Small Business, Enterprise and Employment Bill

Debate between Robert Neill and Matt Hancock

Wednesday 19th November 2014 Commons Chamber

[Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)]

I recognise the importance of the initiatives set out in part 8. Does the Minister recognise that, consistent with his observation about making sure there is proportionality, before any regulations relating to part 8 are drawn up, careful consultation should take place with those directly affected in the financial sectors and, in particular, great attention should be given to the security risks that might arise if a register is held online?

[Matthew Hancock]

I strongly agree with my hon. Friend. Improving transparency internationally is important in ensuring that we tackle crime and have a system that people trust, but we have to introduce things in a way that supports legitimate business, does not put undue burdens on business and is secure in terms of the data held. The points he makes are important.

We have increased parliamentary scrutiny of the business impact target—the target for regulatory reduction. We heard in Committee that the Labour party would make no commitment to tackle the burden of regulation on business, whereas we have our one-in, two-out rule. We are ensuring that the targets and the associated metrics will have to be laid before Parliament when they are set or amended. We have also changed the Secretary of State’s powers on administration sales to connected parties and certain elements of the register of people with significant control, so that they are now subject to the affirmative resolution procedure, not the negative one.

We have also introduced new topics during the Bill’s passage, making it easier for small businesses to access finance. Research suggests that 71% of small businesses approach only one finance provider. Our change will ensure that those who want to do so, having been rejected by their bank, can have their details passed on, to encourage greater competition among finance providers. One problem was that there were few different finance providers—the number of banks had shrunk over the past couple of decades—but now, thankfully, the competition is very successfully coming back into the market for finance.

Communities and Local Government

Debate between Robert Neill and Matt Hancock

Tuesday 1st March 2011 Ministerial Corrections

[Matthew Hancock]

To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government how much the Audit Commission spent on calls to (a) premium-rate telephone numbers, (b) directory enquiry services and (c) the speaking clock in the last 36 months for which figures are available.

[Official Report, 16 February 2011, Vol. 523, c. 831-32W.]

Letter of correction from Mr Robert Neill:

An error has been identified in the copy of the Audit Commission letter that was provided with the written answer given to my hon. Friend the Member for West Suffolk (Matthew Hancock) on 16 February 2011. In the table, the figures given for (b) directory inquiry services and (c) the speaking clock were transposed.

The full answer given was as follows:

[Robert Neill]

This is an operational matter for the Audit Commission and I have asked the chief executive of the Audit Commission to write to my hon. Friend direct.

Letter from Eugene Sullivan, dated 16 February 2011:

Your Parliamentary Question has been passed to me to reply.

The Commission routinely bars premium rate calls for fixed and mobile phones where technically possible. Some premium rate calls are required for targeted business purposes, the main one being for postal franking machines (£162 over the three years). The speaking clock is sometimes used to test lines externally where a guaranteed reply is needed.

For our main offices, all directory enquiry calls are routed to our main provider Cable & Wireless service as this provides the most effective rate. Mobile phone calls to directory enquiries and the speaking clock are barred.

The detail of the spending requested is provided in the table below. However, information for home workers and small office users is excluded, as the detail is not readily accessible from the service supplier for the total period.

Housing: Prices

Debate between Robert Neill and Matt Hancock

Wednesday 16th February 2011 Ministerial Corrections

[Matthew Hancock]

To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government what estimate his Department has made of the number of domestic dwellings valued at £2 million or higher in each (a) local authority, (b) parliamentary constituency and (c) region.

[Official Report, 10 February 2011, Vol. 523, c. 391-92W.]

Letter of correction from Mr Robert Neill:

An error has been identified in the answer given to the hon. Member for West Suffolk (Matthew Hancock) on 10 February 2011.

The full answer given was as follows.

[Robert Neill]

The Department has not made an estimate of the number of domestic dwellings valued at £2 million or higher. This estimate would require figures on the individual value of all domestic dwellings in each area. Such data are not held by the Department. Estimating the current capital value of individual domestic dwellings in each area would require a valuation/revaluation exercise. The Coalition Agreement rules out a domestic revaluation in this Parliament.

The correct answer should have been: