delivered or sent, or notice of any matter to be given, to the registrar, (b) sections 167M and 167N of the Companies Act 2006 (prohibitions on acting as director where identity not verified or where there has been a failure to notify a directorship), and (c) sections 790LM and 790LN of the Companies Act 2006 (persons with significant control: ongoing duties in relation to identity verification).’; (e) for paragraph (3A) substitute— ‘(3A) In this Article “the companies legislation” means— (a) the Companies Acts, (b) Parts 1A to 7 of the Insolvency (Northern Ireland) Order 1989 (company insolvency and winding up), and (c) Part 1 of the Economic Crime (Transparency and Enforcement) Act 2022 (registration of overseas entities).’ (3) In Article 25A (application of Order to registered societies), in paragraph (2)(c), for ‘Articles 6(1) and 8(1)’ substitute ‘Article 6(3ZA)(a)’.”
“(5) For subsection (4A) substitute— ‘(4A) In this section “relevant provisions of the companies legislation” has the meaning given by section 3(3B).’”— (Kevin Hollinrake.) This new clause replicates the effect of the amendments made by clauses 41(3) and 102(3) (which are left out by Amendments 7 and 15). The restructuring of the material is in consequence of NC8. Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill. New Clause 10 Disqualification for persistent breaches of companies legislation: NI “(1) The Company Directors Disqualification (Northern Ireland) Order 2002 (S.I. 2002/3150 (N.I. 4)) is amended as follows.”
“(3A) For these purposes, there is a relevant finding of guilt in relation to the person if — (a) the person is convicted of an offence counting for the purposes of this section (including the offence of which the person is convicted as mentioned in subsection (2) and any other offence of which the person is convicted on the same occasion), (b) a financial penalty of the kind mentioned in section 3(3)(aa) is imposed on the person, or (c) a default order within the meaning of section 3(3)(b) is made against the person.’ (4) In subsection (4), omit paragraph (b) and the ‘and’ before it.”
“(2) In subsection (1), for the words from ‘provision of the companies legislation’ to ‘the registrar of companies’ substitute ‘of the relevant provisions of the companies legislation’. (3) For subsection (3) substitute— ‘(3) Those circumstances are that, during the 5 years ending with the date of the conviction, there have been no fewer than 3 relevant findings of guilt in relation to the person.”
“I am sorry, but I must conclude. I do apologise. To conclude there, I thank all the Members who have spoken in today’s debate for their insights, and I am sorry if I have not spoken to their points directly. I call on the House to support the Government amendments, and I hope that the explanations I have given provide reassurance that their amendments are not needed to make the Bill and the implementation of the reforms effective. Question put and agreed to. New clause 8 accordingly read a Second time, and added to the Bill. New Clause 9 Disqualification on summary conviction: GB “(1) Section 5 of the Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986 (disqualification on summary conviction) is amended as follows.”
“Member for Pontypridd spoke very movingly, for which I commend her, but I think she said that the Government were eroding workers’ rights. I cannot think of anything further from the truth. Let me set out some measures that the Government are taking, other than in this legislation. They are all measures for which I am responsible as a Business Minister: making flexible working a day one right, as we intend; allowing all workers a week of carer’s leave; providing more protections for people who are pregnant or returning to work from pregnancy or paternity leave; the tips Bill—”
“We need a strong and flexible labour market that supports participation and economic growth. The Neonatal Care (Leave and Pay) Bill will enable thousands of parents to care for and be with their children in neonatal care without worrying about whether their job is at risk. The Bill is supported across the House, and I was pleased to see that support reflected in today’s debate. I wish to put on record the Government’s reasons for continuing to support the Bill, but let me first pick up a couple of points that hon. Members have raised. The shadow Minister—the hon. Member for Putney (Fleur Anderson)—and the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Alex Davies-Jones) spoke about other measures that we might take forward in the employment Bill or by other means. The hon.”
“I have only been in this role a short time, which has been a common feature of small business Ministers over the last three months. Many of my predecessors have done hugely important work on this issue, not least my hon. Friends the Members for Sutton and Cheam (Paul Scully), for Loughborough (Jane Hunt) and for Watford (Dean Russell). I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Watford for his contribution today and his wholehearted support for this Bill and the next Bill that we will consider, the Employment (Allocation of Tips) Bill. I know he is keenly awaiting that debate, as is the Bill’s promoter, my hon. Friend the Member for Ynys Môn (Virginia Crosbie). It is another important piece of legislation. The Government are deeply committed, as I am, to ensuring that the UK is the best place in the world to work and grow a business.”
“I thank the hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East (Stuart C. McDonald) for all his work in bringing forward this very important legislation. It is a great honour to bring forward a private Member’s Bill. I have been lucky enough to bring forward two: one on guardianship, and one that sadly has a connection with this Bill, on parental bereavement, of which the hon. Member was very supportive. It is not just a great honour; it is a great deal of work, and I pay tribute to him for all his work on this Bill over the last month. We often get asked when we bring forward new measures such as this, “Does not that exist already?” When we get that reaction, it is time we moved quickly to bring the legislation forward. I thank him and all Members who have spoken on this important matter today. I also thank my predecessors.”
“We can have a good debate about this a week on Monday, but the Opposition parties seem to be arguing simultaneously that minimum service levels exist across Europe, that strikes are happening across Europe, and that the two things are incompatible. Clearly we are not taking away the right to strike: we know that nurses have voted to strike on 7 and 8 February. We are simply saying, “Yes, you can strike, but put a voluntary agreement in place to have minimum service levels,” as the nurses do—a derogation, as they call it. The two things are not incompatible.”
“The regulations will specify how long an employee has to claim entitlements to leave and pay, but the Bill specifies that it cannot be less than 68 weeks after the birth of the child. When it comes to pay, there is a power in the Bill that could require someone to still be employed by the same employer when the claim for pay starts. We acknowledge the point that my hon. Friend makes and it will be considered carefully when the regulations are drafted.”
“He talked about the impact assessment, which states that the financial impact on business is estimated at around £22 million per annum. That is an insignificant amount, and it is right to consider that, but on balance is the right thing to do. My hon. Friend questioned why it costs £5 million for HMRC to set up the entitlement. That is a good question. As he said, I do not look after HMRC directly, but I am told that they need to update their IT systems and support employers and payroll providers to do the same. This is a sizeable project that is primarily a matter for HMRC and the Treasury, so he may want to ask a Treasury Minister. He also asked about the assessment of legal risk if employers do not claim at the time but claim later.”
“Lady at any time about other measures that she would like us to implement. My hon. Friend the Member for North Devon (Selaine Saxby) emphasised how the Bill will benefit fathers and non-birthing partners, as they will have leave to spend time with their child in hospital. She spoke of the benefits to businesses, as they will be able to reclaim the money via HMRC and have less financial burden. My hon. Friend the Member for North East Bedfordshire (Richard Fuller) raised interesting points, as always. I was pleased to hear him talking about the potential impact on business. It is right that we consider that. We ask businesses to do more and more for employees, quite rightly. Nevertheless, we should always consider the impact.”
“The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Putney, and the hon. Member for Pontypridd asked how long it has taken to introduce the Bill to the House. Legislation is never that speedy—only in emergency times, perhaps. This legislation was a 2019 manifesto commitment, and in 2020 we conducted a consultation. Clearly, there have been other issues that we have had to deal with over recent years, but we are keen to expedite this legislation and we are pleased to see it passing through its final stages in the House. The shadow Minister also asked about a single enforcement body. We have this matter under review, but she can see that a tremendous amount of work is happening on other legislation that we are keen to bring forward. I am happy to have a conversation with the hon.”
“Member for Cheadle rightly thanked the charity Bliss and other charities that support families through their difficult time. The hon. Member for Pontypridd also thanked the charity Bliss. She is vice-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on premature and sick babies. I thank her for her work on that. She directed the House’s attention to her personal experience of this issue, as her son was born prematurely. I am grateful that her husband’s employer was flexible. My hon. Friend the Member for Watford showed huge empathy, as always, for parents who go through that experience. He has much experience with the issue, having been the Minister in the Bill Committee at one point. He emphasised the impact that having a premature or poorly baby has on parents’ mental health. This Bill will massively help ease anxiety.”
“Member for Pontypridd has campaigned long and hard on this issue, as has the hon. Member for Glasgow East (David Linden), who chairs the all-party parliamentary group on premature and sick babies. We should pay tribute to all those people. Many Members in this debate and previous debates have spoken about their personal experiences very movingly. I am the father of four children; our first child was in neonatal care, as he was very jaundiced when he was born. That is a massive worry for any parent. It is not just about the jaundice, as there can be other health implications including deafness. For the first child it is even more worrying. All those contributions resonated with me and, I am sure, others in the House. The hon.”
“Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East set out, the Bill will provide a statutory leave entitlement that protects employees against any detriment. Many considerate employers provide that anyway, but the Bill will ensure that the minority who perhaps do not must do so in future. The Bill gives a day one right to leave to anyone with a child in neonatal care for seven full days of continuous care. It is a right to pay based upon continuity of service. I will touch on some points made by Members, but I first thank my hon. Friend the Member for Thornbury and Yate (Luke Hall) for his work on this Bill. The issue was first introduced to the House in an Adjournment debate, which was responded to by my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam. I know the hon.”
“In 2018, our study identified that 37,400 children were in neonatal care for more than a week after birth, so it is clearly a hugely important issue. The United Kingdom has generous entitlements and protections designed to support employed parents to balance their family and work commitments and maintain their place in the labour market while raising their children. However, for parents who are in the worrying position of having their newborn admitted to neonatal care, it is clear that the current leave and pay entitlements do not provide adequate support. The Government consulted on the issue, and in March 2020 we committed to introducing a new entitlement to neonatal leave and pay. We are therefore pleased to support the Bill, which will bring that policy into effect. As the hon.”
“I do apologise, Mr Deputy Speaker. Several Members referred to the matter in this debate, so I felt I needed to address it, but under your instructions I will move on. Other Government measures, of course, include increasing the national living wage to £10.42, which we shall do very shortly—so we have a number of measures to strengthen workers’ rights rather than reducing them. As the hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East explained, an estimated 100,000 babies in the UK are admitted to neonatal care every year following birth, for a range of medical reasons. As my hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle (Mary Robinson) said, tens of thousands of children are in neonatal care for a week or longer, so the issue clearly affects many, many parents.”
“In conclusion, I thank civil servants who worked on the Bill: Rosie Edmonds, Tolu Odeleye, Roxana Bakharia, Abi Bridger, Bryan Halka, Jayne McCann and Cora Sweet, who is in the officials’ box today. I look forward to continuing to work with the hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East to support the passage of these measures.”
“Friend the Member for Wantage (David Johnston) mentioned bags of sugar—I think bags of sugar are 2.2 lb each—and spoke about the other measures the Government are taking to improve workers’ rights. My hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd South (Simon Baynes) also paid tribute to the Bliss charity’s campaigning on this issue. My hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield (Paul Howell), even without notes, spoke about the charity Leo’s, named after a baby who tragically died. Without further ado, the Government are supporting this Bill in line with our ongoing commitment to support workers and build a high-skilled, high-productivity, high-wage economy. It is good to see support in the House from across the political spectrum for this important measure, as is clear from this debate.”
“I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his comments and I agree we should make the process as easy as possible to ease the burden on businesses. That is certainly something we will look at within the regulations. We will also look at the definition of neonatal in the regulations, but hospital and outreach care and, tragically—as hon. Members have said—perhaps palliative care would be the key areas. The hon. Member for East Dunbartonshire (Amy Callaghan) told the moving story of her friend Kirsty, whose daughter needed neonatal care. My hon. Friend the Member for Ynys Môn shared her own experiences of a child who spent time in neonatal care. My hon.”
“Work is under way across Government to expand capacity within employment tribunals. He talked about cash and cards, and what goes to whom. As he said, cash is by right the property of the employee, unless the employment contract says that it is not. The Bill will clarify that, in any circumstance, whether there is a service charge or not—that is also covered—this money will go to the employees. That is a critical part of this legislation.”
“He also talked about the representations from Michael Kill from the Night Time Industries Association and how this change is important to attract workers into the sector, and about the great work of Kate Nicholls for the hospitality sector. My hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (James Grundy) talked about this being a token of thanks. That is absolutely right, because that is what drives service. My hon. Friend the Member for North East Bedfordshire, as always, challenged us in a number of areas. He mentioned the number of consultations we have held, and basically told us to get on with it. That is what we are doing today, of course: getting this legislation through and putting it into effect as quickly as possible. He talked about whether employment tribunals will have the capacity to deal with these issues.”
“I know that she is, and I welcome that. My hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield (Paul Howell) talked about his local hospitality venues. I have visited a number of them, not least Sedgefield racecourse on occasion, which is always a treat. He talked about how this change will be overseen and gave the example of sole traders. This legislation will be employment law and will apply only to people who are employees. The code of practice will go into that in more detail. My hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd South (Simon Baynes) was born and bred in the hospitality sector and so speaks with real authority. He used the words that I probably mention more than any other in my role as Minister for business: “fair” and “level playing field”. That is absolutely right, and that is what we seek to achieve.”
“I should point out that this Bill does not cover every sector; requirements in here about record keeping and the like, and the passing on of tips, apply only to businesses that receive tips on a more than exceptional or occasional basis. So this does not cover every instance; it applies just where tips are routinely paid. My hon. Friend the Member for Wantage (David Johnston) talked about not just hospitality, but the key element of access to cash, on which the Government are undertaking another stream of work. My hon. Friend the Member for North Devon (Selaine Saxby) talked about the fantastic hospitality venues that are essential to the economy in her area—as, indeed, they are to the economy in mine. She is a huge advocate for business. Many of us on the Government side of the House are for business because we are from business.”
“I say that it should be about driving up service, as these tips are paid to people who do a good job. Let me answer the question put by my hon. Friend the Member for North East Bedfordshire (Richard Fuller) on my tipping policy shortly. There are some burdens on businesses as a result of this measure, particularly on record keeping. We should bear that in mind when we legislate, but, on balance, I think this Bill is fair. My hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle (Mary Robinson) talked about fairness and about how most employers do the right thing but some do not. She also talked about the confusion regarding making cash or card payments, and what happens to such payments. This is not just about hospitality, as this applies to other industries, such as the beauty industry.”
“Let me address some specific points made by hon. Members in this debate. The hon. Member for Reading East (Matt Rodda) talked about the benefits to lower-income workers and to towns with lots of hospitality workers, such as Reading, and indeed places in Thirsk and Malton and many other constituencies represented here today. My hon. Friend the Member for Watford talked about snollygosters. I do not know whether that piece from Quentin Letts referenced my hon. Friend personally, but being mentioned in one of his articles is always a badge of honour, regardless of whether the comments are derogatory. My hon. Friend also said that this measure is about fairness and clarity, and the simple question when one is handing over a tip: “Do you get this?” He said this should not be about topping up salaries.”
“That will ensure that all money left by customers is passed to workers in full, as intended. The Bill also establishes a requirement to allocate tips fairly between workers at a place of business. That protects vulnerable workers and prevents exploitation. As we have mentioned, a voluntary code of practice on tipping was published in 2009. Our evidence shows that voluntary guidance alone was not enough to stamp out bad practice. Therefore, this Bill goes a step further and requires employers to give consideration to a statutory code of practice when considering how tips should be distributed. The code will continue to be developed by the Government, in partnership with key stakeholders, and will be subject to a full consultation period before the final version is brought to this House for approval.”
“Both the Government and the public were appalled by that; money left by customers who wanted to recognise the hard work and excellence of staff was in some cases simply treated as part of the revenue of the business. That is why my Department took action to understand the scale of the problem and launched consultations, as has been mentioned. We were then able to publish a full impact assessment to support the Bill. The Government believe that tips should go to the staff who earn them, rather than the business, and that businesses that withhold tips from staff are wrongfully benefiting from money intended for hard-working staff. The Bill prevent therefore employers from making deductions when distributing tips, apart from those required or permitted by existing legislation, such as under tax law.”
“Friend the Member for Watford (Dean Russell), for his work on such an important piece of legislation and for his campaigning on this issue. This is not just about his work in taking the Bill forward, because he has been amazing in campaigning on this. I thank my predecessors —not just him, but my hon. Friends the Members for Sutton and Cheam (Paul Scully) and for Loughborough (Jane Hunt). It has been brilliant to hear the support in the House for these measures, and I will briefly reiterate why the Government are supporting the Bill. A few years ago, stories were highlighted in the news about bosses wrongfully pocketing tips intended for their workers.”
“First, like the shadow Minister, let me declare my interest. I have two young daughters who work in the hospitality sector and who may benefit from this legislation. Happily, I am pleased to say that the Bill will also benefit around 1 million other people to the tune of £200 million per annum. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Ynys Môn (Virginia Crosbie)—I hope I have pronounced her constituency correctly because we have had some problems with pronunciation this morning—for her very hard work in bringing the Bill forward to Third Reading. The Bill is about fairness, transparency and, again, our efforts to make this society a fairer one. I am pleased that she has taken on the sponsorship of the Bill. Obviously, I thank the previous sponsor, my hon.”
“It has been wonderful to see the support for it in the House during today’s debate. If I may, I would like to list the civil servants involved, and there are a number of them: Flora Strange, Lucy Allatt, Yasna Reynolds, Mary Smeeth, Tony Gordon, Joe Giles, Simi Bhamra, Bex Lowe, Richard Lewis, Abigail Bridger, Rachel Senior—I can see the Whip moving closer to me; oh no, it’s not, it is the next Minister. I will conclude very shortly!—Anthony Morris, Cora Sweet, Nadine Othman, Laura Matthews, Clara Thiel, Patrick Day and Harry Ravi. Finally, I very much look forward to working with my hon. Friend the Member for Ynys Môn and stakeholders to support the passage of these measures as the Bill moves to the House of Lords. I commend the Bill to the House.”
“Many of them are on a zero-hours contract for good reasons and want to be on one, but she raised an important point. This is something we are looking at and determined to tackle. There are some abuses of the system, and we are keen to bring forward new regulations to make sure we tackle that area. In conclusion, bringing forward the new rules will protect more than 2 million workers from bad bosses and give them an avenue to seek remedies. Businesses will be assured they are not being undercut by companies where bosses keep tips for themselves and consumers will have increased confidence that their tips go to the workers they are intended for. The new rules are backed by Government evidence and analysis. The Government are therefore pleased to reiterate their support for this private Member’s Bill.”
“She talked about enforcement, which is hugely important. Legislation without implementation is pointless. One of the most effective parts of our regulatory system in the UK, in my view, is employment tribunals. There is no pan-employment regulator in the UK, which, when we think about it, is quite a surprise—there are some in some sectors. There are 30 million people employed in this country, and employment tribunals do a fantastic job, at a fraction of the cost of other regulators. It is ex-post regulation, and I think a more effective means of doing that is through employment tribunals, which are principally a mechanism for enforcement. The hon. Member talked about zero-hours contracts. A very small proportion of people in this country are on zero-hours contracts—2% to 3%.”
“That is correct. My hon. Friend also talked about my personal tipping. Do I tip? Yes. By standard, if there is no service charge, I would usually tip 10%, or sometimes more, based on performance. Sometimes I will tip nothing, if I do not feel that the service has been at that level. Do I tip if I do not pay for the meal? I normally pay for the meal as well actually, but I have offered to on occasion. I think that covers all his questions, but if he has any more, we can deal with them by separate means. To respond to the shadow Minister, I again refer to my earlier comments about an employment Bill. The key thing is that we are getting on with key legislation that we think is important. It is not just this legislation; there are other pieces of legislation addressing flexible working, carer’s leave and other issues.”