Transparency of Lobbying, Non-Party Campaigning and Trade Union Administration Bill

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and John Healey

Wednesday 11th September 2013 Commons Chamber

[The Temporary Chairman (Sir Edward Leigh)]

Order. I hope the right hon. Member for Wentworth and Dearne (John Healey) will not stray too far down that road, and will return to the subject of the clause and amendments. He has performed very skilfully so far.

[John Healey]

Indeed so, Sir Edward.

As a former member of the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers, the hon. Gentleman will be aware that the steps, linked to the clause, that any union needs to take before contemplating industrial action are already highly complex. They are legally specified, and they set a number of very high hurdles for any group of trade union members who wish to consider industrial action. As for his general point, it is often the determination of union members to take industrial action if necessary, and as a last resort, that causes employers to see sense, negotiate properly and, in many cases, solve the problems at hand.

Let me sum up the position. The number of days lost to strike action is at a near all-time low. Industrial action is always a last resort. The series of legislative steps that any group of trade union members must take before engaging in lawful industrial action are already highly complex, lengthy and tightly specified in law, but clause 36 will make that specification much tighter, and will make it much more difficult for unions to take such action. As my hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Katy Clark) pointed out, there is no legal right to strike in this country, and any industrial action lays a trade union open to being sued for inducing and encouraging members to breach their employment contracts. It is only the immunity from being sued, which comes from following all the steps specified in existing legislation, that will be made more difficult by the provisions in clause 36.

Too often in recent years, employers—not just large employers such as Balfour Beatty, Serco and London Midland—instead of dealing with the grievance at hand, and instead of consulting, negotiating and discussing the problems that they face with their own employees and dealing with the dispute, have looked for legal ground to try to prevent any industrial action through the law courts. The duty in clause 36 to provide the membership audits and certificates, and the potential investigations on the back of any complaints under the auspices of the certification officer, are likely to make it much easier for employers to find legal grounds and to take legal action to prevent union members from taking proper, legitimate industrial action. Clause 36 will create a mountain of data and paperwork which will be at the fingertips of employers well in advance of any particular risk of industrial action or dispute.

Financial Services Bill

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and John Healey

Tuesday 22nd May 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. I am not failing as an opposition, so I do not think that is parliamentary.

[John Healey]

I have not seen the hon. Gentleman’s amendments to make the measure not permissive, but a requirement of the Government—Mr Speaker must not have selected it. Clearly, anything in statute would be a significant step forward, as the shadow Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham East, has argued. Those on both sides of the House who have an interest could use a permissive measure in future.

Local Government Finance Bill

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and John Healey

Monday 21st May 2012 Commons Chamber

[John Healey]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

New clause 6—Determination of central and local shares—

‘(1) In determining the central share and the local share for any relevant authority, the Secretary of State must have regard to—

(a) the level of need in that authority, and

(b) the likely capacity of the authority to benefit from business rate growth.

(2) Any assessment of the level of need shall include—

(a) the ranking of the local authority in the Index of Multiple Deprivation,

(b) the level of unemployment within the authority’s area,

(c) the proportion of adults within the authority’s area who have a limiting long-term illness,

(d) the number of adults within the area who are in receipt of social care,

(e) the number of looked-after children within the authority, and

(f) the level of child poverty within the authority’s area.

(3) The Secretary of State must lay his assessment before the House at the same time as the Local Government Finance Report.’.

New clause 11—National business rate policy changes: consultation—

‘The Secretary of State may not make any changes to national business rate policy which impact on local business rate yields without first consulting with all interested parties.’.

Government amendments 15 to 17.

Amendment 62, page 12, line 13, schedule 1, leave out ‘each year’ and insert—

‘each financial year until the end of the financial year beginning 1 April 2014’.

Government amendments 18 and 19.

Amendment 63, page 23, line 40, at end insert—

‘(ca) by reference to the volatility caused by rating appeals following a revaluation;’.

Government amendments 20 to 41.

Government new clause 8—Payments to and from authorities.

[John Healey]

I rise to speak to new clauses 1 and 11, and amendments 62 and 63.

My purpose with new clause 1 is to encourage the Minister to confirm, on behalf of the Government, that the necessary powers exist in legislation to make tax increment financing work in future, and also to confirm Ministers’ intent and commitment to using those powers. The case for TIFs—tax increment financing schemes—is unarguable. I myself have been arguing it for a number of years, first in the Treasury and then in the Department for Communities and Local Government. There are local government regulations in Scotland to allow six TIF pilots to go ahead. The use of TIFs is widespread in Canada and the US, particularly in areas where regeneration is required; indeed, only one state in the US—Arizona—does not have TIF legislation. TIFs build on the commitment that Labour made in government, in the Budget 2010, a commitment that was backed by a capital down payment of £120 million.

However, if the TIFs system is to work—that is, if local authorities are to borrow money for up-front infrastructure investment against the anticipated increase in business rate income as a result of the new infrastructure —there must above all be certainty for those long-term investments to be made. There needs to be certainty for a clear business plan and then an investment plan to be put in place; otherwise TIFs will not get off the ground and will not work. That certainty is required over a 20 to 30-year time scale, which is why it is needed in legislation. As the Centre for Cities said in response to the Government’s consultation:

“When the Government introduces Tax Increment Financing…it should be based on ‘Option 2’—a ringfenced TIF which is best suited for local investment finance within the proposed business rate retention system.”

That point was echoed by the British Property Federation, which said:

“Failing to ring-fence the income stream for that length of time”—

its submission referred to a 25 to 30-year period—

“would generally render the upfront investment unbankable, because the risks associated with it become too difficult to model, understand and price. TIF will only work with the sort of total ring-fencing proposed under Option 2”.

The Government made the commitment to ring-fencing, stating in the White Paper of October 2010:

“We will introduce new borrowing powers to enable authorities to carry out Tax Increment Financing”.

In response to the consultation, the Government also made a commitment to

“allow a limited number of Tax Increment Financing Projects to be exempted from any levy and reset for 25 years.”

That is the crucial commitment that I want to test against the content of the Bill before us. I expressed my concern about the freedom of the ring-fencing from any effects of reset to the Secretary of State on Second Reading on 10 January. He had no answer: either he did not know, or he did not want to say.

Let me therefore point the Minister to the source of my concern, which relates to paragraph 37(1)(d) of schedule 1 on page 32. This deals with the regulation-making powers of the Secretary of State, referring to regulations that can

“provide for that amount or that proportion to be disregarded for the purposes of calculations under any of the following provisions”—

in other words, regulation-making powers that can lead to the disregard of a proportion of business rates in specified areas, namely TIF areas, for particular payments that would otherwise be due. The provision goes on to identify payments to the central share, payments by billing to precepting local authorities, levy payments, safety net payments, payments on account and payments that follow from changes either to the local government finance report or to an amending report of a local government financing report. There is no power, however, to make regulations to exempt payments as a result of changes through a reset.

If I am mistaken, I would like the Minister to indicate where that power lies. If no such provision exists in the legislation, will he confirm that the Government will honour the commitment they made in their response to the consultation and will amend the Bill so that any payments resulting from a reset can be disregarded—and disregarded in full—for the purpose of the TIF areas? The Minister would be welcome to accept my new clause if he needs to do so.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. [Interruption.] Order—the hon. Gentleman must not test my patience even more. Interventions are welcome, and I am prepared to give a little leeway, but the hon. Gentleman is almost making a speech.

[John Healey]

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I got the gist. I welcome this Bill and I want it to work. My fear is that without the certainty around potential resets—we do not know when or how often they might happen; we do not know whether they will happen every 10 years; we do not know how they will work in future—there will be huge risk and uncertainty in the system. It is not a question of whether I am satisfied by the provision; it is a question of whether the potential investors, who will determine whether the TIFs work or not, are satisfied. I am trying to convey the sentiment that I have picked up from my discussions with banks, commercial organisations, the British Property Federation and some of the City’s policy experts, who all say, “Look, we require a ring fence; it must be total”. Thus leaving out the reset, which the Government promised they would not do, does not make sense if we want the provisions to work. I hope the Minister will be able to provide the confirmation we need and be able to build it into the Bill. This issue will certainly need to be confirmed at later stages of the Bill.

Amendment 62 is designed to get to the heart of the relative share of the business rate take as between central and local government. The figures for projected resource spending on local government under the current spending review demonstrate a significant reduction for next year and the year after that—of nearly half a billion between this year and the next, and of more than £1.5 billion between next year and the year after that in nominal terms. Alongside that, the projected yield from business rates is set to go up by nearly £1 billion next year and by more than half a billion the year after that. That means that the gap between the projected business rates yield and central Government’s commitment to resource spending on local government is more than £2 billion for next year, and £4 billion for the year after that. There is a significant and growing gap between the business rates yield and spending on local government.

Pub Companies

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and John Healey

Thursday 12th January 2012 Commons Chamber

[John Healey (Wentworth and Dearne) (Lab)]

I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way and I congratulate him and the Committee on the report. Does he think that the code will help Mr Wild, who runs a very popular pub in Rotherham, whose business is being throttled by the terms of his tenancy? He tried to arrange with Enterprise Inns to buy his cask ales free of tie. He was told it would be £10,000 to £15,000 negotiable but was then told, three days later, it would be £20,000 non-negotiable. He asked for that to be put in writing but was refused. He was then told that the agreement would be for each one of his cask ales, not all five, and that it would be not a one-off payment but an annual payment.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. A lot of Members want to get in, so we need shorter interventions.