Personal Independence Payments

Debate between Baroness Brinton and Viscount Younger of Leckie

Tuesday 23rd April 2024 Lords Chamber

[Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)]

My Lords, I reiterate that there are several reasons why we want to bring forward this consultation, which will be launched in coming days. Cost is one factor but not the only factor, as I alluded to in my answer to the noble Baroness. Over the coming four years, PIP spending alone is forecast to rise by 63% from £21.6 billion to £35.3 billion. That is for the years 2023-24 to 2028-29. That is one of the reasons why we are reviewing PIP to ensure that the system is fair, accurately targeted to those who really need it the most, and delivers the right kind of support for people with disabilities and health conditions.

[Baroness Brinton (LD)]

My Lord, PIP is not a general living benefit, unlike universal credit. It is designed specifically to help fund the extra costs that long-term severely disabled people have just to be able to live their lives, and often to be able to get to work. The Minister said just now that it is important to review all processes. I entirely agree, so why is it that seven out of 10 PIP appeals are won on the same evidence that the DWP had originally, which shows that this funding is desperately needed for the most disabled in our community?

[Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)]

I have already said that this Green Paper is a conversation that we are starting to see how the costs are best targeted and how people are best supported. The noble Baroness will know that some claimants will have considerable extra costs relating to their disability—quite right too—and others will have fewer costs or minimal costs. That is why this Green Paper will look at whether there are ways in which we can improve how we support people in the right way and in a way that is fairer to taxpayers.

Disability Action Plan

Debate between Baroness Brinton and Viscount Younger of Leckie

Tuesday 6th February 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Brinton (LD)]

My Lords, I declare an interest as vice-president of the Local Government Association. In that capacity, I am currently chairing the LGA disability forum for council officers and for members.

I am grateful to follow on from the noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, partly because she summarises the issues about benefits so well. It also means that I do not have to say them again, because I completely agree with her concerns and her questions.

I am going to pick three or four things from the areas for action that give me real cause for concern that this new plan does not recognise the mess that the Government have got themselves into in the past. I want to start with the support for disabled people who want to be elected to public office. It says on page 15 of the Disability Action Plan that the coalition Government

“provided some financial support in the past, such as the Access to Elected Office Fund, which ran between 2012 and 2015”.

I wonder why it stopped in 2015. Who cancelled it? It was created by my noble friend Lady Featherstone when she was a Minister in the other place. It was cut the moment that we left government. The onus was put on political parties to provide it. That may be fine if you are the Conservative Party with millions and millions of pounds, but small parties do not have the capacity to fund the sort of things that are needed, such as BSL interpreters for a candidate. As far as I am aware, there has never been either a Member of Parliament or a Peer who uses BSL as their first language. That is because the barrier to get them into Parliament is too high for them to bear on their own. Action 2 in the Disability Action Plan states that the

“DU will develop and publish new guidance by summer”,

but until then the current arrangement will continue—so great words, but no change really.

The second action is another that has been raised in your Lordships’ House on a number of occasions: disabled people’s needs in emergency and resilience planning. About a year ago, when we were concerned about energy prices and the shortage of energy as a result of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, I asked a Minister in the then BEIS to look at how we could ensure that significant power outages did not hurt the people who relied entirely on emergency support when the power went out for more than an hour or two once their own batteries had gone down. People such as our own colleague, the noble Baroness, Lady Campbell of Surbiton, would be one of those affected.

The plan says:

“Government departments already consider disabled people’s needs in emergency and resilience planning, in line with the Public Sector Equality Duty”.


On 16 January, however, the Department for Health and Social Care—which, somehow, in the game of “Don’t sit down last,” ended up taking on responsibility from BEIS for the negotiations with the energy companies on what to do in power outages—wrote to John Pring of Disability News Service saying:

“We have concluded that, due to the specificity of individual needs and circumstances, individuals and their care teams are best placed to develop plans for how they can prepare for and respond to loss of power to their home”.

That is not government departments working together; it is worse than that. A year on, there is now no way that any disabled person who relies on power can go to anybody in government to say, “My energy company is not helping me”. My baby granddaughter, who was on a ventilator for the first three years of her life, had one such power outage in her area. Had she not been in a carrycot and been able to be brought out of the outage—which adults cannot do—she would have hit very serious problems, so, for me, this is a very personal matter.

The plan says that the Government were learning from previous events such as the Covid-19 pandemic and the Grenfell Tower fire. I remind the House that we still do not have PEEPs post-Grenfell fire, which is a very serious issue if you are in a wheelchair and are trying to get down even five flights of stairs—let me put it more bluntly: even one flight of stairs. I am afraid that the actions on that are unworkable.

The section on families in which someone is disabled says the right words, but this Government have consistently starved local government of funding for children’s services, including for education, health and care plans. As a result, schools and the local authorities have zero money to be able to provide, which is why many children are not able to access the help that they are entitled to under the law.

The noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, mentioned issues relating to assistance dogs. Dr Amy Kavanagh, who is a blind activist, said today on social media:

“We don’t need to define assistance dogs. The law does this already. I would welcome an ADA ‘legal questions you can ask’ model. Is the dog supporting a disability?”—


what on earth does that mean? She continues:

“What tasks does the dog perform?”


Frankly, once somebody has an assistance dog, it should not be necessary for a taxi driver to say, “What task does your dog perform?” That is the point at which there is a problem, and the answer is very simple: it is illegal to stop it. Yes, the Government are right: we need to make sure that more businesses know what they are doing.

Katie Pennick, from Transport for All, said that there is:

“Nothing on transport, nothing on housing, nothing on social care, nothing on PIP, nothing on hate crime, nothing on urban planning, nothing on healthcare, nothing nothing nothing…”


Rachel Charlton-Dailey said that, this week:

“Many disabled people are once again missing out on the gov cost of living payment … those on personal independence payment (PIP) or its predecessor disability living allowance (DLA) have received … £300, while those on benefits such as universal credit, child tax credits and employment support allowance will have got £900”.


That is discrimination against disabled people who, as we have heard, have much higher energy costs.

I will not repeat the data mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, but I want to mention one final thing about the two Bills that are cited in the plan: the British Sign Language Act 2022 and the Down Syndrome Act 2022. When the Down Syndrome Act went through your Lordships’ House, we were promised that other genetic conditions would be looked at. Nobody understood why just one condition got the support. Nothing to date has happened. Worse than that, no funding has been allocated whatever, even under the terms of the Down Syndrome Act. It feels like everything else that I covered so far: warm words but no actual benefits to disabled people.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Viscount Younger of Leckie) (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Sherlock and Lady Brinton, for responding to the Disability Action Plan. I appreciate that the noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, said that there were some positives in it, but I acknowledge that the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, is not in that position. I hope that in answering all, or nearly all, of the questions that they have raised, I can change her mind, but I am not sure that I will be able to.

The noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, spoke about our track record. I want to give her a very brief potted history of what has happened here and where we have got to. I hope that will help to provide some perspective for the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton. As the noble Baronesses will know, the Government published a draft plan for consultation over the summer so that disabled people, disabled people’s organisations and other interested parties had the opportunity to have their say. The consultation was open for 12 weeks and we received more than 1,300 written responses. In addition to that, we held a series of 25 events during the consultation period, with more than 130 attendees, including experts from a range of sectors. Jumping forward, on 5 February 2024, the Government published the Disability Action Plan.

The Disability Action Plan complements the long-term vision set out in the cross-government national disability strategy. They will be taken forward in parallel, sharing the Government’s commitment to improving the daily lives of disabled people in the here and now and in the years to come. It is the short term and the long term. Significant work is already being taken forward by individual government departments in areas that disabled people have told us are a priority. This includes reforms to employment and welfare via DWP’s Transforming Support: The Health and Disability White Paper and strategies to address health and social care via DHSC’s People at the Heart of Care White Paper.

These long-term reform efforts are already under way, so I make the point that there is some good work under way; it is not just that we have been waiting for those consultations. I will also say that this Government are aware that there are many suggested areas where people highlighted that the consultation was not within the scope of the action plan, and therefore that they had not been included in it. That does not mean that work has not been happening in these areas. It is important to remember that the action plan is only one pillar among many pillars of work being taken forward by this Government to improve the daily lives of disabled people. The plan also sits alongside the national disability strategy and other long-term work across government supporting disabled people, including support with the cost of living, which I will come to in a moment, through Help for Households, as well as the SEND and alternative provision improvement plans.

That takes me neatly on to the cost of living, which was raised with some passion by the noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock. We have committed to continue working across government to highlight disabled people’s concerns, experiences and insights on this topic. That includes sharing findings from this consultation and from disabled people’s experience panels. This work is in addition to broader work across government to support the people most significantly impacted by the rising cost of living.

Both noble Baronesses will know about the statistics, but they are worth repeating. In doing so, I for one understand that there are severe hardships around; I will not cover over those. Taken together, support for households to help with the high costs of living is worth £104 billion over 2022-23 to 2024-25. Over 8 million UK households on eligible means-tested benefits will receive up to three additional cost of living payments, totalling up to £900. The noble Baronesses will know that, from yesterday, the final payment will be paid at £299. I do not think that it is worth rehearsing now all the other aspects, because the noble Baronesses will be well aware of them. But perhaps it will be helpful for me to say that we really are aware of the pressures, particularly for disabled groups.

I will address the point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, on the work capability assessment reforms. We are committed to ensuring that our welfare system encourages and supports people into work, while providing a vital safety net for those who need it most. As she will know, from 2025 we will reform the work capability assessment to reflect new flexibilities in the labour market and greater employment opportunities for disabled people and people with health conditions, while maintaining protections for those with the most significant health conditions. Our expanded employment and health offer will provide integrated and tailored support for disabled people to support them and help move claimants closer to work.

I will go a little further: the work capability assessment reforms are not about sanctioning people or forcing them into work where it is not appropriate. I reassure both noble Baronesses that we will continue to protect those with the most severe conditions, while ensuring that those who can work are supported in doing so. In the future, removing the WCA will reduce the number of assessments that people need to take to access benefits, give people the confidence to try work and—this is a very important point—enable us to provide more personalised support so they will meet a real human being.

The noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, asked about PIP and whether there was a place for vulnerable PIP claimants. The answer is yes. We have some extremely vulnerable customers, which is why we provide additional support during the claims process, if required. This support can include help with filling in the form or questionnaire, and additional protections for failing to return the questionnaire or for failing to attend an assessment. Before attending a face-to-face, telephone or video consultation, claimants are given the opportunity to alert their assessment provider to any additional requirements they may have, and the providers will meet any such reasonable requests. Again, it is important to get the message across that, for the most vulnerable, we really are there to hold their hand and make sure that the process is made easier for them.

The noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, raised an interesting point about the areas we are focusing on to encourage more disabled people to stand for election. We do think this is incredibly important—as are the points that she raised. The new fund will be launched in 2025, following the design and development work informed by and through engagement with disabled people. This will ensure a long-term solution that meets users’ needs, learning lessons from previous elected office funds.

The noble Baroness made a point about timing. She will know—and said, I think—that, in the meantime, the disability unit will develop and publish new guidance by summer 2024. Yes, those are words, but there are also actions. I am making the point that this needs to be done over the long term. It is very important that political parties and elected public bodies can best support disabled candidates, drawing lessons from the Local Government Association’s work and other sources. That will help to improve support in the short term, while we establish—I make this emphasis again—a new long-term approach.

The noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, asked about addressing the question of public health and emergency planning information—which is another important point. The Minister for Disabled People, Health and Work will lead a discussion with the ministerial disability champions on the importance of accessible communications, with a particular focus on improving accessible communications and information regarding resilience and emergencies. That is just one action among a series of actions being taken to improve the accessibility of government communications.

I have just a few more points to make, including on families, which was a subject raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock. Yes, families are important. The disability unit will explore and develop a new accessible online information hub for families with disabled members. That work complements work led by the DfE to roll out family hubs. The DU will work with partners to develop new products addressing specific issues experienced by families with disabled members. I cannot quite recall the noble Baroness’s precise question, but I reassure her that this is important; it is a key area. She may want more action, so I will read Hansard and write to her if there is more that we can say on that.

Finally, the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, raised a point about assistance dogs. Our focus is on all assistance dogs, but we are seeking to build on the excellent work of Guide Dogs UK. I attended a reception it led the other day. Its “Open Doors” campaign seeks the fullest possible access to public places for people with guide dogs. Progress on educating the business sector on the law and the negative impact that access refusals can have on people’s confidence and ability to live an independent life will have a positive impact on all assistance dog users.

Health and Disability White Paper

Debate between Baroness Brinton and Viscount Younger of Leckie

Monday 20th March 2023 Lords Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Viscount Younger of Leckie) (Con)]

I will attempt to answer the noble Baroness’s questions. However, I start by saying that, as she will know, these reforms are the biggest undertaken in a decade and have been years in the making, with our initial paper having gone out for a consultation in 2021.

The main answer is that we are very much focused on ensuring that more people are supported into the workforce so that they can enjoy the positive impacts of work, through a more simplified system. I turn to improving our services, which is probably at the heart of the noble Baroness’s question, in focusing on PIP. Putting aside the delays, which I realise we are making progress on, employment and health discussions, which are being tested at the moment, are led by healthcare professionals and focus on how we can help people to overcome their barriers to moving towards work. Furthermore, we have the enhanced support service and the severe disability group for those with the most severe health conditions, and we are developing the skills of our assessors to match people’s primary health conditions. These are game-changers and mark a significant change from the current system.

[Baroness Brinton (LD)]

The Minister said that this White Paper has taken a long time to get here, but the rollout will not start until 2026-27, so I really hope that the Minister will provide assurance that a lot of the concerns raised by the disabled community will be addressed before it starts to roll out. Plenty of people would fall through the cracks—they are currently not receiving PIP but they are going through the WCA process—so what happens to them? The Chancellor said, with a great flourish, that sanctions will be “applied more rigorously” to people without a health condition, but many disabled people do not have a health condition, so what happens to them? The current level of sanctions causes distress and worse: the Government know that Jodey Whiting killed herself after her benefits were wrongly cut off, and the DWP was found guilty of five serious failings in her case. What will the Government do to ensure that benefits are not cut off from disabled and vulnerable people?

[Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)]

I will quickly pick up on the noble Baroness’s point about the Jodey Whiting case. Our sincere condolences remain with Ms Whiting’s family. The department is ready to assist the coroner with their investigation, but, as the noble Baroness will expect, I am not able to comment on active legal proceedings.

On the noble Baroness’s point about timings, we are deliberately rolling out this new definitive programme over a number of years, which will allow us to look at those who might fall through the cracks, as she put it. There is a lot of work to be done between now and 2027-28. The main thing is that we are investing in employment support for disabled people and people with health conditions, and we are stepping up our work-coach support across the country. That perhaps plays into another question: this takes time to put into place, but we are already recruiting for new work coaches, we are extending the work and health programme, and we are rolling out our new in-work progression offer to help people in work on universal credit.

Employment: Disabled People

Debate between Baroness Brinton and Viscount Younger of Leckie

Monday 6th March 2023 Lords Chamber

[Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)]

The noble Lord is right. This is why we have the disability action plan, which, as I said to the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, is distinct from the strategy. A new disability action plan will be consulted on and published this year. It will set out the action that the Government will take this year and in 2024 to improve disabled people’s lives. The noble Lord is right that ensuring that the voice of disabled people is properly heard is a priority for the Government. We will run a fully accessible public consultation on the plan this year.

[Baroness Brinton (LD)]

My Lords, on 12 January, the Disability News Service reported that neither the Secretary of State, Mel Stride, nor Tom Pursglove, the Minister for Disabled People, had signed up to become members of Disability Confident, unlike many previous Ministers. On 23 January, Mel Stride said that

“we have to ensure that employers see disabled people with eyes wide open—their abilities and the contribution they can make. That is why we promote Disability Confident”.—[Official Report, Commons, 23/1/23; col. 735.]

Have the Secretary of State and the Minister for Disabled People now signed up to Disability Confident?

[Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)]

I can certainly confirm that a whole range of departments have signed up to this, including the Department for Work and Pensions. Although I cannot answer the noble Baroness’s question in terms of the individuals concerned, the department at least has signed up.

Disabled People: Impact from Policies and Spending Cuts

Debate between Baroness Brinton and Viscount Younger of Leckie

Tuesday 21st February 2023 Lords Chamber

[Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)]

I reassure the noble Baroness that we understand that people across the UK, including those who are disabled, are worried about the cost of living—she mentioned housing and other matters. She will know that we have provided £37 billion-worth of cost of living support in this financial year, including a cost of living payment of £150 for the disabled. We have provided up to £650 for low-income households and £300 for pension households —both of these groups have large numbers of disabled people.

[Baroness Brinton (LD)]

My Lords, other noble Lords have spoken about some of the problems inside DWP. I will ask about PIP and applicants who have been disallowed it because they “didn’t return the form”. In 2017, 7,500 claimants were disallowed but, by last year, that had risen to over 42,000. The problem is that, even though many of these people were marked as vulnerable, some have died: Laura Winham starved to death, and it took three years for her body to be found—she was not the only person. What systems is DWP putting in place to ensure the protection of the most vulnerable disabled people?

[Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)]

The noble Baroness is right to raise PIP. We are targeting support at those with the greatest needs, as she raised. PIP exempts a household from the benefits cap and is uprated by CPI, and it is payable regardless of a person’s employment status. On her particular points, I am pleased to say that we continue to see an improvement in the way that we look at and pay PIP, and particularly in the clearance times—the noble Baroness will know that there have been some delays. I will write to her on her specific question about the content. As I say, the delays are very much a priority for my department at the moment.

Health and Social Care Levy (Repeal) Bill

Debate between Baroness Brinton and Viscount Younger of Leckie

2nd reading & Committee negatived & 3rd reading
Monday 17th October 2022 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Brinton (LD)]

I listened carefully to the Minister’s response. He did not respond to the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, and the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, about the social care cap, which is terribly important but has been absolutely invisible. I have heard no announcements from either the most recent Chancellor or the new one. The problem is that the Government planned to introduce legislation via regulation to allow people to have money given to them for social care because of the cap that was being set in place. Because this Bill focuses only on national insurance contributions, it is not at all clear what is happening with that cap. If the cap continues, local government in particular will be in even more of a crisis because a large part of the levy was to fund the new social care cap. If you take away the income but do not change the system for local government, it will have a large black hole. I would be grateful if the Minister could add that point to his increasingly long letter.

[Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)]

I thank the noble Baroness for that. I know that I cannot give a full answer, partly because we have a new Chancellor, but I can perhaps be a little helpful in saying that we have provided councils with £1.6 billion each year in new grant funding to meet core pressures in social care and other services; that is the largest annual increase in more than a decade. I can tell that this may not satisfy the noble Baroness entirely so I will add whatever I can to my increasingly long letter.

Health Taxes

Debate between Baroness Brinton and Viscount Younger of Leckie

Wednesday 12th October 2022 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Brinton (LD)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness. The Treasury said last week that it will not be changing or reviewing the three-year public spending settlement. However, last Friday, the NHS chief finance officer said that that will result in a further £20 billion of efficiency savings as a result of the increased costs that the NHS is having to pay following inflation, and two-thirds of the new integrated commissioning services started by this Government on 1 July are already in deficit because of inflation. How will the NHS will cope with pressures on top of the existing pressures it has with the backlog of cases?

[Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)]

The Government are very much aware of the pressures that the NHS is facing. I think we will have to wait until 31 October for the fiscal plan to understand exactly how expenditure will work out in line with the OBR forecast and in line with how we intend to roll out our growth programme. However, I reassure the noble Baroness that the NHS is vital; there are a lot of pressures and issues to tackle.

Grenfell Tower Inquiry: Phase 1 Report

Debate between Baroness Brinton and Viscount Younger of Leckie

Thursday 31st October 2019 Lords Chamber

[Viscount Younger of Leckie]

There is a lot of detail in what I want to say; I will come on to cladding. I also point out to the noble Lord that much of what we are doing must be regarded as part of a holistic approach so, on timetables, there may not be one particular date by which everything is done. It is a very complex process.

Soon after the fire, in July 2017, the Government commissioned Dame Judith Hackitt to conduct a review of building and fire safety. Noble Lords will recall that we have already agreed to take forward the recommendations of Dame Judith’s report in full as the basis for regulatory reforms in building and fire safety. Our comprehensive building safety programme, announced in the recent Queen’s Speech in the form of a Bill, will bring about a radically new building and fire safety system by: establishing a new regulatory framework; creating greater accountability and responsibility; issuing sanctions to tackle irresponsible behaviour by those responsible for buildings; and giving residents a stronger voice.

The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham referred to social housing. It is important that we improve quality and quantity, with a beneficial knock-on effect on health. We have committed to taking forward the social housing White Paper at pace. It will set out proposals for the standards that we set for social homes. We remain committed to increasing the supply of social housing, committing more than £9 billion as part of our affordable homes programme and delivering more than 250,000 homes by 2022.

Of course, we have had to take urgent steps in the interim to ensure that people are safe today. Much of this work has been around cladding. First, we have banned the use of combustible materials on high-rise homes and identified all buildings over 18 metres with unsafe ACM cladding.

The noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, asked whether gas should no longer be used in high-rise buildings. It is an interesting point. I cannot answer her question easily today, but I can say that the Government have signalled their intention to prohibit the use of fossil fuels such as gas in new homes by 2025 for reasons of environmental protection.

Secondly, we have established a comprehensive programme to oversee the remediation of unsafe ACM cladding, providing £600 million of funding to support this work. My noble friend Lord Young and the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, asked about the funding; it is beyond the £200 million that the Government are putting forward for private residential high-rise remediation. Both noble Lords asked what would happen if the costs go beyond this. I can confirm that the money set aside is an estimate and that plans are in place, should it become necessary, to revisit that estimate.

I am pleased that all social sector residential buildings with ACM cladding either have had the cladding removed, are undergoing work to remove it or, at the very least, have had such work scheduled. We have pushed on every front to ensure that the work is completed quickly, and today only a handful of building owners have yet to confirm their intention to remediate the ACM cladding on their buildings.

We have now completed remediation work on 61 buildings in the social sector, have begun work on a further 81 buildings and are working hard to ensure that remediation is completed on the remaining 16 buildings as soon as possible. My noble friend Lord Young asked about progress on this. As of October, only 10 of the 89 private sector buildings in scope of the fund have yet to engage. We will continue to put pressure on developers and building owners to get on with remediation. In response to a number of questions he raised, I will shortly provide a letter detailing the take-up of the private sector remediation fund and set out a fuller picture of the remediation figures, as well as the responsibilities of leaseholders and freeholders. As the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government made clear yesterday in the other place, there will be consequences for any building owners not making clear progress, including naming and shaming and enforcement action.

Thirdly, interim measures are in place in high-rise buildings with ACM cladding to ensure that all residents remain safe. We are working at pace to review different parts of the building safety regime. We have now completed testing on non-ACM cladding panels and are analysing the results, which will be released in the coming months.

We have recently launched a consultation on the use of sprinklers in all new residential buildings over 18 metres—a point that was raised in the debate. It also seeks responses on evacuation alert systems and improved signage, which was raised by my noble friend Lord Bourne and others. The consultation will close in November. My noble friend Lord Bourne also asked about fire doors. On the advice of the independent expert panel, the Government conducted an investigation and testing programme of glass reinforced plastic composite fire doors, leading to their withdrawal from the market. Following this, the Association of Composite Door Manufacturers has committed to deliver an industry- led remediation plan, which has our full support.

The noble Lord, Lord Shipley, asked about product safety, which was part of my old brief when I worked in the former BIS, now BEIS. In May 2018, an independent investigation into the Whirlpool fridge-freezer involved in Grenfell Tower confirmed that there was no need for further action, and BEIS supports its conclusion that no product recall other than corrective action is required. People who own that particular model can continue to use it as normal. The noble Lord also raised a point about electrical safety checks. Existing legislation already requires landlords to keep electrical installations in safe working order. However, the Government have reviewed the issue and have now committed to introducing mandatory five-yearly electrical safety inspections. I am confident that these steps will help us boost safety and transform the way we build in the future.

We have also been working across government to co-ordinate action on fire safety. First, the newly established fire protection board provides a bridge across the Home Office, my department, MHCLG, local government authorities and the National Fire Chiefs Council. The board will provide greater assurance that fire safety risks in high-rise residential buildings with ACM cladding are being identified, managed and properly recorded. It will oversee an increase in inspections and audits of high-risk buildings, and we have already signalled our commitment to getting this right by pledging £10 million a year. As my right honourable friend the Secretary of State said in September in the other place, he expects,

“all high-rise buildings to have been inspected or assured by the time the new building safety regime is in place, or no later than 2021”.—[Official Report, Commons, 5/9/19; col. 373.]

Secondly, the Home Office has run a call for evidence, alongside MHCLG’s Building a Safer Future consultation, on the fire safety order. This consultation seeks to ensure that the order remains effective and works as a whole with the new regulatory regime and other existing legislation. The call for evidence closed on 31 July and we are now analysing the responses.

Thirdly, the Home Office has established an independent Fire Standards Board, which should not be confused with the FPB, and has provided £1.5 million of funding to support its work. The board is supported by the National Fire Chiefs Council’s Central Programme Office to support continuous improvement of fire and rescue services. The board will be responsible for the development of a high-quality useable framework of professional standards, aligned to the work of the National Fire Chiefs Council and its national initiatives. It is clear from the report’s findings that this Government need to be playing an active role in supporting the sector through the fire reform programme.

In July 2017, the then Home Secretary expanded the remit of HMIC to establish Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire & Rescue Services. This move sought to highlight areas for continuous improvement of good practice for fire and rescue services and to increase transparency for the communities they serve. The inspectorate has now completed inspections of all 45 FRSs in England and has published reports on 30 of them. We expect reports on the remaining 15 to be published shortly, alongside the inspectorate’s first “state of fire” reports.

[Baroness Brinton]

Does that also include ensuring that all the points that I referred to that used to be covered by inspections are being covered by plans throughout every area of each fire service? It is one thing to do this at a superficial level, but part of the problem appears to be that inspections have not been as detailed as they used to be.

[Viscount Younger of Leckie]

Yes, I can reassure the noble Baroness on that front and reiterate the point I made earlier about greater joined-up thinking across different agencies and bodies.

Learning from the inspectorate’s reports and the creation of national standards based on the best operational practice will help the LFB and the fire and rescue service as a whole to respond to the issues that the inquiry identified. We expect the NFCC to support services faced with challenging reports to drive improvement and make sure that cross-service learning is happening, which helps to answer the noble Baroness’s question.  

The noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, and my noble friend Lord Bourne asked about collaboration and co-ordination, and communication within the emergency services. An assurance programme was conducted in 2017 on joint interoperability with more than 100 police, fire and ambulance services. Findings showed that new processes are embedding, and the Home Office is continuing to drive work to embed this programme locally.

The noble Lord, Lord Harris, and others raised the issue of problems with communication between firefighters. Each fire and rescue authority, including the London Fire Brigade, must evaluate local risks and determine its priorities, policies and standards for fire protection and response, including equipment. It does this through an integrated risk management plan. It is for the Mayor of London to set the budget for the London Fire Brigade so that it has the equipment needed to do its work. The Government will work with the fire and rescue services to ensure that lessons are learned from this terrible tragedy.

Brexit: The Erasmus and Horizon Programmes (European Union Committee Report)

Debate between Baroness Brinton and Viscount Younger of Leckie

Monday 1st April 2019 Lords Chamber

[Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)]

My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Jay of Ewelme, for securing this debate and I thank the Home Affairs Sub-Committee, of which he is chair, for taking the time to consider the future of the Erasmus+ and Horizon 2020 programmes after Brexit. This has been valuable work which I know is informing the Government’s thinking on these topics. I want to make a few opening remarks because there have been, in my view, some excellent speeches this afternoon from many distinguished Peers with backgrounds ranging from education and higher education to the Diplomatic Service. My message, as I start out, is that these two programmes are very important: I agree with so many of the comments made on this point and shall say more about it later. I reassure the noble Lord, Lord Best, and the noble Baroness, Lady Garden, among others, that the sub-committee’s report will not go unnoticed.

Next, I welcome the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, to the Front Bench. I note that he has morphed from shadow Chief Whip to this position and I have no idea whether it is permanent or temporary. I hope it is permanent and he is very welcome. This debate, as is probably the case for all debates here in the Lords, has seen an enormous number of questions raised on these important subjects. Many of the questions directed to me include a focus on the dates and the guarantees we have given, and perhaps suggestions that we should extend these guarantees. The noble Baroness, Lady Garden, anticipated that I might say this, but I hope that the House will not expect me to give any guarantees this afternoon. However, one thing is certain: I will take all views back to the department. I hope, at least, that I can give some assurances that will help the House.

The Government will publish a formal response to the Committee’s report shortly. However, to follow a point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Newnham, I will set out the work the Government are doing to ensure that opportunities for our researchers, businesses and students are protected and enriched in all scenarios. I start by saying—with a touch of understatement, perhaps—that we do not know what the coming days will bring, but the UK remains open for business and, importantly, open to ideas and exchanges with the EU and globally, and to the people who provide them. In the context of the UK’s impending departure from the EU, it is imperative that we consider how the UK can maintain close ties with our European partners, particularly in education, science and research.

As the report noted, the Erasmus+ and Horizon 2020 programmes have provided so many people in the UK with the opportunity to move across the EU: to learn, work and carry out research and innovation. UK businesses and researchers have driven forward a wide range of inspiring Horizon 2020 projects. As of the end of September 2018, the UK had more than 10,000 participations in the programme. In response to a question raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Newnham, and the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, who raised an interesting point about EU scientists leaving the UK and the fact that science is losing out, I have absolutely taken note of what both Peers said. We currently expect that, at the point of exiting the EU, the UK will have more than 10,000 live participations in Horizon 2020. I have to inject a little caution because the latest data, released in September 2018, does not suggest that the UK is routinely locked out of consortia, but I recognise that both the noble Baroness and the noble Lord are making points about what they say is happening on the ground. These projects range from increasing our understanding of how green roofs are used to tackle climate change to helping authorities better protect trafficked persons.

The Government recognise the important role that both schemes have played in the UK and remain committed to supporting collaboration with our neighbours in the EU and beyond. I will focus on Erasmus+ first. The noble Lords, Lord Jay and Lord Bassam, would put this more eloquently than me, but the Erasmus+ programme offers young people the opportunity not only to gain international experience but to boost their employability, as the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, said. It provides opportunities for teaching and training, and supports innovation and the sharing of best practice.

The noble Baroness, Lady Janke, asked me to clarify the terms of payment for the underwrite guarantee. UKRI will use existing payment systems to ensure continuity for UK beneficiaries. In a no-deal scenario, UKRI will contact UK beneficiaries who have registered on the portal with further information on how the guarantee will operate in practice. While the UK benefits from sending our own young people on outgoing mobilities, the UK hosts around twice as many incoming Erasmus+ mobilities as it sends out. As the noble Lord, Lord Best, and others have said, it is interesting to note that the UK’s notional contribution to the Erasmus+ budget currently exceeds its share of receipts.

The noble Baroness, Lady Garden, and, particularly, the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, raised the question of modern foreign languages—the importance of Erasmus+ for languages and the supply chain for teachers. I agree with them that the benefits for those who endeavour to learn new languages and study abroad can be huge. Languages provide an insight into other cultures and can open the door to travel and employment opportunities. They can also broaden pupils’ horizons, helping them flourish in new environments.

I assure the House that Erasmus+ is not the only way students can travel abroad. Our world-leading higher education providers have a strong track record of partnering with overseas institutions, and UUK evidence suggests that around half of mobilities already take place outside Erasmus+. The Government know that employers value languages too, as they are increasingly important to make sure we can compete in the global marketplace. I hope the noble Baroness, Lady Massey, might agree that it is clear that other EU countries strongly value and are benefiting from the UK’s participation in Erasmus+.

I will now move on to Horizon 2020. As others have said, this is the biggest EU research and innovation programme ever, with nearly €80 billion of funding available over seven years—that is, between 2014 and 2020. It promises more breakthroughs, discoveries and world firsts by supporting great ideas at all stages from the lab to the market. The UK is one of the most attractive collaborators for research and innovation, and a key player in Horizon 2020. I have already mentioned our high number of participations, which is second only to Germany. We are also a partner of choice across Europe; every member state places the UK as one of the top five countries they collaborate with under the programme.

I will now touch on the impact of Brexit on these two important programmes an issue which so many Peers have raised this afternoon. As the committee’s report notes, and as the noble Lord, Lord Jay, has said, passing the withdrawal agreement would ensure that UK participation in Erasmus+ and Horizon 2020 would remain largely unchanged until the end of 2020. Despite the challenges that we continue to face, it remains the Government’s priority to secure a negotiated deal. The noble Lord, Lord Ricketts, asked what Her Majesty’s Government would do to allay the funding gap for the Horizon programme even within the terms of the withdrawal agreement. The EU programme for research and innovation is a competitive bid programme —only the most excellent bids are funded. Under the terms of the withdrawal agreement, UK bids would continue to be measured against the same criteria as bids from other EU member states, which should avoid any fall in funding.

However, the Government are preparing for every eventuality, and in the event of no deal the Government will underwrite funding for successful bids submitted to Erasmus+ and Horizon 2020 before the end of 2020. For the avoidance of doubt, this guarantee would apply for the lifetime of projects. This sizeable funding pledge will be not part of, but additional to, funding already committed in existing departmental budgets. The noble Lord, Lord Jay, asked whether the Government can confirm that they will spend the money required in the EU’s regulation for a no-deal guarantee. I reassure him that the Government have been clear that, if the UK leaves the EU without a deal, the UK has obligations to the EU—and the EU obligations to the UK—that will survive Brexit. These would need to be negotiated.

As your Lordships will know, UK Research and Innovation is the Government’s delivery partner for Horizon 2020. Since last year, BEIS and UKRI have worked tirelessly to put the necessary systems in place to deliver this guarantee if required. In this scenario, all beneficiaries registered on the UKRI portal will receive detailed information about the next steps they need to take.

The noble Baroness, Lady Warwick, asked a number of questions—I think there were four, if not more—and I will try to answer them all. She asked about the terms of the underwrite guarantee funding. It will be paid to UK beneficiaries in pounds sterling. UKRI has confirmed that existing systems will be used to give continuity for UK grant holders.

The report also makes clear the importance of confirming no-deal domestic funding streams for key sources of UK Horizon 2020 funding, including the European Research Council. The Government have worked closely with UKRI and a wide range of stakeholders on no-deal planning for the Horizon 2020 programme. However, it is appropriate that noble Lords are asking about this, and I can assure them that further updates will be provided to the research community in due course. In January, the Government published a technical notice on Erasmus+ which provided guidance to organisations and participants on the UK’s anticipated participation in the current Erasmus+ programme in the event of no deal.

The report has pointed towards the benefits of continuing to contribute towards Erasmus+, and it is right to look ahead. Indeed, the UK is very interested in exploring future participation in the Erasmus+ successor scheme for the period 2021 to 2027. I understand that the successor scheme will include increased school exchange opportunities and a greater emphasis on widening participation. The Government have welcomed proposals on this and will continue to participate in discussions while we remain in the EU.

The noble Baronesses, Lady Smith of Newnham and Lady Garden, asked whether the Government would commit to seeking alternatives to Erasmus+ and associate third-country status for Erasmus+. Perhaps in line with what I have just said, the Government are certainly very interested in the emerging proposals for the successor Erasmus+ programme for that 2020 to 2027 period. The details of that are still being discussed by the EU, and the UK will continue to participate in discussions while we remain in the EU. However, we note that the proposals so far contain a number of provisions that the UK can welcome. We will continue to consider the emerging proposals carefully, and whether the UK will participate in the future programme, and on what basis, will be subject to wider negotiations on the UK’s future relationship with the EU.

The report also highlighted the importance of an alternative scheme if participation in Erasmus+ cannot be negotiated. I can assure the House that the Government understand the value that international mobility can bring and are currently driving forward work on domestic alternative options to support it. Again, to reassure the noble Baroness, Lady Garden, the potential benefit of the UK establishing its own international mobility scheme is the ability to tailor the scheme to UK needs and target the funding where it is most needed. Of course, whatever international mobility scheme we are part of in the future, the Government will want to ensure value for money for the taxpayer.

The noble Baroness, Lady Warwick, previously asked me a question—it may have been in an Oral Question the other day—on the funding of domestic alternatives for Erasmus+. I reassure the House that the Government are preparing for every foreseeable scenario. In a no-deal scenario, the Government’s underwrite guarantee will cover the payment of awards to UK beneficiaries for all Erasmus+ bids; that is additional funding, which I may have alluded to earlier.

As regards domestic alternatives, the Government are developing a range of options. But of course they need to balance carefully the support for international mobility and ensuring value for money, as I said earlier.

As the House will know, Horizon Europe is the successor to Horizon 2020, and I will touch upon some of the thoughts set out in the report. Recognising the value brought through international collaboration, the Prime Minister made it clear in her speech at Jodrell Bank last year that the UK would like the option to fully associate to the excellence-based EU science, research and innovation programmes post 2020, including Horizon Europe.

UK officials and Ministers continue to play an active role in the development of the Horizon Europe programme to ensure that it remains in line with the UK’s priorities of excellence, openness to the world and added value. As a potential future associate to the programme, we believe that Horizon Europe should continue to treat associated countries as partners rather than competitors. The benefits that associated countries bring to the programme must be recognised and welcomed.

The noble Baroness, Lady Janke, asked what progress had been made in setting the terms of third-country participation. She may not be surprised when I tell her that negotiations on the Horizon Europe programme, including provisions on third-country participation, are ongoing within the EU institutions. At the moment, it is too early to make an informed decision about our future participation, but we are committed to continuing the strong, positive relationship that we currently have with the EU in science, research and innovation.

My noble friend Lord Cormack asked how the UK will influence research and innovation without a seat at the table, which is a fair question. I reassure him that the UK is a great place to do science. We account for 4.1% of the world’s researchers, 10.7% of all citations, 15.2% of the world’s most cited articles and three of the world’s top 10 universities. We know that collaboration between researchers is key to achieving great science. That is why our plan to ensure that the UK remains a world leader in science and innovation after Brexit focuses on encouraging close relationships with the EU and beyond.

Let me be clear: science, research and innovation really matter. That is why we have committed to considering all options to support UK research and further the Government’s strategic objectives, regardless of whether we choose to associate to Horizon Europe. This is in line with the committee’s recommendation that every effort be made in this respect. That is why the Government have announced the appointment of Professor Sir Adrian Smith, director and chief executive of the Alan Turing Institute, as an independent adviser to the Government on the development of future funding programmes for international collaboration. The terms of reference have been agreed and Sir Adrian has hit the ground running. We look forward to his thoughts and recommendations.

To answer a question from the noble Lord, Lord Jay, about the implications of the Smith review for association to Horizon Europe, Professor Smith’s advice will help set the direction for the implementation of the Government’s ambition to ensure that the UK continues to be a global leader. In the event that the UK does not associate to Horizon Europe, the Government will support measures to enable world-class collaborative research that aligns to UK priorities.

I can also confirm that BEIS is working closely with the national academies and UKRI to develop ambitious and credible alternatives to association to Horizon Europe which could also enable world-class collaborative research. Your Lordships will appreciate that this thinking is still at an early stage and is currently being tested with both devolved Administrations and key stakeholders from the wider research and innovation communities represented by Minister Skidmore’s high-level stakeholder group on EU exit. Your Lordships should be aware that all decisions on future funding for international science collaboration remain subject to the spending review—so are caveated to some extent.

The noble Baroness, Lady Warwick, asked me to confirm the fee status for EU students beginning courses in 2020. This point has been raised in the House on several occasions. I know that students, staff and providers are concerned about what EU exit means for study and collaboration opportunities. To help give certainty, in July 2018, we announced guarantees on student finance for EU nationals. Those guarantees are not altered if the UK leaves the EU without a deal.

For courses starting in 2020, we understand how important it is that students and institutions have information available for student support before applications for courses are open. Applications for courses starting in the academic year 2020-21 do not open until September 2019. I am sure that the noble Baroness will say that that deadline is coming up quite shortly. The Government are aware of that and will ensure that students and institutions have the information they need well in advance of that date.

The noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Newnham, asked about teaching and stated that fewer students in the UK were starting teacher training, which is an interesting point. In September 2018, we announced a renewed package of generous financial incentives for international teacher training, including tax-free scholarships worth £28,000 and tax-free bursaries worth £26,000 for trainees in modern foreign languages.

The noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, asks what guarantee I can give from the Home Office that there will be free movement for students. The immigration White Paper published in December, which she will know about, sets out the Government’s position on this issue and on a future single immigration system for the UK. The White Paper proposals on post study went further than the MAC recommendations for students, extending post-study work to six months for undergraduate students attending institutions with degree-awarding powers, six months for all master’s students and 12 months for PhD students. There is no limit on the number of students who can come to study in the UK, nor is there any intention to impose one.

[Baroness Brinton]

I apologise if I did not make myself clear, but my question was about people taking part in research projects rather than students and concerns about the immigration White Paper.

Non-Olympic Sports

Debate between Baroness Brinton and Viscount Younger of Leckie

Thursday 19th April 2018 Lords Chamber

[Viscount Younger of Leckie]

My Lords, it is crucial that funding is invested strategically in the right sports, the right athletes and the right support programmes. The noble Lord is right that England Netball is having great success at the national level, winning the gold medal, in its strengthened domestic superleague and in increasing participation at grass-roots level. Not only does it benefit from Sport England support but we will be welcoming to Liverpool the 2019 World Cup, where I wish it every success. This is a work in progress. Netball’s focus needs to be on looking ahead much further than just two or three years.

[Baroness Brinton (LD)]

My Lords, following on from my noble friend’s Question, one problem that netball, squash and bowls face, because they are not Olympic sports, is that their performers are not eligible for athlete performance awards, which is a different issue to talent pathways. The APAs for swimming are £3.6 million, for hockey £4.4 million and for modern pentathlon over £600,000. All those sports were also played at the Commonwealth Games. Are we not setting back the three sports that are not played at Olympic level by not allowing them to be eligible for APAs?

[Viscount Younger of Leckie]

We will certainly be looking at that, but UK Sport has a clear remit, agreed with government, to maximise medal performance at Olympic and Paralympic Games, which covers many of the things that the noble Baroness has mentioned. This allowed it to achieve unprecedented medal success at Rio, but I will take her point back.

Higher Education and Research Bill

Debate between Baroness Brinton and Viscount Younger of Leckie

Committee: 2nd sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Wednesday 11th January 2017 Lords Chamber

[Viscount Younger of Leckie]

I understand that the Director for Fair Access and Participation will have the right to find these statistics, which will assist him in his role. I cannot envisage a situation where he would not wish to be aware of the bigger picture to carry out his role effectively.

[Baroness Brinton]

I asked a question about Amendment 27 and the fact that when the Director for Fair Access and Participation is not responsible, that has to be reported in the annual report. I asked for some specific examples other than, obviously, when he or she would be away, to try to understand why that wording was used in the amendment.

[Viscount Younger of Leckie]

It would be better to write a letter to clarify that in detail.

Private Colleges

Debate between Baroness Brinton and Viscount Younger of Leckie

Wednesday 21st December 2016 Lords Chamber

[Viscount Younger of Leckie]

There is a balance to be struck here. We are very keen to encourage the setting up of new providers, examples of which include Ravensbourne College in east London and the Condé Nast College of Fashion and Design, but the key point that he is really alluding to is quality. If new providers are setting up and are given provision for degree-awarding powers from day one, it is critical that the quality conditions are met. Perhaps I may reassure the noble Lord that the bar for these conditions is set very high.

[Baroness Brinton (LD)]

My Lords, the Centre for Global Higher Education report published earlier this year entitled, The Entry and Experience of Providers of Higher Education in Six Countries, states:

“Private providers are quick to suffer the consequences of diminishing demand, forcing institutions to close. This can have serious educational and financial consequences for students at failing institutions who sometimes can be left in limbo”.

Given the current arrangements, with HEFCE as a regulator and the high hurdle of a royal charter for a new HE institution, what will the Government do to ensure that any new private providers in the UK do not become at risk of this happening?

[Viscount Younger of Leckie]

One of our reforms is to set up the Office for Students, as I mentioned earlier. It will provide one register to set a level playing field. This means that if, in what would perhaps be an unusual case, a private provider does not meet the standards required, there are student protection processes in place. That is an important part of our checks and controls.

Growth and Infrastructure Bill

Debate between Baroness Brinton and Viscount Younger of Leckie

Wednesday 20th March 2013 Lords Chamber

[Viscount Younger of Leckie]

If I may, I am about to address some points that my noble friend made concerning the tax status.

For example, we do not want directors to manipulate the new status by making fake jobs for family members, which may have been in the mind of my noble friend Lord Forsyth when he made his earlier comments. We want this employment status to be attractive to a whole range of people. If we allow that no income tax or national insurance contributions are payable on the first £25,000 of shares, we think this will create only a disproportionate tax benefit for higher earners. This is about a new employment status that is open and attractive to a range of prospective users.

My noble friend Lord Forsyth asked a number of questions relating to how different types of shares would be treated and what this meant in tax terms for individuals in employment. When a person agrees to become an employee shareholder, the employer should be able to tell them what type of shares they will receive. The types of shares an employee shareholder receives may vary, as I think my noble friend indicated. First, they could be non-restricted shares. These are shares awarded without any ongoing conditions, limitations or requirements that affect their market value. If an employee shareholder holds non-restricted shares, they are usually in the same position as an external investor in the company.

Secondly, restricted shares are shares awarded with conditions, limitations or requirements attached that reduce their value. For example, an employee shareholder may not be able to sell their shares for a certain period or, if they leave the company, they may not be able to retain their shares. The employer may agree to buy the shares back from the employee shareholder.

Thirdly, forfeitable shares are restricted shares awarded on the basis that within a certain period of time, or on the occurrence of certain events, the employee shareholder may have to forfeit them and in return will receive less than their market value. When the tax is payable on these shares will depend on the type of shares that are offered. As my noble friend Lord Stewartby said, this is a voluntary arrangement, under which the individual will go into an agreement with the employer, and the type and status of the shares will be decided with their agreement. That will then lead, by agreement, to the point when the tax will be payable.

[Baroness Brinton]

Does the Minister accept that the flexibility for employees to negotiate the terms of any restrictions in shares will itself be restricted if a number of employees are being offered shares, because the capacity within the company to vary terms will be extremely difficult? In practice, the employee will have no flexibility at all to negotiate.

[Viscount Younger of Leckie]

My noble friend is taking rather a negative view. We need to look at the opportunities that the whole scheme offers. The employee shareholder could decide not to accept any shares or such a role if the situation that my noble friend mentioned applied. It may not suit them; they need to get advice and go into this scheme with their eyes open.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Brinton]

The guidance notes that we saw were quite explicit that the prospective employee shareholder applicant should be treated exactly the same as any other applicant, with the one exception of their financial resources being such that they could not pay the tax bill right at the start. If that is the case, the argument made by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, myself and others is that, first, that penalises those who are concerned about losing their rights. Secondly—and this is the core question—is it voluntary? The Minister has emphasised right the way through the debates on the Bill that the scheme is utterly voluntary.

[Viscount Younger of Leckie]

It is indeed voluntary, but I would like to clarify that when it comes to a jobseeker seeking a job, they are treated in exactly the same way as other statuses. That is because we believe it is important to move jobseekers into work as quickly as possible, just like other statuses. Periods of unemployment, as we know, can have a most damaging effect on individuals’ long-term employment prospects and indeed earnings. That is why the jobseeker allowance regime focuses on moving claimants into any work as quickly as possible. This remains the case for the employee shareholder should they be mandated and reach the point when they are offered this particular position. We think it is right that they should not be treated any differently in this particular respect.

Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Bill

Debate between Baroness Brinton and Viscount Younger of Leckie

Monday 11th March 2013 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Brinton]

My Lords, I, too, oppose these two amendments and support the points that the noble Lord, Lord Howarth of Newport, has made, to which I briefly add two further points.

The rights holders of apparently orphan works very rarely come forward at a later date. This makes court action unlikely in most cases, particularly where use of the works was manifestly for the purposes of teaching or research. However, using works in these ways would require institutions such as universities and libraries to operate outside the law in order to make legitimate use of this material. This is not a satisfactory long-term solution.

It is important that what constitutes a diligent search is sensitive to the intended use and the kind of material. Searching for the author of a commercially published book, where the intention is to republish for commercial gain, should require a higher level of diligence than for the digitisation for preservation purposes of an archive of non-commercial material. It is very important that the Bill is flexible enough to allow regulations to account for these differences. Unfortunately, these two amendments would take it in the opposite direction.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (Viscount Younger of Leckie)]

My Lords, I begin by thanking my noble friends for their amendments. They raise important issues.

Turning first to Amendment 84AE, in Grand Committee there was a full and productive debate, as has been mentioned, on the issues around diligent search. I have also subsequently written to the noble Lords who spoke in that debate. I can confirm that, before a work qualifies as an orphan, a diligent search for the all the rights holders in the work must be undertaken. If as a result of an initial UK search there are indications that the rights holders may be overseas, there will be a requirement to expand the diligent search to include relevant overseas territories. However, a balance must be struck between protecting rights holders and making the system cost-effective for users. That is why the orphan works working group is undertaking detailed work to ensure that diligent search requirements reflect current best practice across all sectors. These requirements will be set out in regulations that will be subject to both consultation and the affirmative procedure.

I will answer some questions raised by my noble friend Lord Clement-Jones and the noble Lord, Lord Howarth, about the provision of more detail on the requirements for diligent search, although I am not sure how far I can reassure the noble Lord, Lord Howarth. Diligent search should find rights holders when works are not really orphaned, and it is important to find the right balance between protecting rights holders and making the system cost-effective. Extensive thought has already been given to what should be done in a diligent search for different sectors, including by the European digital libraries initiative. Existing industry databases and registries and bibliographic publications are just a couple of examples of sources of information that could be searched. It is likely that searches would differ across the various sectors, and therefore sector-specific guidance may need to be developed. To that extent, this may help to answer some of the concerns of the noble Lord, Lord Howarth.

Diligent search is being considered with stakeholders through the orphan works and ECL working group. Diligent search guidance will cover the scenario where the work may have originated outside the UK. The noble Lord, Lord Howarth, may know that the Canadian orphan work scheme licenses works, provided that they have a strong connection with Canada. They may be of foreign origin, but with an orphan work this will not necessarily be known.

In relation to Amendment 84AE, my noble friend Lord Clement-Jones was concerned that there might be a loophole regarding sublicensing. The answer to this is that the Bill does not permit sublicensing, if that is a help to my noble friend.

I may well have touched on this earlier, but for clarity, the noble Lord, Lord Howarth, again raised the issue of diligent search and made a fair point about the need to cover every orphan. I believe that he used the analogy of the postcard. I do not think that we can avoid the need to look for a legal owner, but we do not want a search regime that is too obtrusive and costly. This is a matter of achieving balance, and that is why these matters are best dealt with in regulations, where the needs in different sectors can be properly addressed.

Amendment 84AEA would remove the option of licensing a work under the orphan works scheme where it was not known whether copyright subsists. Establishing whether a work is still in copyright will of course be a key part of the diligent search process. Indeed, it is in the applicant’s interest to establish this fact, because if the work is out of copyright they will be free to use it and will not need to apply for an orphan works licence. However, it may not always be possible to establish definitively whether a work is still in copyright. This will particularly be the case with unpublished works, where often key information such as the date of creation or the date of the creator’s death is not known. Having to establish definitively whether a work is still in copyright could, therefore, exclude very many works.

This practice of allowing a licence where there is uncertainty about whether copyright subsists is followed in Canada, which I mentioned earlier, where a scheme has been running for nearly 25 years. In doing so, it provides legal certainty for the user of the work. If we do not include such works within the scope of the orphan works scheme, we could exacerbate the very problem that the proposals are designed to address. I hope that in the light of the assurances that I have provided, my noble friend will not press his amendment.

Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Bill

Debate between Baroness Brinton and Viscount Younger of Leckie

Monday 11th March 2013 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Brinton]

My Lords, I shall speak against Amendment 84AA and the other amendments in the group. I refer back to the point made by my noble friend Lord Clement-Jones about the scope and size of the problem of unpublished works and grey literature. A study by the British Library found that 43% of potentially in-copyright works published between 1870 and 2010 were orphan works. The figure for unpublished works, including letters, diaries, photographs and memos is far higher, and grey literature produced by charities, societies and associations but not for any direct commercial purpose, also contain high concentrations of orphan works. One example of that is a study of sound recordings of political debates in the 1960s, which identified 350 performers, of whom only 100 could be traced, meaning that more than 70% of the content was orphaned; 350 hours were spent trying to clear the rights to use the material; and the success rate—permissions received—was only 4%. That shows us the size of the problem, which is why I am grateful to the Government for the clarifications in the Bill and why we need to oppose the amendments.

Bringing copyright for unpublished work into line with the existing copyright duration would release much valuable historical data into the public domain and would not affect unpublished works created shortly before the 1988 transitional arrangements. As we have discussed in previous stages of this Bill, works of these kinds are, of their nature, orphan works. The copyright holders are incredibly difficult to identify. The British Library notes that it still has material from the 7th century in copyright. As a result, a large amount of material currently in copyright due to the transitional arrangements would be difficult or impossible ever to obtain a licence for.

[Viscount Younger of Leckie]

My Lords, I turn first to Amendments 84AA, 84AB and 84AC and thank my noble friends for raising the important issues in them. At the outset, I will answer questions raised by my noble friend Lord Clement-Jones, supported by my noble friend Lady Brinton, about the voices concerned about the evidence for the clause and for the orphan works, and especially asking how much is pre-20th century. That is probably a slight paraphrase of the questions raised by my noble friend Lady Brinton.

We do not know the exact amount, but the National Archives estimates that around 12 million—or 42%—of the 30 million archival items held in English and Welsh public archives predate 1891, which is over 120 years ago. Therefore we are now likely to be 70 or more years past the date of creation. The vast majority of these are thought to be unpublished and would therefore remain in copyright under the current law until 2039. The law relating to the transitional provisions of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 is complex. The various points that have been raised through these amendments and in debate underline that complexity. These are important points, and it is right that we should take time to debate them properly.

The Government’s overriding policy objective has always been to enable use of historically important unpublished material which has over-long copyright protection. Prior to 1998, copyright on such material was perpetual, and from 1998 it ran until 2039 at the earliest. Because of the way the 1956 and the 1988 copyright legislation interact, it appears that it may be possible for a film to remain unpublished, even if it has been commercially exploited by showing it to the public in a cinema or on television. This is because it can be shown to the public by various legal routes which do not technically constitute publication; for example, public performance, exhibition or communication to the public.

To become published, a film would need copies of it to be issued to the public, such as on DVD or through online sales. It may be necessary to recognise this in the treatment of films in the regulations. Before they exercise this power, the Government recognise that it will be important for the impact assessment accompanying the regulations to assess whether there are costs to specific rights holders or industry sectors. The regulations would allow the Government to treat different works in different ways.

However, my noble friend has raised a good point about the impact on commercial film and photographic archives. My noble friend Lord Clement-Jones today raised concerns about business expectations in relation to unpublished works. I will therefore commit to looking in advance of Third Reading at how this should be addressed. I hope that in the light of this assurance, my noble friend will not press this particular amendment.

Finally, Amendment 84AD relates partly to the provisions to reduce over-long copyright in some unpublished works—which we spoke about earlier—and partly to the orphan works licensing scheme. I can confirm that where there is any doubt about whether an unpublished, anonymous or pseudonymous orphan work is still within copyright, an orphan works licence could be applied for. This would be under the scheme proposed in Clause 69. Therefore I believe that there is no need for this amendment.

If the user of an orphan work chose to proceed without gaining an orphan works licence, they would be open to possible legal action if a rights holder reappeared and the work turned out to be still within copyright. That might be described as a risk-based approach to the problem of copyright infringement. However, the courts would be likely to take a dim view of such infringement when there was a lawful means of using such a work through the orphan works licensing scheme. In the light of the assurances that I have provided, I hope that my noble friends will not press their amendments.

Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Bill

Debate between Baroness Brinton and Viscount Younger of Leckie

Tuesday 26th February 2013 Lords Chamber

[Lord Young of Norwood Green]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for addressing the specific concerns that we raised in Committee. I wish to put that on record. Obviously, I share some of the concerns of my noble friend Lady Turner, which were echoed in part by the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, who, in her usual forensic way, rightly drew to our attention not only the question of diversity but the guidance that should be issued. I, too, will be interested to hear the Minister’s response on those aspects.

[Viscount Younger of Leckie]

I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, supported by my noble friend Lady Brinton, for setting out some of her concerns about this clause. I have certainly listened very carefully to the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, who spoke so eloquently.

The Government have also listened to noble Lords’ concerns about the Lord Chancellor’s order-making powers. I have already spoken about the amendments that we have brought forward to address the points that noble Lords made in Grand Committee. In answer to the question raised by my noble friend Lady Brinton, we have no plans to steer the Lord Chancellor on the necessity to have a panel and to prescribe proceedings as such. However, we are working on that important point that she made and on the diversity point, which I also want to pick up on.

I should also make the point that there is no evidence to suggest that judges sitting alone—this is implicit in the noble Baroness’s question—will have a negative impact on the determination of discrimination appeals, which can be brought only on a point of law. This might address the question that was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Young. The Equality Act also covers a range of sectors, including service provision, property rights and education. Only one of these, work, is dealt with in the employment tribunal system. The remaining equality sectors are dealt with in the civil courts where judges sit, and have always sat, alone.

I hope that I have been able to reassure the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, to some extent—I am not sure that I have—and other noble Lords that this measure, which is a proposal that was supported by 60% of those responding to the Resolving Workplace Disputes consultation, is not intended to undermine the value that lay members bring to the tribunal system as a whole. Nor will it have the adverse consequences that they fear.

[Baroness Brinton]

My Lords, I wonder whether the noble Viscount might write to those who have spoken in this debate to give us some inkling of where a judge would be expected not to sit on their own. I am struggling to see where the dividing line is. I apologise for raising this again, as I raised it in Committee. It just feels too far in the future to be able to be confident on the issue.

--- Later in debate ---

[Viscount Younger of Leckie]

My Lords, I shall speak also to Amendments 25 to 28. I turn to these amendments as the provision for the employment tribunals to impose financial penalties on employers. This is a response to points raised in Grand Committee. Much of the debate on this clause related to amendments tabled by noble Lords opposite in Grand Committee, which were intended to probe the practical application of the new regime, including the reasons for setting the level of penalty at 50% of the value of the award, and to seek that failure to follow grievance or disciplinary procedures be prescribed as an aggravating feature for the purpose of attracting a penalty. Further amendments sought to address concerns, which we share, about the non-payment of tribunal awards.

As my noble friend Lord Marland explained at the time, the decision to make the penalty 50% of the value of the award was informed by the national minimum wage penalty regime introduced by the previous Government, where the level of the penalty is also set at 50%. While we sympathise with the intent behind the amendment to specify that a failure to follow grievance and disciplinary procedures should constitute an aggravating feature, the Government are clear that it should be for the tribunal to determine what constitutes aggravating features, based on the facts of the case before it.

We are at one, however, with the desire to improve the position on the non-payment of tribunal awards. Proposals put forward by noble Lords opposite in Committee attempted to use the financial penalty regime to address non-payment. While the intent was clear, the effect would have been limited, in that penalties would be imposed in fewer cases than those in which awards go unpaid. While non-payment is not a matter for this Bill, I can reassure noble Lords that we are taking action to address this through research into the root causes of the problem and changes to employment tribunal process.

These government amendments are a further area where we share a common view. The noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, set out in Grand Committee her concerns about the unintended consequences that might arise in the event that a financial penalty was imposed on an insolvent business. She argued that for companies in insolvency the objective of the financial penalty regime, which is to encourage employers to have greater regard to their employment obligations, was not relevant and that there was a risk, without a specific exemption, that the tribunal may choose to levy a penalty. If that were the case, the Exchequer would then have a claim on the assets of the company, leaving less available for distribution to other creditors. The potential liability might also threaten a company rescue, as the penalty may rank as an expense of an administration.

As we have made clear, the Government do not want to fetter judicial discretion in the exercise of this power by tribunals. We agree with the noble Baroness that there may be no merit in imposing a penalty where the respondent is insolvent, but we do not believe that it is necessary to carve out an exemption in statute. Instead, Amendment 24 inserts a provision in the clause to require tribunals to have regard to the ability of the respondent to pay when deciding whether a penalty is appropriate.

Such a power, which already exists with regard to cost and deposit orders, will allow the tribunal to have regard to the circumstances of the business and the wider impacts of a decision to impose a penalty. It will also apply more widely than to just insolvent companies and so could be relevant to those on the brink of insolvency, for which the imposition of a penalty might well be the final straw.

My noble friend Lady Brinton also raised concerns in Grand Committee about the effect of the £100 floor where there is a multiple claim against a large employer, particularly in the event that the employer goes bust. We agree that there are real concerns here which the previous amendment does not wholly address in so far as it does not provide the flexibility for tribunals to impose any penalty when, in fact, one may be both appropriate and affordable. Amendment 25 therefore effectively removes the floor of £100 in respect of multiple cases only, and tribunals will be able to use their discretion both as to whether a penalty is appropriate and as to the level of that penalty, subject, of course, to the upper limit of £5,000. So, if a group of 400 employees brought a multiple equal pay claim against their employer and the tribunal found that there had been a breach, with aggravating features, the tribunal could decide impose a financial penalty. The change we are making through this amendment will mean that instead of the requirement to impose, in those circumstances, a penalty of at least £40,000, based on the original provision that set a minimum of £100 per claimant, the tribunal will have discretion to determine what level of penalty is appropriate. The upper limit of £5,000 per claimant will continue to apply.

Amendments 26, 27 and 28 make drafting and consequential changes to the clause, but they do not alter its effect. The principles of a minimum and maximum amount of financial penalty continue to apply, with penalties levied at 50% of the value of the award in single claims and up to 50% of the value of each award in multiple claims. I believe these amendments constitute a real improvement to the drafting and effect of the clause, and I beg to move Amendment 24.

[Baroness Brinton]

My Lords, I rise briefly to thank the noble Viscount for the amendments that he has laid before the House today. I think they go a considerable way to allaying the concerns and fears I had.

Growth and Infrastructure Bill

Debate between Baroness Brinton and Viscount Younger of Leckie

Wednesday 6th February 2013 Lords Chamber

[Viscount Younger of Leckie]

I thank my noble friend for that question. The shares are treated as taxable income, although they are shares, so there would be tax at whatever level payable on the shares received.

I should now like to answer some questions that have arisen. The noble Lord, Lord Pannick, stated that there was no demand for this new status. I can understand his concern from other comments made this afternoon. This new employment status will not be appropriate for all companies or be taken up across the board. It simply adds to the options and flexibility available to companies and individuals in determining their employment relationships.

My noble friend Lord Flight has eloquently mentioned this particular issue in his speech. The new status will probably appeal mainly to fast-growing and small start-up companies and individuals as this is the level where employment rights are seen to impact the most.

I would like to address directly the points raised by my noble friend Lady Brinton to say clearly that this particular employment shareholder status will not suit the examples that she cited in or near the Cambridge area. My noble friend Lord Strasburger also cited some example and I suspect it would not suit—

[Baroness Brinton]

Does my noble friend accept that this is exactly the group of companies that Ministers in another place were citing were perfect for exactly this sort of scheme?

[Viscount Younger of Leckie]

Indeed, it may well be the case, but it is not my position to stipulate exactly which particular companies would be right for this particular scheme; only to say that we are offering this as an incentive and an opportunity for business to help the company grow. If it is not suitable for particular companies, that is absolutely fine—it is not suitable.

My noble friend Lady Brinton also asked why we were removing the statutory right to request time to train. The Government recognise that training in the workplace is important and acknowledge the concerns raised. There is currently no reason to suggest that removal of the statutory right to request time to train, which at present is available only to employees of large organisations—that is, those with more than 250 people—would result in employee shareholders being unable to access training or request it if needed. Larger employers tend to have established appraisal and development processes. On that basis, we do not believe that this proposal will adversely affect future employee shareholders. Employee shareholders can still make non-statutory requests for time off to train.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Brinton]

My Lords, I apologise for intervening again but this point is absolutely critical to the Government’s intended success of the clause, or otherwise—that is, a carrot needs to be available to the employee at the time of the share issue, as well as later when there might be some fruition in terms of the investment. This seems to remove the only carrot at the time of the initial employment.

[Viscount Younger of Leckie]

As promised, I will revert to the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, as quickly as possible to confirm what I said.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Brinton]

Does the Minister accept that even if the Government say that it is likely that very few companies will be offering this type of employee share ownership, having a couple of points of guidance buried in 3,000 pages, or even 300, would mean that the average member of staff at a Jobcentre Plus would probably be unlikely to find the relevant information straight away? Does this not argue for the need to put this very special interest in the Bill?

[Viscount Younger of Leckie]

I would like to pick up only one of the points made by my noble friend. It is important, and I am sure that the officials are working hard on this, to ensure that the guidance that is offered is simple, and that there is a way that those involved who need to go to the guidance can do so quickly and effectively, despite the fact that it is 3,000 pages long.

--- Later in debate ---

[Viscount Younger of Leckie]

I just want to re-emphasise what I was trying to say about the document being 3,000 words long. I wanted to reiterate that this is no small task. One may well say, “You should’ve done it before Committee stage today and certainly before Report”, but as the noble Lord knows, I cannot at the moment give a guarantee that it will be ready by Report. I simply wanted to state that this is a major document, a lot of detailed work is going on, and it will come.

[Baroness Brinton]

My Lords, I apologise for intervening on an intervention, but I just wanted clarification on this. The noble Viscount just said that the document was 3,000 words long, but I understood that we had been told earlier that it was 3,000 pages. There is some difference.

[Viscount Younger of Leckie]

I stand corrected—it is indeed 3,000 pages long.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Brinton]

Clause 27 requires employees to give up a range of rights. Many of these rights are ones that the Beecroft report recommended should be removed from employees more generally. The Secretary of State, Vince Cable, hit out at Beecroft’s unfair proposals. He said:

“One of Mr Beecroft’s recommendations was a suggestion to bring in no-fault dismissal. In my daily conversations with businesses, this has very rarely been raised with me as a barrier to growth. Businesses are much more concerned about access to finance or weak demand than they are about this issue”.

Given that the clause is in the Growth and Infrastructure Bill and that the Secretary of State does not believe that giving up the right to claim unfair dismissal is a barrier to growth, why should we ask workers to give it up under this new status? In fact, Mr Cable went even further and stated that it would be counterproductive. He said:

“At a time when workers are proving to be flexible in difficult economic conditions it would almost certainly be counterproductive to increase fear of dismissal”.

I never thought that I would support Mr Beecroft, but he recommended a compensated no-fault dismissal. The Government are going one step further and do not even provide compensation for no-fault dismissal under the employee shareholder status. Given how controversial Mr Beecroft’s proposals were in the first place, and the Secretary of State’s protest, does this not give us further reason for the removal of subsections (2)(c) and (d)? Beecroft also recommended the removal of the right to request flexible working—another of his recommendations that the Government are trying, perhaps, to sneak in by the back door through this status for certain employees. However, I have to say that this directly contradicts the coalition agreement and the mid-term review, which states that the Government will extend,

“the right to flexible working to all employees”.

How can the Government fulfil that pledge when they will be removing the right from employee shareholders?

[Viscount Younger of Leckie]

My Lords, Clause 27 is about providing further choice to the range of employment statuses that employers can consider and choose. I want to take this opportunity to explain to the House the difference between “employee shareholder”, “employee” and “worker”. This will help us understand the context of the noble Lords’ amendments.

People and companies already have a choice in how they wish to work and how they structure their workforce. The choice is usually between hiring someone as a worker, an employee or on a self-employed basis. The difference between these employment statuses is the level of obligation and mutuality to provide and carry out work, and the rights associated with the statuses. I hope that the following explanation goes a little way to answering some questions that my noble friend Lord Deben raised.

Workers have limited rights such as the right to be paid the national minimum wage, protections against unlawful deductions from their pay, paid annual leave and rest breaks, and protection against discrimination, which includes on the ground that they work part time. Employees who meet the relevant conditions have the following additional rights: a general right not to be unfairly dismissed after two years working with the same employer; automatically unfair dismissal rights; statutory redundancy pay; statutory minimum notice period; statutory collective redundancy notice period; TUPE, which was mentioned earlier by the noble Baroness, Lady Turner; the statutory right to request flexible working; and, finally, if they work in a large business of more than 250 employees, they have the statutory right to request training.

The self-employed have limited employment rights linked to discrimination and health and safety. The new employee shareholders will have more rights than someone taken on as a worker, but not all those of an employee. They will not have: first, the right to unfair dismissal except for automatically unfair reasons or on discriminatory grounds; secondly, the statutory right to request flexible working or certain statutory rights to request training; and, thirdly, statutory redundancy pay.

I turn to employee shareholders wishing to return to work earlier than originally planned from maternity, additional paternity or adoption leave. When returning early from these types of leave, employee shareholders will need to give 16 weeks’ notice, compared to six weeks for employees returning from additional paternity leave or eight weeks for employees returning from maternity leave or adoption leave. The noble Lord, Lord Pannick, proposes with Amendments 83 to 89 to take out the employment law references in Clause 27, where it states what rights the employee shareholder will have that are different from those of an employee. This includes removing the distinguishing features of the clause and therefore it will remove choice from the options that employers can consider when taking on staff. The amendments would create an employment status that is essentially the same as that of “employee”, but where the employee shareholder would be given fully paid-up shares. In effect, we would be regulating for an additional employment status that essentially already exists in that of “employee” in order for the individual to be given shares. As the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, knows—he is supported in this by the noble Lord, Lord Adonis—employee ownership, either through direct employee share holdings or shares held in trust on behalf of and for the benefit of employees, is already a well known concept that is in use in the labour market. Companies are already free to offer shares to their employees.

My honourable friend Jo Swinson, the Minister for Employment Relations and Consumer Affairs, is chair of the implementation group taking forward the recommendations of the Nuttall review which is promoting the employee ownership agenda. The Government do not want to create an additional burden by regulating for something that can already take place in the labour market and that an employer can already offer. Such action would not help growth.

I should like to answer some questions that were raised by noble Lords. First, my noble friend Lord Deben stated that, as he saw it, there was no support from business. I have listened very carefully today to the comments made by other noble Lords. It might be helpful for noble Lords to know that Neil Clifford, the chief executive of Kurt Geiger, the shoe retailer, has stated that this measure would,

“provide a massive boost to innovation and enterprise”.

Becky McKinlay, who runs Ambition, a marketing communications company, is cited as saying that,

“she would have welcomed such a scheme when she started her marketing communications company, Ambition, six years ago because she could not afford to outbid her peers on wages”.

I could go on.

The noble Lord, Lord Pannick, raised the issue of why we think there is a statutory right to request flexible working and why it is unnecessary for employee shareholders. The statutory right to request flexible working creates a structure for conversations between employees and employers about changes to ways of working that will be mutually beneficial. Employee shareholders will have a greater interest in the performance of their employer as it is linked to the value of their shares. We consider that employee shareholders are more likely to request flexible working if they think it will help them and the company and do not need the statutory right to request. Employee shareholders can still make non-statutory requests for flexible working.

My noble friend Lord Strasburger raised the issue of which rights will increase motivation. As we see it, this new employment status will increase motivation as the employee shareholder will own shares from the outset and capital gains on these shares of up to £50,000 will not attract capital gains tax.

--- Later in debate ---

[Viscount Younger of Leckie]

The overall package of the employee shareholder, with the extra risk as well as the extra reward, is designed to ally the employee with the employer more readily. The motivation will be there because the employee will feel more aligned to the objectives of the company and will help more towards building and growing the company. That is one of the clear objectives behind this scheme.

The noble Lord, Lord Pannick, raised the issue of the legal consequences of selling rights. A full equality impact assessment has been done and no significant discrimination issues were identified. On the European law issues, I can reassure him that no European guaranteed rights have been affected.

My noble friend Lady Brinton asked whether we can ensure that an employee shareholder is treated fairly and not sacked just because their employer does not like them or has argued with them. An employee shareholder would still retain the majority of protections such as, as I mentioned earlier, automatically unfair dismissal rights and rights underpinned by EU law and discrimination legislation. If an employee shareholder was dismissed in any other circumstances, they would not be able to claim unfair dismissal at an employment tribunal, which we understand. Employees do not get the general right to protection against unfair dismissal or to statutory redundancy pay until they have been with their employer for two years, so there are already employees who currently do not have these rights.

In conclusion, Clause 27 creates a new employment status that gives companies and people more choice. This new status is a creative scheme for companies and people who wish to use it. It gives them a new opportunity to better share the risks and rewards of the business. I hope noble Lords realise that this new, innovative status is a force for good in the labour market, and that they will withdraw their amendments so that companies and people can benefit from this additional choice.

[Baroness Brinton]

I was slightly confused by some of the Minister’s earlier response on the employee status for employee shareholders. I would welcome clarification on whether they are actually regarded as employees, generally, or whether the only respect in which they are not employees is where those rights have been specifically removed by the Bill.

[Viscount Younger of Leckie]

I can confirm that it is an entirely new status, so the individual who agrees with their employer to a contract to be an employee shareholder is not the same as an employee.

--- Later in debate ---

[Viscount Younger of Leckie]

I would be delighted to furnish the noble Lord with whatever information I can find, but I remind him—he may well know the statistic—that the total estimated number of businesses in the UK is 4,794,000. Therefore, breaking down the figure to 6,000 perhaps re-emphasises that this employee shareholder status is not for every company. It is aimed at a particular type of company, and it is important to round off this debate by emphasising that this is not as big a deal as some noble Lords are making it out to be.

[Baroness Brinton]

I apologise for intervening again. Can the noble Viscount explain what niche group of companies this provision would interest, given that in our discussion on the first group of amendments, when I outlined the problems facing high-tech, leading-edge companies going through rapid growth—which Ministers have told us was exactly the audience the clause was aimed at—the Minister said that it was probably not appropriate for them? Perhaps he could cite the type of company it is appropriate for.

[Viscount Younger of Leckie]

I re-emphasise that the Government stick by their idea and plan that the provision will suit small start-up companies, but not exclusively those. However, from my noble friend Lady Brinton’s comments, it certainly does not seem to suit the companies that she has been in touch with, and I thoroughly respect that. I say again that this will not suit every company, but I have given quotations from individuals who seem to think that this is a good, innovative new scheme, which I very much welcome. I hope that it will take off, despite the fact that it is obviously quite contentious.

--- Later in debate ---

[Viscount Younger of Leckie]

My Lords, in Amendment 95 my noble friend Lord Flight proposes a new clause relating to the publication of guidance on the new employment status. He makes a good point on the need for guidance. The Government agree that guidance should be available to help companies and employee shareholders fully understand all the implications of offering or accepting these contracts. It has always been our intention to publish guidance on the new status. The issue of guidance is an important one. Good, clear and accessible guidance will be vital to both companies and employee shareholders. We want to ensure that people enter into these contracts with their eyes open.

I will outline what the Government propose to publish by way of guidance and explain what that guidance will cover. The .gov.uk website is the new centralised place for publication of government services and information. The website already has a number of pages that provide an overview of the different types of employment status—such as worker and employee—and list the rights that are attached to them. We will provide an equivalent page on the new employee shareholder status.

Within these overview pages there are links to more detailed information on each individual employment right, and these pages will also be updated to take account of the new employment status. People who look for information on employee shareholder contracts will be very clear which rights they are entitled to and which rights do not apply to the status. This will help them to decide if an employee shareholder position is suitable for them.

Changes to these pages are being revised at the moment and we will be in a position to share draft copies with you before this clause is debated on Report. The Government will also update guidance on the tax treatment of shares and capital gains tax to make it clear to employee shareholders what their obligations are and to set out how the associated capital gains tax exemption and other relevant tax treatments will work.

Any contract of employment is an agreement between an employer and employee and is the basis of the employment relationship. We believe that contracts work best when people and companies are free to decide the terms that best suit their business needs, and to attract the right people to their companies. We will provide guidance for companies to enable them to understand the new status. Companies would do well to take note of the comments of my noble friend Lord Flight on the importance of drawing up good employment contracts that apply equally to the statuses of employees and workers.

While I understand my noble friend’s intention behind this amendment, we believe it is not necessary to legislate on this matter. To state this in the Bill would just introduce more legislation, which in turn would create more red tape for businesses. As the Government have already committed to publish guidance, I hope that with these assurances my noble friend will be willing to withdraw his amendment.

[Baroness Brinton]

I apologise for intervening. I am grateful for many of the points the Minister raised about guidance and other things that will come forward to us, I hope, before rather than on Report. On a technical point, I wonder whether those who raised issues in this debate could be copied into any correspondence rather than it just going to the single noble Lord who raised the point.

[Viscount Younger of Leckie]

My noble friend makes a very fair point. Of course I will copy in all noble Lords who should or would like to be copied in.

Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Bill

Debate between Baroness Brinton and Viscount Younger of Leckie

Monday 28th January 2013 Grand Committee

[Baroness Brinton]

I am grateful to my noble friend for that clarification.

[Viscount Younger of Leckie]

My Lords, Amendments 28DZB and 28EB are intended to ensure that artistic works can continue to be used in two particular ways after the repeal of Section 52 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act, or CDPA for short: first, that it shall not be an infringement to use an image of an article protected by copyright in a film, photograph or book; and, secondly, that it shall not be an infringement for new designs to use motifs from artistic works protected by copyright. For example, following the repeal of Section 52, a publisher who reproduces a photograph of any artistic work in a book may need to obtain permission to do so. Similarly, the scope for follow-on design may be restricted. The amendments are intended to make special provision for those circumstances.

The repeal of Section 52 means that all artistic works, irrespective of how and by whom they are used, will be treated equally under the law. The amendments seem to be intended to create special cases for particular uses of works. It is not clear that there is a compelling reason for some artistic works to be treated differently in that way. For example, why should it be necessary for a filmmaker to obtain permission to reproduce a painting by Francis Bacon, but not for another artistic work, such as a designer lamp?

Amendment 28DZC would create an exception that would cover the situations outlined above, but it goes further. It would in some circumstances allow the production of replicas and not just images of articles protected by copyright. As drafted, this would not be compliant with existing law.

There is another aspect to consider. In December, the Government announced changes that will be made to copyright exceptions. These will include, for example, an amended quotation exception, which will permit the use of photographs of artistic works in situations that the courts determine to be fair, and new exceptions for education. Those could cover some uses envisaged under the amendment. I reassure the Committee that the issue can be returned to when we have some experience of how the new arrangements work.

I shall pick up a number of points raised by noble Lords. First, I did indeed spot the article in the press this morning concerning the family business of a well known member of this Government. I think that the question of the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, was: is it true to say that the wallpaper produced by the Chancellor’s family-owned interior design business will qualify for copyright protection? The repeal of Section 52 could benefit anyone who owns the copyright in a wallpaper, but not all wallpaper will qualify for copyright protection. That will depend on, for example, whether the wallpaper meets the requisite standards to qualify for copyright protection and is, for example, sufficiently artistic and original. Ultimately, that will be a matter for the courts to decide. The Government and the Design Council consider that the repeal of Section 52 will benefit young designers, as it should lead to UK designers developing new designs in markets that become less dominated by copies of artistic works. I hope that noble Lords find that particular example helpful.

It is important to address the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, concerning consultation. Indeed, it was an issue addressed by the noble Baroness, Lady Warwick. It concerns what consultation there will be before the repeal of Section 52. The UK is one of the few member states that has such an exemption. Further consideration will be given when the Government consult on how and when to bring that into force. Further to that, I reassure the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, that the Government have discussed the repeal of Section 52 with interested bodies, including representatives of sellers of replicas of classic design furniture, such as Scott Howard Office Furniture. We have also had discussions with the Publishers Association, the chairman of the IP Bar Association and Professor Lionel Bently.

The Government will consult formally on how and when the repeal should take effect. We want to hear from affected firms to ensure that the right transitional arrangements are in place to allow them to adjust—for example, by modifying their supply agreements where necessary. The Government believe that it will be business as usual for many British firms who manufacture or sell affected replicas.

The noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, highlighted the question of how Clause 65 is supported by designers. Designers argue that the law undermines the integrity of the design industry and may make British companies less willing to support long-term investment in areas such as furniture design than their European competitors. I quote Sir Terence Conran:

“By protecting new designs more generously, we are encouraging more investment of time and talent in British design. That will lead to more manufacturing in Britain, and that in turn will lead to more jobs—which we desperately need right now”.

Tom Dixon, a British designer, has said:

“Current copyright laws leave designers woefully under protected compared to similar creative professions. This initiative is a small step toward establishing much needed protection of valuable intellectual property”.

The Government have considered these issues very carefully. I hope that in the light of the above, the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, will withdraw his amendment.

Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Bill

Debate between Baroness Brinton and Viscount Younger of Leckie

Wednesday 16th January 2013 Grand Committee

[Baroness Brinton]

My Lords, I certainly will not rehearse the arguments—in fact I have torn up half of what I was going to say after the excellent opening speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, on this particular amendment. But I want to report particularly that when the Liberal Democrats debated our policy paper, Decent Homes for All, we heard of some very personal examples from members that I found profoundly shocking. They included one letting agent who had taken on a policy of no single parents at all, even if they were offering a three-month deposit as a guarantee and even if they were happy to provide—which I would not have been—a separate guarantor. This particular letting agent had just decided that single parents, mainly mothers, were no good. This parent, in particular, had no form of redress at all to that.

What is in front of us today is an utterly reasonable way of getting that redress. I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, and the noble Lord, Lord Deben, for making the point that this is actually much more about redress and consumer rights. It is rare to see an amendment that is so widely supported not only from within the House of Lords but also in another place by various people, including Mark Prisk, Annette Brooke and others from the government side. I hope that even if the Minister cannot give us an instant answer today he will be able to engage in discussion with those who have spoken in the debate on this amendment prior to getting to Report stage.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (Viscount Younger of Leckie)]

My Lords, it may not surprise my noble friend Lord Deben that I do indeed have some speaking notes, but I also hope that I can attempt at least to answer the questions that have been raised this afternoon by noble Lords. I know that these issues have been raised before, and I have considered carefully the amendments, arguments and indeed endorsements of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, for regulating the letting sector, particularly the ones that were mentioned this afternoon. She raises a very important issue.

I fully recognise the noble Baroness’s commitment in championing the interests of consumers in this area and take her concerns very seriously. It is helpful that she has brought it up in the context of this Bill. I note and respect the intervention of my noble friend Lord Deben in this respect as well. I know that the Housing Minister is aware of these concerns but I will raise them with him for further consideration. It is clear from the speech from the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, that he—Mark Prisk, my honourable friend in another place—is aware of the issues that she has mentioned.

The noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, raised the issue in terms of a need for a mandatory redress to protect consumers, particularly those who are the most vulnerable. The Government are indeed keen to promote a greater use of redress but, understandably, want to avoid increased costs which might fall on landlords and tenants which a new mandatory regime would bring. While the Government acknowledge that poor practice exists in some parts of the letting sector, Ministers believe that new regulation would be disproportionate and would drive some businesses from the market. This would increase costs for consumers and reduce the choice and availability of accommodation on offer to tenants.

I can reassure noble Lords that letting and management agents are already subject to consumer protection legislation. For example, the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 protect against giving false or misleading information, not acting with the standard of care and skill that is in accordance with honest market practice or claiming falsely to be a member of a professional body or approved redress scheme. The Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 provide protection against unfair contract clauses, particularly where they are hidden in the small print.

Consumers who are treated unfairly or are charged unreasonable fees by an agent can seek help from their local trading standards officers, who have civil and criminal enforcement powers. The Office of Fair Trading has been investigating practices in the lettings sector and will be producing a report shortly including recommendations on how enforcement bodies can work to raise standards. We look forward to considering its report and recommendations. I hope that this particular point will go some way to reassuring the noble Baroness on the points that she has raised.

In addition to the protection offered by the consumer protection legislation, it is estimated that around half of all agents belong to voluntary schemes which set standards and offer redress if things go wrong. We invited industry bodies to work with us to improve the quality and coverage of self-regulation and in 2010 we endorsed the industry-led SAFEagent scheme. SAFEagent is designed to help consumers understand the benefits of using agents with Client Money Protection, by developing an easy to recognise logo. We are aware of the need for consumer awareness and also the importance of ensuring that vulnerable people are well informed, and indeed are advised as to what to do and where to go for help.

We have also published top tips for both landlords and tenants setting out the benefits of using an agent that belongs to SAFE agent or one of the professional bodies offering the right protections. We will continue to work with Citizens Advice and other bodies to ensure appropriate information is available. Citizens Advice provides help and advice on lettings over the telephone, online and face to face. In the light of these existing schemes and the consumer protection legislation in place, we have no current plans to introduce further statutory regulation. We are, however, keen to do everything possible to ensure that consumers are well informed and empowered to exercise their rights.

I was grateful for the intervention from my noble friend Lady Gardner who spoke most eloquently on the issue of the regulation of managing agents. I am aware that several issues have been brought to the Housing Minister’s attention in relation to letting agencies and residential leasehold and I am certain that managing agents are part of this. I am sure he is aware of your ongoing interest in this matter, but I will also inform him of the comments you made today. These are important issues to raise—as has been pointed out by the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner, there is a shortage of 300,000 houses in the UK. The letting of some of these properties must be effected fairly and consistently.

I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, is reassured and will therefore be prepared to withdraw these amendments.