Centenary of the Armistice

Debate between Anna Soubry and Kevin Brennan

Tuesday 6th November 2018 Commons Chamber

[Kevin Brennan]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right, and I acknowledge the work he has done with the Commonwealth War Graves Commission, including with me in Wales; we did some work a few years ago on restoring some of the graves in my Cardiff West constituency.

Members will know that the legacy of the first world war resonates in all our communities. Most cities, towns and villages in the UK have a war memorial, and we will all be visiting those war memorials this weekend to lay wreathes and pay tribute to those who left our communities more than 100 years ago and did not return. I will attend the Welsh national wreath-laying ceremony in Cardiff, and a special service of commemoration at Llandaff cathedral in my constituency. Baroness Finlay of Llandaff and I will both lay wreathes at the war memorial in Llandaff city on Friday.

Every community has its own first world war story, and as many others have done, I will briefly pay tribute to those from my Cardiff West constituency whose courage has become part of our collective memory. On 7 July 1916, the 16th Battalion of the Welsh Regiment, known as the Cardiff City Battalion, fought at Mametz wood alongside other Welsh units as part of the 38th Division, which was devised by Prime Minister David Lloyd George and included the Welsh Regiment, the South Wales Borderers and the Royal Welch Fusiliers.

The Cardiff City Battalion was exposed to heavy machine-gun fire, and more than 150 men died, with many more injured. Welsh rugby internationals Dick Thomas and John Williams were among the dead. A survivor, William Joshua, recalled:

“On the Somme, the Cardiff City Battalion died.”

It might be of interest to you, Mr Speaker, that Fred Keenor, who subsequently captained Cardiff City football club when they defeated Arsenal in the 1927 FA cup final, was injured at the battle of the Somme, and it very nearly ended his football career.

[Anna Soubry]

We have the games of remembrance in Nottingham on Thursday. The German and British women’s army teams will play at lunch time at Notts County, and in the evening the British and German men’s army teams will play at Nottingham Forest. Although I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would love to attend, he probably will not be able to, but is it not a great event?

[Kevin Brennan]

It is a great event. I will not be able to attend, but I can do even better than attend: my hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli (Nia Griffith), the shadow Secretary of State for Defence, will be there on behalf of the Labour party.

Draft Statutory Auditors and Third Country Auditors Regulations 2016

Debate between Anna Soubry and Kevin Brennan

Monday 13th June 2016 General Committees

[The Minister for Small Business, Industry and Enterprise (Anna Soubry)]

I beg to move,

That the Committee has considered the draft Statutory Auditors and Third Country Auditors Regulations 2016.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Turner. I have quite a lengthy explanation of what the regulations do. They are important because they effectively mark the conclusion of a substantive body of work over a number of years, emanating from the European Union, which has seen all the countries coming together—as I hope they will continue to do—in everybody’s best interests to look at, in this case, auditing.

Effective financial reporting underpins the success of every business. It helps to inform decision making, improves performance and promotes confidence in the company’s future. For many businesses, audit is essential to provide assurance that financial reporting to shareholders is honest and accurate. Government activity in this area should improve trust and transparency, without placing excessive or undue burden on business.

The proposed regulations implement the 2014 EU audit directive, which amends a directive adopted in 2006, and the EU audit regulation. They apply to a wide range of businesses that require audit services. The most significant changes will apply to public interest entities, which I will refer to as PIEs. Those are basically banks, building societies, insurers and other companies listed on a regulated market. The audit directive and regulation came about through recognition that action was needed to improve confidence in audit quality and assure auditor independence. That particularly came out of the financial crisis in and around 2007-08. The final legislation, which was passed with UK agreement, represents a workable and positive outcome for UK negotiation over more than two years. With our partners—including Germany, France and UK MEPs—the United Kingdom ensured that the EU took time to get these proposals right. Negotiation was heavily scrutinised by the European scrutiny Committees of both Houses of Parliament.

The directive and regulation are an extensive package of reforms, but they are not a knee-jerk reaction to the financial crisis. They take further steps that harmonise audit regulation across the European Union and allow member states flexibility to regulate audit services in ways that reflect their national systems, which have been built up over time. This is a good example of a consolidation and a coming together of all countries—including, of course, all Parliaments—and it shows how the European Union can work in everybody’s best interests, in this case to ensure that our businesses are on a sounder footing. Indeed, it shows how EU directives encompass the broad democracy of this House and the House of Lords.

The key priorities for the United Kingdom, in both the renegotiation of this legislation and its implementation, have been to help secure high-quality audits and independence in auditor judgments across the European Union, and to help avoid excessive concentration of large firms in the audit market. The regulations will amend the Companies Act 2006 and legislation on the current audit framework. I am aware that the regulations may appear complex; indeed, they are an extensive, lengthy document. However, they should be understood with the help of guidance, and that will not be difficult for our auditors.

We have tried to keep additional costs as low as we can. Our impact assessment is publicly available. I acknowledge that the majority of the costs will affect PIEs, but those are the most important businesses and effective financial reporting in this area is crucial. The regulations will implement the requirement to identify a single competent authority for the regulation of statutory audits. The Financial Reporting Council will fulfil that role. That is consistent with the written statement in the House last July. The FRC will delegate tasks to the existing recognised supervisory bodies—for example, the Association of Chartered Certified Accountants and the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales. Those delegations will include: approval of individuals and firms as eligible for appointment as auditors; inspections; investigations, and enforcement. The FRC will retain the task of inspections and investigations of PIE audits.

The regulations will introduce provisions to secure auditor independence. Most significantly, they include a framework for mandatory rotation and retendering of audit engagements with PIEs. That means that PIEs have to put their audit out to tender at least every 10 years, and change their auditor at least every 20 years, to ensure that a cosy relationship, which may not be healthy, does not arise. The framework will apply in respect of financial years beginning on or after 17 June this year.

There is currently no maximum duration for an audit engagement, and annual reappointments of the same auditor can continue indefinitely, leading to the problems that I have identified and, indeed, that we have experienced. The retendering and rotation requirement will be introduced on a phased basis. Some engagements will be given a further four to seven financial years after the regulations come into force, depending on how long the engagement has already been in place. That engagement must then be brought to an end.

The changes are expected to increase competition in the sector, as they will broaden the requirement for regular tendering of auditor appointments. The wider requirement is intended to be as consistent as possible with that introduced by the Competition and Markets Authority. As a result, and to ensure that the initial implementation of the framework is simple to follow, we have not taken up the member state option to incentivise joint audit. The practice of appointing more than one audit firm is not followed in the UK, and the CMA did not consider that it would improve competition in the audit market. We will, of course, keep that decision under review.

Another change made by the regulations will benefit the full range of businesses that use statutory audit services. Companies will no longer be permitted to sign loan agreements that restrict the choice of auditor. That represents another step towards enhancing competition. As well as implementing the directive, the change also implements an important recommendation of the CMA. The regulations also contain changes that are likely to have a deregulatory effect.

[Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)]

On the Minister’s point about joint audit, I do not know whether she has seen the representation that Mazars sent to Committee members—she may not have—but it said that

“the SI as drafted fails to give UK-based businesses the option of joint audits…This means that many businesses—including Mazars and other smaller auditors will be…at a competitive disadvantage compared to their EU competitors”.

Has she given any thought to that observation? I think she just said that she intends to keep the matter under review, but does she have anything to say that might give comfort to smaller businesses, such as Mazars, that are concerned about that aspect of the regulations?

[Anna Soubry]

My officials helpfully warned me about this issue, so I am very grateful to them. Mazars has written to several MPs about a member state option on a practice called joint audit. It is relevant to France, but not to the UK. The CMA considered whether joint audit would improve competition in the audit market and, as I described, chose not to incentivise it. We have taken the same approach and have not taken up that option. I know that Mazars has concerns because it has its origins in France and feels that joint audit has helped it secure its larger share of the market there, but that is about all I can say at this stage. We are aware of those concerns but, on balance, we think that what we have done is right, which is why I am so keen that we should all agree that these regulations are the right way forward. Nevertheless, we will, as always, keep a firm eye on all these matters. If there is ever a need to make changes, I hope we will do so.

--- Later in debate ---

[Anna Soubry]

I will respond to the various questions and comments from the hon. Member for Cardiff West. There is quite a lengthy timeline that shows that this whole process began in about 2006. Obviously, it is not a criticism of the EU that it has taken so long to do this. It has taken so long because this has been very carefully considered and of course things have changed quite substantially, especially as some of the real concerns coming out of the financial crisis became clear. In October 2013, the CMA reported on its investigation into the market for the largest auditors. The CMA report, the various to-ing and fro-ing, the careful negotiation, the fine-tuning and the making sure that any people with an interest, whatever it may be, were involved in the final set of regulations are a testament to the concern there was about getting this right.

Although I cannot say we will definitely do any of the things that have been urged, we are more than willing to—indeed, we will—keep an eye on all these matters, many of which have been raised by the hon. Gentleman, to ensure that the arrangements are working well. The regulations will have to bed down, as such things often do, but we have certainly not closed our ears or eyes to the possibility of change being needed. I should say that I am told Mazars is not a small business; it is a medium-sized business, which is quite interesting.

[Kevin Brennan]

I sought to make that point and to give the Minister a chance for in-flight refuelling. Often in this area there are businesses that are quite large by some standards. Nevertheless, very large businesses are involved in this practice. To give an opportunity to all, joint auditing arrangements might be something to consider for the future.

[Anna Soubry]

That is very helpful. My officials have also said that on rotation and retendering, there will be non-binding guidance on the implementation of the regulations. Some of that has already been published by the FRC and the CMA, and it will be updated and republished shortly. Everybody is on top of these things. As ever, if I do not respond now to any of the points the hon. Gentleman raised, I will write to him.

I hope everyone on the Committee will agree that the quality and reliability of financial reporting in our country is well regarded, and rightly so. It will always be a priority of mine to maintain the rigour and integrity of our audit regime. We know the huge importance to our economy of financial services—some 80% of our economy relies on that industry. This is a good example of the need for cross-EU regulation, so that we can do business much better. I am pleased that it is thought the regulation will be of real benefit to our own audit companies, which have a good reputation, so that they can do business in other member states even better.

The cost to business is not small by any means, but we think the benefits may well outweigh that cost. The one-off cost is estimated to be £41.7 million, with continuing costs of an additional £23.7 million a year, but we are confident that the overall benefits may well financially outweigh those costs. Compulsory retendering of audits should increase competition and choice in the marketplace, which is good for everybody.

Although the application of the requirements to auditors of LLPs goes beyond the minimum requirements of the audit directive and regulation, it will implement the recommendation of the CMA and meet the understandable desire of users and preparers of accounts for consistency in financial frameworks. On the basis that the regulations will make a good system even better and be good for a particularly important part of our financial sector, I hope that they will be passed without any difficulty.

Question put and agreed to.

Draft Companies (Address of Registered Office) Regulations 2016 Draft Registrar of Companies and Applications for Striking Off (Amendment) Regulations 2016

Debate between Anna Soubry and Kevin Brennan

Thursday 17th March 2016 General Committees

[Anna Soubry]

At the moment, I do not know the answer to that. I will write to my hon. Friend. Is it not excellent that we have Members on the Back Benches who know what they are talking about? They have huge experience of these things. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”] My hon. Friend is a very good example of the wealth of experience that exists in this place.

By way of magic, I can say that section 1095 of the Companies Act 2006 provides a way for the registrar to remove factually inaccurate or forged information or material deriving

“from anything invalid or ineffective or that was done without the authority of the company”.

That may be helpful in answering my hon. Friend’s excellent questions.

I am pleased that the regulations are not contentious. Some important and interesting points have been raised, and I will deal with them all by way of letter.

[Kevin Brennan]

I asked some questions about the voluntary PROOF scheme that was introduced in 2005. Can the Minister say anything about that, or will she confirm for the record that she intends to write to the Committee about it?

[Anna Soubry]

I am so sorry, Mr McCabe. I should have made it clear that all Members who have asked me questions will get proper letters. I always say that the usual rules apply: if I cannot answer it, I will provide an answer by way of letter. That letter will specifically look at the questions that the hon. Gentleman has raised about that scheme, such as whether it can be made compulsory, whether we should do more to promote it, and so on and so forth. That may be another way to deal with these problems.

The important thing is that the regulations have got the balance right. The cost sounds like a lot of money, but when it is spread across the 3.6 million companies registered with Companies House, it is a drop in the ocean. The regulations are the right way to go about things. Yes, there will be more of a duty on companies, but it is very minor. It is about striking the right balance so that we do not place too much of a burden on companies, but we do redress this wrong. There can be few things as annoying as discovering that someone has used one’s address. If bailiffs turn up, that is the ultimate distress and a gross annoyance.

I am pleased that the regulations are not contentious. I apologise for not having all the answers, but we will sort that out by way of letter. On that basis, I commend the regulations to the Committee.

Question put and agreed to.

DRAFT REGISTRAR OF COMPANIES AND APPLICATIONS FOR STRIKING OFF (AMENDMENT) REGULATIONS 2016

Resolved,

That the Committee has considered the draft Registrar of Companies and Applications for Striking Off (Amendment) Regulations 2016.—(Anna Soubry.)

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Anna Soubry and Kevin Brennan

Tuesday 15th March 2016 Commons Chamber

[Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)]

Since 1995, Europe’s share of commercial aviation manufacturing has risen from 16% to 57% of the world market because of the co-operation between France, Germany, Spain and the United Kingdom. Would the Minister not be better off having a word with some of her own colleagues than worrying about the Labour party, which is united in its support for remaining in the European Union? Does not that statistic provide a practical and potent example, which she can use with her Back Benchers and supporters, of why it is absolutely in the UK’s long-term interest to remain in the European Union?

[Anna Soubry]

As I have already said, we are indeed stronger, safer and better off in the European Union. I am delighted that the leader of my party, the Prime Minister, is leading the campaign for us to remain in the European Union. If I may say so, I was told only yesterday that the majority of Conservative MPs support the Prime Minister in Stronger In. However, I will make the point yet again that, unfortunately, the leader of the Labour party is failing in his duty to play a full part. He goes on CND rallies instead of supporting Trident, for example, and instead of getting out there and supporting Stronger In.

Energy-Intensive Industries

Debate between Anna Soubry and Kevin Brennan

Thursday 10th March 2016 Westminster Hall

[The Minister for Small Business, Industry and Enterprise (Anna Soubry)]

It is, as always, a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Chope. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Weaver Vale (Graham Evans) on securing the debate. This is an important issue and, as other hon. Members observed, it is not the first time this week that we have debated the subject, because we discussed the future of the ceramics industry on Tuesday.

I am a little confused about why the Opposition were confused about who was to respond to this debate, because we in BIS were in no doubt at all. EIIs are very much within our responsibility, so I was always going to be responding. I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington South (David Mowat) said, “Do we have a Minister for energy-intensive industries?” He was berating the fact that we do not have one. I do not know whether it is good or bad news from his point of view—I hope he will be happy—but I am the relevant Minister, because I am the Minister for Small Business, Industry and Enterprise, and at the heart of that industrial brief are these great EIIs, these great manufacturing industries, which many would say form the absolute hard core of our economy, are certainly at the heart of our manufacturing sector and are incredibly important to our economy.

No one should be in any doubt as to the huge value that we place on the steel industry. I do not want to dwell too much on it, because I think we want to talk about other sectors, notably chemicals, but my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has made it clear that steel is a vital industry. I obviously have repeated that. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has also repeated it. It is not just that it is a vital industry; in relation to steel production, not just the electric arc way of making steel but the blast furnaces, notably at Port Talbot and Scunthorpe, we have no doubt; we are determined to do everything that we can to secure their future.

[Kevin Brennan]

On a point of clarity, it is not a matter of being confused. The Minister may not realise this, because I do not think she has been a shadow Minister. How this works is that we receive a notification from the Government through the usual channels of who is speaking in a debate, and the information received from the Government said “To be confirmed”.

[Anna Soubry]

Well, I do not know. It does not really matter, does it? We were not in any doubt; we knew we were doing it. I knew I was doing it as soon as my hon. Friend the Member for Weaver Vale secured the debate and, as I said, I congratulate him on that.

As we know, our manufacturing industries face difficult times, and EIIs face those pressures perhaps more than most, given their considerable consumption of energy—something like 20% of all UK energy as heat. However, these sectors play an essential role in delivering the UK’s transition to a low-carbon economy, as well as contributing to economic growth and the rebalancing of the economy.

My hon. Friend the Member for Weaver Vale used a different set of measures from the ones that I have, which were kindly supplied by my officials, but here are some facts. EIIs employ about 2% of the UK’s workforce and contribute an annual £50 billion to the economy, approximately 4% of the UK’s gross value added. With Inovyn and Tata Chemicals in my hon. Friend’s constituency, he will know at first hand the significant contribution that these industries make to our national and local economies and the impact that is felt by the local community and industry supply chains when sites reduce their operations.

I want to say a little about the chemicals sector. The Chemical Industries Association has pointed to real confidence in growth across the UK’s chemicals sector. Since 2010, the UK chemicals industry has seen the strongest growth of the major EU chemical producers, with the exception of France, and has grown more than twice as fast as UK manufacturing as a whole. That is the trajectory we want to retain and grow, particularly given the sector’s strategic importance in underpinning UK manufacturing and supplying raw materials and inputs to a range of sectors. I am happy to meet that group, as I do regularly, and I was delighted at our previous meeting to hear of the progress that the sector is making. I am not saying for one moment that there is not more to be done, and of course we know the problems with the high cost of energy, but I was delighted to hear about some of the progress on exports, for example. I am pleased that the sector has an excellent working relationship with UK Trade & Investment—it has a new form now. I am keen to ensure that we continue that strong working relationship and continue looking into increasing our contribution to exports.

It is a challenging time. There is a shift in the emerging economies from importers of chemicals to being producers and exporters. China accounts for roughly a third of the current global chemicals demand, but is expected to generate more than half the global demand growth for chemicals for the rest of the decade. As such, the Chinese economy has slowed down. It is still growing, but not quite as fast as we thought. That will have a greater impact on chemicals than perhaps any other sector.

With these economic backdrops, it becomes even more vital to create the right environment for maintaining manufacturing capacity and attracting new investment. I went to Brussels a few weeks ago for a summit on energy-intensive industries, where various representatives of those industries spoke without fear or favour, and very frankly. Their asks were interesting. They do not ask for any subsidies or for anything particularly special. All they ask for is a fair playing field so that they can compete in a difficult global situation. They just want that level playing field and I completely agree with them, which is why I will now turn to energy costs.

I pay tribute to the excellent speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington South, who is becoming a delightful thorn in my side. I make no complaint if he hunts me down to come to every debate we have on this matter. He can continue to ask his questions, to make his points and to probe. I agree with much, although not all, of what he says. He made a point about getting the balance right and I absolutely agree with him about that. We want our children to inherit a world that is in a better state than the world we inherited from our parents, and that includes being cleaner and greener.

We have to get the balance right in our country by reducing our carbon emissions and playing our part in all that, but not at the expense of these vital manufacturing industries. It is difficult. It is not all about green taxes, if I can use that expression. Such is our concern in the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills that only today I spoke to one of my officials about the high cost of electricity. We talked about why, as my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington South explained, it is higher in this country than in Germany and France. One of the reasons, as well as the reasons my hon. Friend mentioned, is the higher cost of transmission. We want and need to look at that, and we will work with our colleagues in the Department of Energy and Climate Change to ensure that we are doing the right thing by industries throughout the UK.

I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change because, in her, we have somebody who can combine these twin drivers: ensuring that we play our part in reducing carbon emissions and keeping our planet cleaner and greener; and, at the same time, not doing so at the price of undermining and having an adverse impact on our excellent manufacturing sector. I wanted to put that on the record and make it clear.

We understand the concerns about the need to compensate our EIIs. Of course, we have now won the compensation that had been long argued for and sought from the European Union for those EIIs that are particularly high consumers of energy. We have achieved that and we have gone further. From April next year, it is our intention to move from a compensation model to an exemption model. Instead of taking money away from industry only to give some of it back, which I always thought was a rather bizarre way to go about things, we are now doing the right thing, which is not to put those burdens on industry in the first place.

The exemption model means that the industries will no longer have to pay the renewables obligation and the small-scale feed-in tariff. However—and I am going to say it because it is true—that does not include all those industries that have a very high consumption of energy. Other schemes are being looked at. There is more work to be done in the EU, and we will continue to do that. Hon. Members can be sure that, in this Minister, they will always have a champion for great manufacturing industries, particularly the EIIs.

I will continue to do all I can, notably over in the EU where we are making great progress. I am one of those who firmly believes that we will be stronger, safer and better off remaining within the EU. I think a wind of change is blowing through it and I am proud of my Prime Minister for leading that change. I am drifting off so I will come swiftly back to this debate because it is important.

I pay tribute to what we have. The hon. Member for Cardiff West (Kevin Brennan) says that we need to have an industrial strategy. It is all very well and good having bits of paper, strategies and all the rest of it, but what matters is what we are doing about it. We have the 2050 road maps that we debated earlier this week, in which we work with the industries to look at how they can improve the way that they go about getting and using their energy. We want to ensure that we do everything we can to help them to reduce their carbon emissions and that they do everything they can to keep their energy costs down. It is great work that includes: industrial carbon capture and storage; clustering and value chains collaboration; heat recovery; access to finance; and removing barriers to industry using renewable resources such as biomass and the biogenic materials in waste as energy and feedstock.

I thought that the hon. Member for Cardiff West made the most bizarre speech from a Member of Her Majesty’s Opposition—not giving us any clue about the Opposition’s policies on this and what they would do. Instead, he read out a series of questions, helpfully provided by the Manufacturers Organisation. That was quite peculiar.

[Kevin Brennan]

Will the Minister give way on that point?

[Anna Soubry]

No, not yet. Perhaps that perfectly explains and is an example of the exact point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington South. The Labour party is now led by, almost, the Islington intellectual left elite, compared with the days when it was led by people from those great chunks of the industrial north. It is not fair to look around the Chamber and think that the Members present are the only ones interested in the debate. Many will read it in Hansard or watch it in their offices, as they cannot be here. However, the three people here who represent the Conservative party—well, they represent their constituents, who happen to be Conservatives—all come from the north of England. However, the hon. Member for Cardiff West is the only person on the Labour side. He is now going to intervene and, no doubt, say something very interesting.

[Kevin Brennan]

I am sorry that the Minister does not like my asking those questions but would she be so good as to answer them?

[Anna Soubry]

I did not say that that I did not like the questions. I just thought that it was rather perverse that Her Majesty’s Opposition could not make a speech telling us what they would do if they were in Government and what their policies are, and actually challenge us.

[Kevin Brennan]

Is the Minister going to answer the questions?

[Anna Soubry]

I will answer the questions. If I do not, the usual rules apply—I will write to hon. Members.

I will go through some of the points that have been raised. The EU will decide whether to give China market economy status, as I have said many times. I am aware of the arguments against it as much as the arguments in favour. I keep on saying this and I will say it again: the ability of the EU to impose tariffs on China is not precluded if it acquires market economy status. There is a very good argument that ensuring that China stops dumping things could be an important part of any negotiation in relation to MES. Russia enjoys MES, but it does not stop the EU imposing tariffs on it. The debate will continue in the EU about whether China should have that status.

My hon. Friend the Member for Warrington South suggested that we have a different trajectory to decarbonising from the rest of Europe. I am told that the UK’s trajectory is in line with the emissions reduction trajectory set by the EU and applied in other member states. That does not mean that I will not take that important point away and make further inquiries.

Enterprise Bill [Lords]

Debate between Anna Soubry and Kevin Brennan

Tuesday 8th March 2016 Commons Chamber

[Anna Soubry]

This is a short answer—yes. The hon. Lady will have seen this letter and I hope she will have read it—upside down, inside out, backwards and everything else. It is well over two pages long and it could not be clearer as to the way the special share is going to be set up. I shall rely on the fact that it talks about the special shareholder and how difficult it would be to undo this device. That could be done only with the permission, in effect, of the special shareholder. This House can therefore be sure that this is the right way to achieve what we all want to achieve.

That is why it is important to pay tribute—some may say that this is a first, and indeed it may not be the last—to the Scottish Government and to the Scottish National party. I have seen the letter John Swinney has written on behalf of the Scottish Government, quite properly as he is the Deputy First Minister and has responsibility in Scotland for finance, the constitution and the economy. He, too, rightly and understandably, has raised his concerns about how we best protect the green credentials of the GIB. As a result, he, too, has contacted Lord Smith, and letters have been sent back and forth. In short, to the credit of the SNP, it takes the view—I will be corrected if I am wrong—that this device, which is up and running, with the work already having been started by the GIB to secure this special shareholding, means that everybody can be confident that this is the way to secure what we all want, but without the need for legislation, which could completely scupper this privatisation and selling off of the GIB.

[Kevin Brennan]

The Minister has said on many occasions that she is confident that introducing the special share in this way will work. Our case all along has been that we would like to hear her say to the House that she can guarantee, rather than just be “confident”, that the ONS will approve this approach. Can she now say, in terms, on the Floor of the House and on the record, that she can guarantee that?

[Anna Soubry]

I hope I am being parliamentary when I say that the hon. Gentleman is being a bit of a minx—I mean that in the nicest way. [Interruption.] He quite likes that, which is good, although I do not think he will like the next bit. I have already explained in Committee that we cannot give that guarantee, and he was a bit naughty, calling the ONS a bunch of boffins. I think he rather regretted it because the people in the ONS are not that; they are absolutely independent of government and will rightly come to their own conclusions. We are confident that if the measure goes into legislation, the ONS will not take this bank off the books, because it will not be properly in the private sector. If, however, we do it in the way that we are all suggesting—I include the chairman of the GIB in that—there is every chance in the world that this will then become a successful privatisation. It is confusing to work out what people’s real views are; the hon. Member for Wakefield (Mary Creagh) says that she does not object to the GIB being sold off, although she has raised her concerns. She is in favour of it in principle, but it is not certain whether others are.

Let me now deal with amendment 17, which was tabled by the hon. Member for Wakefield and the right hon. Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint). Again, we firmly believe it is not required. The GIB is currently required to report to higher standards—the standards for quoted companies—which include the level of detail required by this amendment. That is appropriate because it is currently entirely publicly owned. Post-privatisation, there is no reason why the GIB should be singled out to report on its remuneration to Parliament, especially if it is not spending any public money. It is a matter for the board of a company and its shareholders to agree remuneration policy. I note that there was an exchange of letters between the hon. Lady and the GIB’s chair, Lord Smith, where she asked about future remuneration policy, and I am sure her Committee will publish the letter in full. If the Government retain a minority stake in the GIB—we have made it clear that our intention is to sell a majority of it—we could express views on this and other aspects of corporate policy. We could agree with other shareholders what level of reporting might be appropriate on this and other matters, but we do not consider that this matter should reside within legislation.

As I said, the GIB has been a terrifically successful venture. It is important to understand that it was set up in 2012 because of a market failure. Opposition Members certainly do not like to reminded of the perilous financial situation our country faced in 2010, and it certainly was not all the fault of the banks—it was also a pitiful failing of Government policy at the time. What the GIB has done is help investors in the market to better understand the risks of green investment, and this comes back to the point being advanced by the hon. Member for Brent North. We know that, since 2012, long-term debt markets have significantly improved, which suggests an improvement in market conditions. Frankly, we would not set up the Green Investment Bank today, because those market failures no longer exist. The Green Investment Bank has proved that an organisation can be green and profitable, and its success demonstrates that the market can deliver green, which must be a good thing.

I have dealt with the point about the Office for National Statistics, so I will not repeat myself. The hon. Members for Cardiff West (Kevin Brennan) and for Wakefield asked whether the Government will retain a minority stake in the Green Investment Bank. I have to say that our position has not changed since the Committee stage. I explained then that we intend to sell a majority of the Green Investment Bank. We may retain a minority, but we cannot commit to that. Our report to Parliament makes it clear that decisions on the size of stake in the Green Investment Bank to be sold will depend on the outcome of confidential commercial discussions with investors.

I pay tribute to the Secretary of State for his announcement last week that the Green Investment Bank is now available to be sold. Unfortunately, I can say no more than that, other than that we are confident that this sale will be successful and will be done at the time when the market is in the right place. Having said that, we will not sell the bank unless of course we know that we will get the right price. For some time now, we have had strong market interest in the Green Investment Bank, which has strong underlying assets that are less exposed to market volatility. The large infrastructure sales that have recently been made, such as that of City airport, have also been very successful, and that gives us confidence in this part of the markets.

Nobody—not even Scottish National party Members—has asked this question, but if they were to, it would be a good question, so I will pre-empt it and say that one reason why the Green Investment Bank has been so successful is that it has been primarily based in Edinburgh, which is an excellent place in which to do business, especially as it is still within a United Kingdom. I can see no good reason—again, this is something that we explored in Committee—why the Green Investment Bank would want to move away from Edinburgh. Why on earth would it? [Interruption.] If the hon. Member for Aberdeen South (Callum McCaig) wants to intervene, I am happy to give way. [Interruption.] No, he has changed his mind. That is probably because I reminded him about the price of oil, so we will move swiftly on.

The hon. Member for Cardiff West asked me whether the Government can guarantee that the Green Investment Bank will be off the balance sheet. I think that I have dealt with that. I said that we cannot give a cast iron guarantee about the ONS, but we have confidence, and I hope that that confidence will be shared by the whole House.

We do not need this new clause, because of the assurances that have been given by the noble Lord Smith in his extensive letter to all Members of the House. In that letter, he goes into quite considerable detail about the mechanisms that he is already putting in place to ensure the future green credentials of the Green Investment Bank. That is why we say that this new clause, which will be tested, should be resisted.

The hon. Member for Wakefield and the right hon. Member for Don Valley have quite rightly raised their concerns about the Green Investment Bank and tabled amendment 17. When the bank is sold, it will be a private sector company—this is an important point to put on the record—and, as such, it will be subject to normal company law. For a company the size of the Green Investment Bank, which is unquoted—that means that it is not listed on the stock exchange—the minimum requirement will be to report aggregate information in relation to total remuneration and specific information relating to the highest paid director. As I have said, it is currently required to report to higher standards—the standards for quoted companies—which include the level of detail required by this amendment. That is appropriate because it is currently entirely publicly owned.

I have given considerable praise to the Green Investment Bank—[Interruption.] I have just been handed a note, which will doubtless be a blessing to everybody who, in due course, has the great good fortune either to read this in Hansard or to be following these proceedings. I will, if I may, pay tribute again to the bank and to all those who work for it, especially the chairman, the noble Lord Smith.

--- Later in debate ---

[Anna Soubry]

No, forgive me, but the clock is against me.

[Kevin Brennan]

No it’s not.

[Anna Soubry]

No, there may be reasons. There is no need to interrupt.

Now is not the time to do what some hon. Members propose. There are other ways of doing it, if it is the right thing to do. It is right, however, that we be true to our clear manifesto commitment to set the cap at £95,000.

[Kevin Brennan]

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker.

--- Later in debate ---

[Anna Soubry]

I was bobbing up and down like a November the fifth apple, Mr Deputy Speaker. In any event, I do not know what all the fuss is about, because I am concluding my comments.

I believe that all points have been made, and based on everything I have said, I urge hon. Members to support the Government’s new clauses and to reject all the other amendments; they are not necessary.

[Kevin Brennan]

I respect your ruling, Mr Deputy Speaker, that my point of order, which I did not make, was out of order.

[Kevin Brennan]

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I simply note that the Minister was unwilling to give way because of time.

On the comments by the former Treasury Minister, now the Minister for Employment, the right hon. Member for Witham (Priti Patel), I thank the Minister today for confirming to the House that we cannot believe a word Ministers say. I thank her for putting that officially on the record.

[Anna Soubry]

indicated dissent.

[Kevin Brennan]

Would the Minister like me to give way? I am happy to do so, if it is in order, Mr Deputy Speaker.

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

Minister, are you commenting from a sedentary position, or would you like to make a point of order?

Enterprise Bill [ Lords ] (Eighth sitting)

Debate between Anna Soubry and Kevin Brennan

Thursday 25th February 2016 Public Bill Committees

[Kevin Brennan]

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

Subject to hon. Members, this might be the final substantial matter we discuss in Committee, certainly on the bits that I intend to cover. I hope we will have time at the end for the traditional points of order and it looks like we will, so I will not make such remarks at this point.

The new clause deals with festivals. The British farming industry is still under threat from a number of directions and the advice that all of us, under different Governments, have given farmers is to diversify, think laterally and be innovative. Many have done so and some have decided to use their assets such as land, barns and so on for occasional festivals and cultural events.

I know you are an MP4 fan, Sir David, so you will not be surprised to hear that my band—perhaps I should declare an interest, although we do not get paid—MP4 has performed at festivals in hon. Members’ constituencies from across the House, being a cross-party venture. The group includes the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart), the right hon. Member for East Yorkshire (Sir Greg Knight) and the former Member for Brigg and Goole. We have an interest because we have direct experience of participating as performers and of being in the audience at such events. I know that many right hon. and hon. Members enjoy festivals in their constituencies and right across the country.

The Valuation Office Agency—we are back on that subject again—is now pursuing those farmers for additional rates and in some cases it is making that retrospective by turning up at farmers’ houses and presenting them with bills that go back several years if they have held festivals on their land. In some cases, the rate demands have been as high as £60,000. That was discussed in the Lords, and Lord Stevenson asked for derogation to be offered for short-lived and one-off festivals. Such festivals, as we have heard, are often in rural areas and bring much-needed economic activity to many suppliers in the locality, even on a Sunday. The cultural benefits that can accrue should also be taken into consideration. Imposing steep business rates for occasional events may lead to the events not taking place.

In replying to the debate in the other place, Baroness Neville-Rolfe said:

“I can assure noble Lords that if there are no permanent physical adaptations to the land to facilitate, for example, festival use, and the duration…is only a matter of a few days, it is unlikely to attract a rating assessment in its own right, and any festival operator or land owner who is unsure of when they may incur a rates bill should contact the Valuation Office Agency… I also know that the Valuation Office Agency recognises the need for clarity and consistency in this sector and is working with the industry to draw up guidance to help event organisers. It hopes to have guidance ready…for the festival season next year.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 2 November 2015; Vol. 765, c. GC314.]

She said that last year. From previous exchanges in Committee, I thought that we were not encouraging people to go to the Valuation Office Agency and to start clogging up the system with even more requests for information and even more appeals against ratings, but that is the Minister’s advice. She seems to indicate that she anticipates that festivals such as the ones I am talking about, where farmers try to make innovative use of their land but where it is not the mainstay of their business in any way, shape or form—they are effectively hiring out their land; they are not building major infrastructure on their land—should not be attracting rates in the way that the Valuation Office Agency seems to be pursuing.

The festival season will soon be upon us. It is hard to believe it sometimes, looking at the weather, but spring is on its way—I think spring officially starts on Tuesday, St David’s day, and we may see the odd daffodil poking through soon. Will the Minister for Small Business, Industry and Enterprise inform the Committee—[Interruption.] I am pausing so that she can hear what I am saying to her.

[Anna Soubry]

I am listening; don’t worry.

[Kevin Brennan]

She says she is listening. She is remarkable, because she can speak and listen at the same time. That is one of her many remarkable talents.

Will the Minister inform the Committee of what progress has been made on this issue since it was discussed in the House of Lords in November? Can she clarify some of Baroness Neville-Rolfe’s comments? Baroness Neville-Rolfe said that

“if there are no permanent physical adaptations…it is unlikely to attract a rating assessment in its own right”.

When she said that, she talked about “a few days”, and I would like some clarity. Are we talking about two days, three days, four days? Will a week count as a few days, or is it less than a week? Some clarity would help people who are holding festivals, as would clarity on what constitutes a “permanent physical adaptation”. If someone builds a bridge over a stream, is that a permanent physical adaptation, or are we talking about the building of hard standing or something of that kind? If a farmer improves health and safety on their farm to accommodate lots of festivalgoers, is that the sort of thing that means the Valuation Office Agency will immediately start taking an interest?

Can the Minister assure us that the Valuation Office Agency’s advice will be uniform across the country? Has there been an attempt to provide clarity and consistency in ministerial advice to Valuation Office Agency officers? We have heard about the backlog of 300,000 rate appeals, so clarity and consistency of advice would help to prevent unnecessary appeals. I hope the Minister can say something positive about that, given what Baroness Neville-Rolfe said in the Lords about looking at the matter further.

Lord Stevenson informed the Grand Committee that Valuation Office Agency officers had begun to raise invoices against landowners for the use of their land for festivals. How did that start to come about? Has there been a central instruction to do it? What is the Minister’s view of the Valuation Office Agency pursuing such things retrospectively, sometimes going back several years? Does the Department have a position on whether that should happen or whether, if the Valuation Office Agency is going to start levying rates on festivals, it should not be done retrospectively?

This is a probing new clause. If the Minister can provide some information about the progress that the Government have made since this was discussed in the Lords, I will withdraw it at the end of her response.

[Anna Soubry]

If there is no permanent physical adaptation to the land to facilitate festival use, and the duration of the festival is a matter of only a few days, it is very unlikely to attract a rating assessment in its own right. That is true whether the festival is on agricultural land or anywhere else. We do not dispute that some event organisers struggle with the rules, so the Valuation Office Agency is working with the industry to help event organisers understand the rules and how to comply.

In many instances, the people organising that sort of event work hand in glove with their local authority. These are all local matters. I am of the view, perhaps unlike Labour Members, that we can trust local authorities to work with people, come to the right decisions and exercise bucketloads of good common sense so the rules are not misinterpreted or over-interpreted.

I have helpfully been told that the Valuation Office Agency’s review of festivals is now complete, and that rate payers should now be clear about any potential ratings liability. They are encouraged to contact the agency if they are in any way unclear about them. That review has taken place.

We have given local authorities wide powers to grant rate relief in such circumstances. Where they do so, central Government will pick up half the cost. We are looking at reliefs and exemptions in any event as part of the business rate review, which is due to report in the Budget next month. We do not want to pre-empt the result of it. I hope that answers the hon. Gentleman’s questions and satisfies him.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kevin Brennan]

I am grateful to the Minister for her response. I will get into some more detail later, while giving it further consideration.

I said that my band played at festivals in several right hon. and hon. Members’ constituencies, one of which was the constituency of the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions. After this debate, I will check with him about whether that festival attracted any ratings. As a charitable local event, it does not have a permanent structure in place on the farmer’s field in which it is held.

It is right that we trust local authorities, but it is also right that parliamentarians respond to concerns brought to us from around the country by local people who have been affected by decisions taken at a local level. It is our duty to raise them in Parliament, debate them and compare what is going on around the country to see whether in some places very different interpretations are being made, and to ensure fairness and consistency. It is our job to do that, so it is entirely appropriate that we debate this issue, as they did in their Lordships’ House. I am grateful to the Minister for her response. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Schedule 1

Sunday opening hours: rights of shop workers

Employment Rights Act 1996

1 The Employment Rights Act 1996 is amended as follows.

2 In section 41 (opted-out shop workers and betting workers), for subsection (3) substitute—

(3) In this Act “notice period”, in relation to an opted-out shop worker or an opted-out betting worker, means—

(a) in the case of an opted-out shop worker who does shop work in or about a large shop, the period of one month beginning with the day on which the opting-out notice concerned was given;

(b) in any other case, the period of three months beginning with that day.

This subsection is subject to sections 41D(2) and 42(2).”

3 After section 41 insert—

“41A Notice of objection by shop workers to working additional hours on Sunday

(1) A shop worker may at any time give to his or her employer a written notice, signed and dated by the shop worker, to the effect that he or she objects to doing shop work for additional hours on Sunday.

(2) In this Part—

“additional hours” means any number of hours of shop work that a shop worker is (or could be) required to work under a contract of employment on Sunday that are(or would be) in excess of the shop worker’s normal Sunday working hours;

“objection notice” means a notice given under subsection (1).

(3) The “normal Sunday working hours” of a shop worker are to be calculated in accordance with regulations.

(4) Regulations under this section may provide—

(a) for the calculation to be determined (for example) by reference to the average number of hours that the shop worker has worked on Sundays during a period specified or described in the regulations;

(b) for a calculation of the kind mentioned in paragraph (a) to be varied in special cases;

(c) for the right to give an objection notice not to be exercisable in special cases (and subsection (1) is subject to provision made by virtue of this paragraph).

(5) Provision under subsection (4)( b) or (c) may, in particular, include provision—

(a) about how the calculation of normal Sunday working hours is to be made in the case of a shop worker who has not been employed for a sufficient period of time to enable a calculation to be made as otherwise provided for in the regulations;

(b) for the right to give an objection notice not to be exercisable by such a shop worker until he or she has completed a period of employment specified or described in the regulations.

(6) But regulations under this section may not include provision preventing a shop worker who has been continuously employed under a contract of employment for a period of one year or more from giving to the employer an objection notice.

(7) Regulations under this section may make different provision for different purposes.

41B Explanatory statement: persons who become shop workers

(1) This section applies where a person becomes a shop worker who, under a contract of employment, is or may be required to do shop work on Sundays.

(2) The employer must give to the shop worker a written statement informing the shop worker of the following rights—

(a) the right to object to working on Sundays by giving the employer an opting-out notice (if section 40 applies to the shop worker);

(b) the right to object to doing shop work for additional hours on Sundays by giving the employer an objection notice.

(3) The statement must be given before the end of the period of two months beginning with the day on which the person becomes a shop worker as mentioned in subsection (1).

(4) An employer does not fail to comply with subsections (2) and (3) in a case where, before the end of the period referred to in subsection (3), the shop worker has given to the employer an opting-out notice (and that notice has not been withdrawn).

(5) A statement under this section must comply with such requirements as to form and content as regulations may provide.

(6) Regulations under this section may make different provision for different purposes.

41C Explanatory statement: shop workers at commencement date

(1) This section applies where—

(a) under a contract of employment a shop worker is or may be required to do shop work on Sundays, and

(b) the shop worker was employed under that contract on the day before the commencement date.

(2) The shop worker’s employer must give to the shop worker a written statement informing the shop worker of the rights mentioned in section 41B(2).

(3) The statement must be given before the end of the period of two months beginning with the commencement date.

(4) An employer does not fail to comply with subsections (2) and (3) in a case where, before the end of the period referred to in subsection (3), the shop worker has given to the employer an opting-out notice (and that notice has not been withdrawn).

(5) A statement under this section must comply with such requirements as to form and content as regulations may provide.

(6) Regulations under this section may make different provision for different purposes.

(7) In this section “commencement date” means the date appointed by regulations under section38 of the Enterprise Act 2016 for the coming into force of section (Extended Sunday opening hour and Sunday working)(5) of, and Schedule (Sunday opening hours: rights of shop workers) to, that Act.

41D Failure to give explanatory statement under section 41B or 41C

(1) This section applies if an employer fails to give to a shop worker a written statement in accordance with—

(a) section 41B(2) and (3), or

(b) section 41C(2) and (3).

(2) If the shop worker gives to the employer an opting-out notice, the notice period under section 41(3) that applies in relation to the shop worker is varied as follows—

(a) if the notice period under that provision would have been one month, it becomes 7 days instead;

(b) if the notice period under that provision would have been three months, it becomes one month instead.

(3) If the shop worker gives to the employer an objection notice, the relevant period under section 43ZA(2) that applies in relation to the shop worker is varied as follows—

(a) if the relevant period under that provision would have been one month, it becomes 7 days instead;

(b) if the relevant period under that provision would have been three months, it becomes one month instead.”

4 (1) Section 42 (explanatory statement) is amended as follows.

(2) In the heading, after “statement” insert “: betting workers”.

(3) In subsection (1) omit “shop worker or”.

(4) In subsection (2)—

(a) in paragraph (a) omit “shop worker or”;

(b) in paragraph (b)—

(i) after “the” omit “shop worker or”;

(ii) omit “an opted-out shop worker or”.

(5) In subsection (3) omit “shop worker or”.

(6) Omit subsection (4).

(7) In subsection (6)—

(a) for “forms” substitute “form”;

(b) for “subsections (4) and (5)” substitute “subsection (5)”.

5 In the heading of section 43, after “work” insert “: opting-out notices”.

6 After section 43 (in Part 4) insert—

“43ZA Contractual requirements relating to working additional hours on Sundays: objection notices

(1) Where a shop worker gives to his or her employer an objection notice, any agreement entered into between the shop worker and the employer becomes unenforceable to the extent that—

(a) it requires the shop worker to do shop work for additional hours on Sunday after the end of the relevant period, or

(b) it requires the employer to provide the shop worker with shop work for additional hours on Sunday after the end of that period.

(2) The “relevant period” is—

(a) in the case of a shop worker who is or may be required to do shop work in or about a large shop, the period of one month beginning with the day on which the objection notice is given;

(b) in any other case, the period of three months beginning with that day.

This subsection is subject to section 41D(3).

(3) A shop worker who has given an objection notice may revoke the notice by giving a further written notice to the employer.

(4) Where—

(a) a shop worker gives to the employer a notice under subsection (3), and

(b) after giving the notice the shop worker expressly agrees with the employer to do shop work for additional hours on Sunday (whether on Sundays generally or on a particular Sunday),

the contract of employment between the shop worker and the employer is to be taken to be varied to the extent necessary to give effect to the terms of the agreement.

(5) The reference in subsection (1) to any agreement—

(a) includes the contract of employment under which the shop worker is employed immediately before giving the objection notice;

(b) includes an agreement of a kind mentioned in subsection (4), or a contract of employment as taken to be varied under that subsection, only if an objection notice is given in relation to the working of additional hours under that agreement or contract as varied.

43ZB Interpretation

(1) In this Part—

“additional hours” has the meaning given in section 41A(2);

“large shop” means a shop which has a relevant floor area exceeding 280 square metres;

“objection notice” has the meaning given in section 41A(2);

“regulations” means regulations made by the Secretary of State.

(2) In the definition of “large shop” in subsection (1)—

(a) “shop” means any premises where there is carried on a trade or business consisting wholly or mainly of the sale of goods;

(b) “relevant floor area” means the internal floor area of so much of the large shop in question as consists of or is comprised in a building.

(3) For the purposes of subsection (2), any part of the shop which is not used for the serving of customers in connection with the sale or display of goods is to be disregarded.

(4) The references in subsections (2) and (3) to the sale of goods does not include—

(a) the sale of meals, refreshments or alcohol (within the meaning of the Licensing Act 2003) for consumption on the premises on which they are sold, or

(b) the sale of meals or refreshments prepared to order for immediate consumption off those premises.”

7 After section 45 insert—

“45ZA Sunday working for shop workers: additional hours

(1) Subsection (2) applies where a shop worker has given an objection notice to his or her employer and the notice has not been withdrawn.

(2) The shop worker has the right not to be subjected to any detriment by any act, or any deliberate failure to act, by the employer done on the ground that the shop worker refused (or proposed to refuse) to do shop work for additional hours on Sunday or on a particular Sunday.

(3) Subsection (2) does not apply to anything done on the ground that the shop worker refused (or proposed to refuse) to do shop work for additional hours on any Sunday or Sundays falling before the end of the relevant period.

(4) A shop worker has the right not to be subjected to any detriment by any act, or any deliberate failure to act, by his or her employer on the ground that the shop worker gave (or proposed to give) an objection notice to the employer.

(5) Subsections (2) and (4) do not apply where the detriment in question amounts to dismissal (within the meaning of Part 10).

(6) For the purposes of this section, a shop worker who does not do shop work for additional hours on Sunday or on a particular Sunday is not to be regarded as having been subjected to any detriment by—

(a) a failure to pay remuneration in respect of doing shop work for additional hours on Sunday which the shop worker has not done, or

(7) Subsections (8) and (9) apply where—

(a) an employer offers to pay a sum specified in the offer to a shop worker if he or she agrees to do shop work for additional hours on Sunday or on a particular Sunday, and

(b) the shop worker—

(i) has given an objection notice to the employer that has not been withdrawn, or

(ii) is not obliged under a contract of employment to do shop work for additional hours on Sunday.

(8) A shop worker to whom the offer is not made is not to be regarded for the purposes of this section as having been subjected to any detriment by any failure—

(a) to make the offer to the shop worker, or

(b) to pay the shop worker the sum specified in the offer.

(9) A shop worker who does not accept the offer is not to be regarded for the purposes of this section as having been subjected to any detriment by any failure to pay the shop worker the sum specified in the offer.

(10) In this section—

“additional hours” and “objection notice” have the meanings given by section 41A(2);

“relevant period” means the period determined by section 43ZA(2) (but subject to section 41D(3)).”

8 After section 101 insert—

“101ZA Shop workers who refuse to work additional hours on Sunday

(1) Subsection (2) applies where a shop worker has given an objection notice that has not been withdrawn and he or she is dismissed.

(2) The shop worker is to be regarded for the purposes of this Part as unfairly dismissed if the reason (or the principal reason) for the dismissal is that he or she refused, or proposed to refuse, to do shop work for additional hours on Sunday or on a particular Sunday.

(3) Subsection (2) does not apply where the reason (or principal reason) for the dismissal is that the shop worker refused (or proposed to refuse) to do shop work for additional hours on any Sunday or Sundays falling before the end of the relevant period.

(4) A shop worker who is dismissed is to be regarded for the purposes of this Part as unfairly dismissed if the reason (or principal reason) for the dismissal is that the worker gave (or proposed to give) an objection notice to the employer.

(5) In this section—

“additional hours” and “objection notice” have the meanings given by section 41A(2);

“relevant period” means the period determined by section 43ZA(2) (but subject to section 41D(3)).”

9 In section 236 (orders and regulations), in subsection (3) after “27B,” insert “41A that include provision under subsection (4)(c) of that section,”.

Employment Act 2002

10 In section 38 of the Employment Act 2002 (failure to give statement of employment particulars etc)—

(a) in subsection (2)(b), after “change)” insert “or under section 41B or 41C of that Act (duty to give a written statement in relation to rights not to work on Sunday)”;

(b) in subsection (3)(b), after “1996” insert “or under section 41B or 41C of that Act”.”

This new Schedule contains amendments to employment legislation. The amendments: (a) shorten the notice period for opting out of Sunday work in the case of shop workers at large shops, (b) confer a new right to object to working additional hours on Sunday, (c) require employers to give statements explaining those rights, (d) confer protections against detriment and unfair dismissal for refusing to work additional hours on Sunday, and (e) provide for fines in tribunal proceedings if there is a failure to give explanatory statements.

Brought up, and read the First time.

Amendments made: (a), line 128 in paragraph 4(4), after paragraph (b) insert—

“(c) in the words after paragraph (b), omit “shop worker or””

This is a technical amendment of NS1 which removes a further reference to a shop worker from section 42 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 (as that section is to apply only to betting workers as a consequence of other amendments made by this New Schedule).

Amendment (b), line 192 in paragraph 6, in new section 43ZB(4)(a), after “2003” insert

“or, in relation to Scotland, the Licensing (Scotland) Act 2005 (asp 16)”—(Brandon Lewis.)

This is a technical amendment that provides for a definition of “alcohol” in relation to Scotland by reference to the relevant legislation of the Scottish Parliament.

New schedule 1, as amended, read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Schedule 2

The Institute for Apprenticeships

1 The Apprenticeships, Skills, Children and Learning Act 2009 is amended as follows.

2 In Part 1 (apprenticeships, study and training) before Chapter A1 insert—

“Chapter ZA1

The Institute for Apprenticeships

Establishment

ZA1 The Institute for Apprenticeships

‘(1) A body corporate known as the Institute for Apprenticeships is established.

(2) In this Act that body is referred to as “the IfA”.

(3) Schedule A1 makes further provision about the IfA.

General duties and functions

ZA2 General duties

‘(1) So far as relevant, and subject to any notice given by the Secretary of State under subsection (2), in performing its functions the IfA must have regard to—

(a) the reasonable requirements of industry, commerce, finance, the professions and other employers regarding education and training within the IfA’s remit;

(b) the reasonable requirements of persons who may wish to undertake education and training within the IfA’s remit;

(c) the need to ensure that education and training within the IfA’s remit is of an appropriate quality;

(d) the need to ensure that education and training within the IfA’s remit represents good value in relation to financial resources provided out of public funds;

(e) any information provided to it by any person designated by the Secretary of State for the purposes of this paragraph.

(2) The Secretary of State may give a notice in writing to the IfA setting out other matters to which the IfA must have regard when performing its functions.

(3) The Secretary of State may not give a notice under subsection (2) more than once in any financial year (within the meaning given by section ZA6(6)), except as provided by subsection (4).

(4) Where in a financial year—

(a) a notice is given under subsection (2), and

(b) after the giving of the notice a new Parliament meets for the first time,

the Secretary of State may give one further notice under subsection (2) in that year.

(5) The IfA must perform its functions efficiently and effectively.

(6) For the purposes of this section, education or training is within the IfA’s remit if the education or training is or may be provided in the course of an approved English apprenticeship.

(7) Subsection (1) and any notice under subsection (2) do not apply in relation to functions that are— Where directions or regulations so provide, the directions or regulations—

(a) delegated by directions under section ZA4, or

(b) conferred by regulations under section ZA5,

unless the regulations or directions provide for them to apply in relation to the functions.

(c) may provide for any education or training to which the functions relate to be treated as within the IfA’s remit for the purposes of this section;

(d) may provide for subsection (1) and any notice under subsection (2) to apply in relation to the functions with such modifications as the Secretary of State thinks fit.

(8) The Secretary of State must—

(a) publish in such manner as the Secretary of State thinks fit any notice under subsection (2), and

(b) lay a copy of it before Parliament.

ZA3 Provision of advice and assistance to the Secretary of State etc

‘(1) The IfA may, if requested to do so by the Secretary of State, provide the Secretary of State with advice and assistance in connection with the Secretary of State’s functions relating to apprenticeships in relation to England.

(2) The Secretary of State’s functions mentioned in subsection (1) include those under section 100(1A) or otherwise relating to the funding of apprenticeships in relation to England.

ZA4 Delegation of functions to the IfA by Secretary of State

‘(1) The Secretary of State may by direction delegate to the IfA any of the Secretary of State’s functions relating to apprenticeships in relation to England.

(2) The functions may be delegated—

(a) to any extent that the Secretary of State specifies in the direction, and

(b) subject to any conditions that the Secretary of State specifies in the direction.

(3) The Secretary of State’s functions mentioned in subsection (1) include those under section 100(1A) or otherwise relating to the funding of apprenticeships in relation to England.

ZA5 Conferral of further functions on the IfA by regulations

‘(1) The Secretary of State may by regulations confer on the IfA such functions relating to apprenticeships in relation to England as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.

(2) A function conferred by regulations under subsection (1) may involve the exercise of a discretion.

ZA6 Annual and other reports

‘(1) As soon as reasonably practicable after the end of each financial year, the IfA must prepare an annual report.

(2) An annual report is a report which includes—

(a) a description of what the IfA has done during the year, including a description of what the IfA has done as a result of any notice given by the Secretary of State under section ZA2(2),

(b) the statement of accounts prepared for that year under paragraph 11 of Schedule A1, and

(c) such other provision as the Secretary of State may direct.

(3) The IfA must send the report to the Secretary of State as soon as reasonably practicable after it has been prepared.

(4) The Secretary of State must lay a copy of the report before Parliament.

(5) The Secretary of State may direct the IfA to prepare, and send to the Secretary of State, as soon as reasonably practicable a report on any matter relating to its functions.

(6) In this section “financial year” means—

(a) the period beginning with the day on which this section comes into force and ending with the following 31 March, and

(b) each successive period of 12 months.

Compliance

ZA7 Secretary of State directions where the IfA fails to discharge duties etc

If the Secretary of State is satisfied that the IfA—

(a) has failed to discharge a duty imposed on it by or under this Act, or

(b) has acted or is proposing to act in an unreasonable way in exercising any function,

the Secretary of State may give the IfA such directions as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.

Directions

ZA8 General provision about directions under Chapters ZA1 and A1

‘(1) This section applies to a direction given to the IfA by the Secretary of State under this Chapter or Chapter A1.

(2) The IfA must comply with the direction.

(3) The direction must be in writing.”

3 Before section A1 insert—

“Introductory”

4 In section A1 (meaning of “approved English apprenticeship”), in subsection (3)(a) for “the Secretary of State has published an approved apprenticeship standard under section A2” substitute “an approved apprenticeship standard has been published under section A2”.

5 For section A2 (approved apprenticeship standards) substitute—

“Publication of standards and assessment plans

A2 Apprenticeship standards and assessment plans

‘(1) The IfA must publish—

(a) standards for such sectors of work as the IfA considers appropriate for the purposes of this Chapter, and

(b) assessment plans in respect of published standards.

(2) Each standard must—

(b) if there is more than one standard for the sector, describe the kind of work within the sector to which it relates.

(3) Each standard must set out the outcomes that persons seeking to complete an approved English apprenticeship are expected to attain in order to achieve the standard.

(4) An assessment plan in respect of a standard is a plan in accordance with which a person’s attainment of the outcomes set out in the standard is to be assessed.

(5) Each assessment plan must—

(b) set out the proposed arrangements for evaluating the quality of any assessment provided for by the plan.

(6) The following provisions supplement the provision made by this section—

section A2A makes provision about the preparation of apprenticeship standards and assessment plans;

sections A2B to A2D make provision related to ensuring the quality of apprenticeship assessments;

sections A2E and A2F make provision about the review, revision and withdrawal of apprenticeship standards and assessment plans;

section A2G makes provision for independent examinations of apprenticeship standards and assessment plans;

section A2H makes provision about the maintenance of a published list of apprenticeship standards and assessment plans;

section A2I provides for the automatic transfer to the IfA of copyright in apprenticeship standards and assessment plans.

A2A Preparation of apprenticeship standards and assessment plans

‘(1) Each standard or assessment plan published under section A2 must have been prepared by a group of persons and approved by the IfA.

(2) The group of persons that prepared a standard or assessment plan published under section A2 must have been approved by the IfA for the purposes of this section.

(3) The IfA may provide advice or assistance to a group of persons in connection with the preparation of a standard or assessment plan.

(4) The IfA must publish—

(a) information about matters that it takes into account when deciding whether or not to approve standards or plans for the purposes of subsection (1);

(b) information about matters that it takes into account when deciding whether or not to approve groups of persons for the purposes of subsection (2).

(5) When making a decision of the kind mentioned in subsection (4)(a) or (b) in a particular case, the IfA may also take into account such other matters as it considers appropriate in the case in question.

(6) Information published under subsection (4) may be revised or replaced, and the IfA must publish under that subsection any revised or replacement information.

Quality assurance

A2B Evaluation of quality of apprenticeship assessments

‘(1) The IfA must secure that evaluations are carried out of the quality of apprenticeship assessments provided by persons in relation to assessment plans published under section A2.

(2) “Apprenticeship assessment” means the assessment of a person’s attainment of the outcomes set out in the standard to which the assessment plan relates.

(3) For the purposes of subsection (1) the IfA may approve or make arrangements for other persons to carry out evaluations.

A2C Unsatisfactory apprenticeship assessments

‘(1) If the IfA considers that the quality of any apprenticeship assessment provided by a person is or may become unsatisfactory, it may carry out a review of the assessment, or make arrangements with another person for the carrying out of such a review.

(2) The IfA may, in consequence of a review, make arrangements for the purpose of improving the quality of the assessment to which the review relates.

(3) If the IfA—

(a) considers that the quality of any apprenticeship assessment provided by a person is or may become unsatisfactory, or

(b) that a person who provides an apprenticeship assessment has failed to co-operate with a review carried out under this section or with arrangements made under subsection (2),

it may report the matter to the Secretary of State or such other person as the IfA considers appropriate.

(4) A report under subsection (3) may contain recommendations as to the action to be taken by the person to whom the report is made.

(5) The IfA may publish a report under subsection (3).

A2D Committee to advise on quality evaluations etc

‘(1) The IfA may establish a committee with—

(a) the function of giving the IfA advice on the performance of its functions under sections A2B and A2C, and

(b) such other functions as may be conferred on the committee by the IfA.

(2) A majority of the members of the committee—

(a) must be persons who appear to the IfA to have experience of the assessment of education or training, and

(b) must not be members of the IfA.

(3) Subject to that, Schedule A1 applies to a committee established under this section as it applies to committees established under paragraph 7 of that Schedule.

Review, revision and withdrawal

A2E Regular reviews of published standards and assessment plans

‘(1) The IfA must maintain arrangements for the review at regular intervals of each standard or assessment plan published under this Chapter, with a view to determining whether the standard or plan ought to be revised or withdrawn.

(2) In respect of each standard or assessment plan published under this Chapter, the IfA must publish information about the intervals at which those reviews are to be conducted.

A2F Revision or withdrawal of published standards and assessment plans

‘(1) The IfA may—

(a) publish a revised version of a standard or assessment plan published under this Chapter, or

(b) withdraw a standard or assessment plan published under this Chapter (with or without publishing another in its place).

(2) Section A2A applies in relation to a revised version of a standard or plan published under this section as it applies in relation to a standard or plan published under section A2.

Other provisions about English approved apprenticeships

A2G Examinations by independent third parties

‘(1) Before the IfA approves a standard or assessment plan for the purposes of section A2A(1) it must make arrangements for the carrying out of an examination of the standard or plan by an independent third party.

(2) The duty imposed by subsection (1) does not apply in relation to a revised version of a standard or assessment plan, but the IfA may, for the purposes of a review under section A2E or at any other time, make arrangements for the carrying out of an examination of a standard or assessment plan by an independent third party.

(3) Where an examination of a standard or assessment plan is carried out under this section, the IfA must take account of the finding of the examination in exercising its functions in relation to the standard or plan under this Chapter.

(4) Nothing in subsection (1) prevents the IfA deciding to reject a standard or assessment plan without first making arrangements for the carrying out of an examination by an independent third party.

A2H List of published standards and assessment plans

‘(1) The IfA must maintain a list of the standards and assessment plans published by it under this Chapter.

(2) In respect of each standard and plan listed (including any revised version), the list must include details of when it comes into force.

(3) Where a revised version is listed, the list must include a general description of the cases to which the revised version applies.

(4) Where a standard or plan has been withdrawn, the list must include details of when the withdrawal comes into force and a general description of the cases to which it applies.

(5) The IfA must secure that the list is available free of charge at all reasonable times.

A2I Transfer of copyright in standards and assessment plans

‘(1) This section applies where—

(a) a standard or assessment plan is approved by the IfA undersection A2A, and

(b) a person (other than the IfA) is entitled, immediately before the time the approval is given, to any right or interest in any copyright in the standard or plan.

(2) The right or interest is, by virtue of this section, transferred from that person to the IfA at the time the approval is given.

(3) The IfA must ensure that a standard or assessment plan in relation to which a right or interest has transferred by virtue of subsection (2) is made available to the public, subject to any conditions that the IfA considers appropriate.”

6 (1) Section A3 (power to issue apprenticeship certificate) is amended as follows.

(2) In subsection (1) for “to” substitute “in respect of”.

(3) In subsection (2), for paragraph (b) substitute—

“(b) the supply by the Secretary of State of apprenticeship certificates issued under that subsection, and copies of those certificates, to—

(i) persons in respect of whom they were issued;

(ii) persons for whom those persons work or have worked under approved English apprenticeship agreements to which the certificates relate.”

7 In section 122 (sharing of information for education and training purposes)—

(a) in subsection (3) (persons who may provide and receive information), after paragraph (f) insert—

“(g) the IfA.”;

(b) in subsection (5) (functions for the purposes of which information may be provided)—

(i) omit the “or” at the end of paragraph (b), and

(ii) after paragraph (b) insert—

8 In section 262(6) (orders and regulations subject to affirmative procedure) before paragraph(ab) insert—

“(aab) regulations under section ZA5;”

9 Before Schedule 1 insert—

“Schedule A1

the Institute for Apprenticeships

Status

1 The IfA is to perform its functions on behalf of the Crown.

Membership

2 (1) The IfA is to consist of—

(a) a member appointed by the Secretary of State to chair the IfA (“the chair”);

(b) the chief executive appointed in accordance with paragraph 5;

(c) at least 4 and no more than 10 other members appointed by the Secretary of State.

(2) The chair and members appointed under sub-paragraph (1)(c) are referred to in this Schedule as the “non-executive members”.

Tenure of non-executive members

3 (1) The non-executive members hold and vacate office in accordance with the terms of their appointment.

(2) Those terms are to be determined by the Secretary of State, subject to the following provisions of this Schedule.

(3) A non-executive member must not be appointed for a term of more than five years.

(4) A non-executive member may resign from office at any time by giving written notice to the Secretary of State.

(5) The Secretary of State may remove a non-executive member from office on either of the following grounds—

(a) inability or unfitness to carry out the duties of office;

(b) absence from the IfA’s meetings for a continuous period of more than 6 months without the IfA’s permission.

(6) The previous appointment of a person as a non-executive member does not affect the person’s eligibility for re-appointment.

Remuneration of non-executive members

4 (1) The IfA must, if the Secretary of State requires it to do so, pay remuneration, allowances and expenses to its non-executive members.

(2) The IfA must, if the Secretary of State requires it to do so, pay, or make provision for the payment of, a pension, allowances or gratuities to or in respect of a person who is or has been a non-executive member.

(3) If a person ceases to be a non-executive member of the IfA and the Secretary of State decides that the person should be compensated because of special circumstances, the IfA must pay compensation to the person.

(4) The amount of a payment under sub-paragraph (1), (2) or (3) is to be determined by the Secretary of State.

(5) Service as a non-executive member is one of the kinds of service to which a scheme under section 1 of the Superannuation Act 1972 (superannuation schemes as respects civil servants etc) can apply (see Schedule 1 to that Act).

(6) The IfA must pay to the Minister for the Civil Service, at such times as the Minister may direct, such sums as the Minister may determine in respect of any increase attributable to the provision of pensions, allowances or gratuities under section 1 of the Superannuation Act 1972 payable to or in respect of non-executive members in the sums payable out of money provided by Parliament under the Superannuation Act 1972.

Chief executive and other staff

5 (1) The first chief executive is to be appointed by the Secretary of State on conditions of service determined by the Secretary of State, after consulting the chair.

(2) Subsequent chief executives are to be appointed by the IfA after consulting the Secretary of State.

(3) The chief executive must not be appointed for a term of more than five years.

(4) The previous appointment of a person as chief executive does not affect the person’s eligibility for re-appointment.

(5) The chief executive holds that office as a member of staff of the IfA.

(6) The IfA may appoint other members of staff.

(7) Service as a member of staff of the IfA is employment in the civil service of the State.

(8) The following are to be determined by the IfA with the approval of the Secretary of State—

(a) the number of members of staff of the IfA (in addition to the chief executive);

(b) the conditions of service of staff of the IfA.

(9) Sub-paragraph (8)(b) is subject to sub-paragraph (1).

Arrangements with Secretary of State

6 The Secretary of State and the IfA may enter into arrangements with each other for the provision to the IfA by the Secretary of State, on such terms as may be agreed, of staff, accommodation or services.

Committees

7 (1) The IfA may establish committees, and any committee established by the IfA may establish sub-committees.

(2) The IfA may—

(a) dissolve a sub-committee established under sub-paragraph (1), or

(b) alter the purposes for which such a sub-committee is established.

(3) In this Schedule a committee or sub-committee established under sub-paragraph (1) is referred to as an “IfA committee”.

(4) An IfA committee must include at least two persons who are members of the IfA or its staff.

(5) The IfA may, with the approval of the Secretary of State, arrange for the payment of remuneration, allowances and expenses to any person who—

(a) is a member of an IfA committee, but

(b) is not a member of the IfA or its staff.

(6) The IfA must, if directed to do so by the Secretary of State, review—

(a) the structure of IfA committees, and

(b) the scope of the activities of each IfA committee.

Procedure

8 (1) The IfA may regulate—

(a) its own proceedings (including quorum), and

(b) the procedure (including quorum) of IfA committees.

(2) The validity of proceedings of the IfA, or of an IfA committee, is not affected by—

(a) a vacancy;

(b) a defective appointment.

Exercise of functions

9 (1) Subject to sub-paragraphs (2) and (3), the IfA may authorise any of the following to exercise functions on its behalf—

(a) a member of the IfA;

(b) a member of the IfA’s staff;

(c) an IfA committee;

(d) any other person.

(2) The IfA may not authorise any of the functions under sections A2, A2A and A2E to A2I to be exercised on its behalf—

(a) under sub-paragraph (1)(c), by a committee a majority of the members of which are not members of the IfA’s staff, or

(b) under sub-paragraph (1)(d).

(3) The IfA may authorise the exercise on its behalf of functions that have been—

(a) delegated to the IfA by directions under section ZA4, or

(b) conferred on the IfA by regulations under section ZA5,

only if and to the extent that the directions or regulations so provide.

Supplementary powers

10 (1) The IfA may—

(a) provide information or advice to any person in connection with any of the IfA’s functions;

(b) co-operate or work jointly with any person where it is appropriate to do so for the efficient and effective performance of any of the IfA’s functions;

(c) carry out research for the purposes of, or in connection with, the IfA’s functions;

(d) do anything else that the IfA considers necessary or appropriate for the purposes of, or in connection with, its functions.

(2) The power in sub-paragraph (1)(d) is subject to any restrictions imposed by or under any provision of any Act.

(3) The IfA may not borrow money.

(4) The IfA may not, without the consent of the Secretary of State—

(a) lend money,

(b) form, participate in forming or invest in a company, or

(c) form, participate in forming or otherwise become a member of a charitable incorporated organisation (within the meaning of section 69A of the Charities Act 1993).

(5) In sub-paragraph (4) the reference to investing in a company includes a reference to becoming a member of the company and to investing in it by the acquisition of any assets, securities or rights or otherwise.

Accounts and reports

11 (1) The IfA must—

(a) keep proper accounts and proper records in relation to its accounts, and

(b) prepare in respect of each financial year a statement of accounts.

(2) Each statement of accounts must comply with any directions given by the Secretary of State as to—

(a) the information to be contained in it,

(b) the manner in which such information is to be presented, or

(c) the methods and principles according to which the statement is to be prepared.

(3) The IfA must send a copy of each statement of accounts to—

(a) the Secretary of State, and

(b) the Comptroller and Auditor General,

before the end of the month of August following the financial year to which the statement relates.

(4) The Comptroller and Auditor General must—

(a) examine, certify and report on each statement of accounts, and

(b) send a copy of each report and certified statement to the Secretary of State.

(5) The Secretary of State must lay before Parliament—

(a) a copy of each statement sent to the Secretary of State under sub-paragraph (3), and

(b) a copy of each report and certified statement sent to the Secretary of State under sub-paragraph (4).

(6) “Financial year” has the meaning given by section ZA6(6) (annual and other reports).

Application of seal and proof of documents

12 (1) The application of the IfA’s seal must be authenticated by the signature of—

(a) the chief executive, or

(b) a member of the IfA who has been authorised by the IfA for that purpose (whether generally or specifically).

(2) A document purporting to be duly executed under the IfA’s seal, or signed on its behalf—

(a) is to be received in evidence, and

(b) is to be treated as executed or signed in that way, unless the contrary is proved.

Funding

13 (1) The Secretary of State may make grants to the IfA, or provide the IfA with any other kind of financial assistance, subject to any conditions that the Secretary of State considers appropriate.

(2) The conditions may, in particular—

(a) enable the Secretary of State to require full or partial repayment of sums paid by the Secretary of State if any of the conditions are not complied with;

(b) require the payment of interest in respect of any period during which a sum due to the Secretary of State in accordance with any of the conditions remains unpaid.”

10 In Schedule 1 to the Superannuation Act 1972, in the list of “Offices”, at the appropriate place insert—“Non-executive member of the Institute for Apprenticeships.”

11 In Part 6 of Schedule 1 to the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (public authorities) at the appropriate place insert—

“The Institute for Apprenticeships.” —(Anna Soubry.)

This new Schedule establishes the Institute for Apprenticeships and makes provision about its functions.

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

Clauses 36 and 37 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 38

Commencement

Amendment made: 76, in clause 38, page 54, line 29, at end insert—

“() section (Extended Sunday opening hours and Sunday working)(5), and Schedule (Sunday working hours: rights of shop workers) (Sunday working hours: rights of shop workers), for the purpose of enabling the exercise of any power to make regulations under any provision of the Employment Rights Act 1996 inserted by that Schedule;” —(Anna Soubry.)

This amendment provides for the power to make regulations under sections 41A to 41C of the Employment Rights Act 1996 to come into force on Royal Assent. These provisions confer powers to make regulations about the meaning of “normal Sunday working hours” and the form and content of explanatory statements.

[Anna Soubry]

I beg to move amendment 19, in clause 38, page 54, line 30, at end insert—

“() paragraph 2 of Schedule2 (things to be included in Secretary of State’s report in respect of the business impact target), and section14 (which introduces Schedule 2) so far as relating to that paragraph;”

This amendment provides for paragraph 2 of Schedule 2 to come into force on Royal Assent.

--- Later in debate ---

[Anna Soubry]

I beg to move amendment 29, in clause 40, page 55, line 33, leave out subsection (2)

This amendment removes the privilege amendment inserted by the Lords.

The amendment deals with the title of the Act and is very short. I am sure that it will not be controversial.

Amendment 29 agreed to.

Clause 40, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.



Title

Amendment made: 77, in title, line 1, at end insert

“provision about Sunday opening hours and Sunday working;”—(Anna Soubry.)

This amendment amends the long title of the Bill so as to include a reference to the provisions about Sunday opening hours and rights to opt out of Sunday working, as provided for by NC21 and NS2.

[Kevin Brennan]

On a point of order, Sir David. As we have now reached, in good time, as we always were going to, the point where we wrap up the Committee proceedings, I thought I should take the opportunity to thank you and your co-Chair, Ms Buck, for the excellent way in which you have chaired our proceedings and kept us all in order. Even though we attempted to wander off the path on occasion, you quite rightly led us back on to it, for which we are very grateful. I hope that you will pass that on to Ms Buck.

I thank the Clerks of the Committee, the Doorkeepers, the police, the civil servants and the Hansard reporters. On behalf of the Opposition, I thank the Ministers for the courteous way in which they have conducted proceedings and for responding to our questions most of the time. I also thank Government Members for their contributions, which have enhanced our debates. It is important that Members take the opportunity to participate in Committee.

I thank those members of the public who have attended and watched proceedings, and I thank the Whips for their help—

Enterprise Bill [ Lords ] (Seventh sitting)

Debate between Anna Soubry and Kevin Brennan

Thursday 25th February 2016 Public Bill Committees

[The Minister for Small Business, Industry and Enterprise (Anna Soubry)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship again, Ms Buck. I think that we had come to the point in the debate on the amendment where all that was left was for me to respond. The amendment is unnecessary because it is already a fundamental duty for the public sector to ensure that exit payments are value for money and are made in the most appropriate manner. The cap on and the additional scrutiny of such payments will encourage employers to act with discipline and proportionality when considering public sector exits and will help to ensure that good management practices are embedded in any decision. It is on that basis that I ask hon. Members to vote against the amendment if it is put to a vote.

[Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)]

Ms Buck, as this will be your last opportunity to chair this Committee in your first venture into chairmanship, may I say how greatly we have enjoyed your chairmanship of the Committee here, down by the river? I know you have just got your Bruce Springsteen tickets so I thought I would mention that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Anna Soubry]

In just a moment. I have drifted off, and I want to come back to my point on Magnox pensions. These are employer-funded costs that form part of the exit payment, and the cap does not affect the core terms of the pensions. That is important, and everyone is beholden to ensure that employees get the facts, not the myths or the spin. The cap does not affect the core terms of their pensions, such as accrual rates and normal pension age. I hope that might be of some assistance.

[Kevin Brennan]

Will the Minister give way?

[Anna Soubry]

I am happy to go to the hon. Gentleman first.

[Kevin Brennan]

I think my hon. Friend the Member for Sefton Central wanted to come in on a slightly earlier point. Has that point about myths been made in the representations that the Committee has received? I do not think that is the point we are trying to make with the amendment but, if the Minister thinks those myths are being pushed around, where are they coming from?

[Anna Soubry]

I am just answering the points that have been made.

I was asked why the banks are not included. There is a good reason for that. During the financial crisis, the then Government ensured that a number of banks were in temporary partial public ownership, and we have already started the process of returning the banks wholly—not partly, but wholly—to private ownership. That is the only reason why they are exempt.

The other important thing to remember—I am particularly explaining this for the Magnox workers—is that it is not the Government who deem that they are working in the public sector; it is the Office for National Statistics. As we debated the other day, the ONS is an independent organisation. It is not for the Government to beat up on the ONS, which decides and determines what is in and what is out of the public sector. By definition, that is the ONS’s job.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kevin Brennan]

The Minister tells us that secondary legislation will list the organisations and people who will be exempted from the cap. As we know, the Government have decided to exempt certain people in the public sector from the cap. Will any or all of the bodies listed in new schedule 3 be included in the list in secondary legislation?

[Anna Soubry]

I do not think I can give assurances on that. If I am wrong, I will get back to the hon. Gentleman. Forgive me, Ms Buck, I am reading a note that I do not understand. It refers to the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy), although I did not think she was here. Perhaps the hon. Member for Wakefield has been mistaken for the hon. Member for Walthamstow.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kevin Brennan]

It is. In fairness to the Minister, I do not think that she was saying that they were, but that is the language that the Secretary of State has used and that is the headline that they seek with this kind of policy making by headline. They put things in the Bill that are meant to get them a headline in the Daily Mail and The Sun. That is what it is all about, fundamentally. It is all about political positioning: “We are against these public sector fat cats.” But the reality, when we lift the stone and look underneath that proposition, is that some pretty ugly stuff is wriggling around underneath the stone. There is an example of that in the debate that we are having today. Hard-working people are being betrayed by their Government. They would have made very different assumptions, as my hon. Friends have pointed out, about what this policy meant when they read their Daily Mail and read the headline and even when they read the Conservative party manifesto, because—

[Anna Soubry]

Does the hon. Gentleman accept that some Magnox workers apparently can receive up to half a million pounds? Is he saying that there should be no cap at all on any of the exit payments for Magnox workers? We want to be clear.

[Kevin Brennan]

The Minister is yet again quoting from a document that none of us has seen. She comes up with these little flights of inspiration to us that the rest of us have not read. I have been quoting from the evidence that has been submitted to the Committee. The Government could put in their explanatory notes to the Bill the fact that they are going after Magnox because of the fat cats that the Minister is saying—

[Anna Soubry]

I never used that term.

[Kevin Brennan]

Well, the Secretary of State used the term, and the Secretary of State is the Minister’s senior and I presume she agrees with what he says. She is constitutionally obliged to, actually, when she is talking on behalf of the Department.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kevin Brennan]

I beg to move amendment 126, in schedule 4, page 68, line 6, after “reduction),” insert

“in (7) replace “is entitled to, and must take immediate payment of” with “may elect to receive immediate payment of” and”.

The amendment would give an individual the choice to take a pension immediately or delay taking it under the Local Government Pensions Scheme on being made redundant or because of business efficiency if under the exit payment cap such a payment would need to be actuarially reduced.

This is an important matter, but I hope we can dispose of it fairly quickly, obviously depending on hon. Members’ views. At the moment, local government pension scheme regulations state that, where an individual is made redundant at the age of 55 or over, they must take their pension. The pension that is payable to a member in that position is paid at the full rate and is not reduced to take into account that it will be paid for longer than if they had retired at a later age.

There may be a cost to the employer of putting the full pension into payment. Once the cap is introduced, if there is a cost to the employer of providing that unreduced pension and, taken together with the other exit payments, the cost would exceed £95,000, the Bill states that the pension should be paid at a reduced rate to ensure that the total cost does not go above the level of the cap. However, as drafted, the local government pension scheme regulations will still require that person to take their pension at the point of redundancy, and it will be a reduced pension for the remainder of their life, not just for the period until retirement.

The amendment proposes that members in that situation would have the choice of whether to take their pension. If, for example, a member is made redundant at the age of 55, they could either choose to take their pension at that point, accepting that it will be paid at a reduced rate for the rest of their life, or choose to delay taking their pension so that it can be put into payment at a later time on an unreduced basis. That seems an eminently sensible and reasonable proposition, and it is very much in line with what the Government say they want to do in extending choice to people in relation to their pension. There would not be a cost to the pension fund. The element of choice is crucial. The Minister believes in choice and we support that. A worker’s decision on when to access their pension really is a pretty basic right and choice. Will she extend that choice to these workers by agreeing to amendment 126?

[Anna Soubry]

Schedule 4 amends the local government pension scheme to allow for the payment of a reduced pension when the pension top-up by the employer required for an unreduced pension is to be taken early and would exceed £95,000. The provision is required to ensure that the scheme does not conflict with the requirements of the cap.

The amendment would allow for a member, instead of taking a reduced pension earlier, to opt to defer payment of their pension and take an unreduced pension at normal pension age. However, it is unclear how the amendment would be advantageous to the member, as they would be forfeiting up to £95,000 of top-up by their employer to their pension pot.

In any event, the amendments in schedule 4 make the minimum of changes for the cap to be effective. Any further amendments to the local government scheme should be made after consultation with members in the normal manner. For the sake of completeness, I want to say that the cap does not affect any pension already accrued or paid for by members’ contributions, even when taken out. That is why I resist the amendment.

[Kevin Brennan]

Obviously, I am disappointed by that reply. I had hoped that the Minister would say, “We’ll give it some more thought.” Whether she judges that it would be to the worker’s advantage or not is, quite frankly, irrelevant. It is about whether the worker, with appropriate financial advice, thinks it is the right choice for them. It is not for the Minister to decide whether it is the right choice for them. That is a very different definition of choice from the one we thought the Government meant when they were talking about choice regarding pensions.

I accept what the Minister said but I hope that she will think a bit more about it because this is not an unreasonable proposition, nor one that should affect any financial calculations that the Government might be concerned about in this part of the Bill. On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Schedule 4 agreed to.

New Clause 1

Power of Welsh Ministers to apply regulators’ principles and code of practice

‘In section 24 of the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Act 2006 (application of regulators’ principles and code of practice to functions specified by order)—

(a) for paragraph (c) of subsection (3) (Wales: limit on power of Minister of the Crown to specify functions) substitute—

“(c) a Welsh regulatory function.”;

(b) in subsection (4) (power of Welsh Ministers to specify functions) for “regulatory functions exercisable only in or as regards Wales” substitute “Welsh regulatory functions”;

(c) in subsection (10) (definitions) at the appropriate place insert—

““Welsh regulatory function” means a regulatory function, so far as exercisable in relation to Wales, if or to the extent that the function relates to matters—

(a) within the legislative competence of the National Assembly for Wales (see section 108 of the Government of Wales Act 2006), or

(b) in respect of which functions are exercisable by the Welsh Ministers.”.”’—(Anna Soubry.)

This new Clause gives power to the Welsh Ministers (instead of a Minister of the Crown) to make orders applying the regulators’ principles and code of practice in relation to functions relating to matters within the legislative competence of the National Assembly for Wales, or in respect of which functions are exercisable by the Welsh Ministers.

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 2

Devolved Welsh matters

‘(1) The Regulatory Enforcement and Sanctions Act 2008 is amended as follows.

(2) In each of the following provisions, for “Welsh ministerial” substitute “devolved Welsh”—

(a) in section 4 (meaning of “relevant function”), subsections (6) and (8)(b);

(b) in section 6 (guidance to local authorities), subsections (1) and (1A);

(c) in section 10 (advice to Welsh Ministers), subsection (1)(a);

(d) in section 12 (relationship between Secretary of State and other regulators), subsection (3);

(e) in section 16 (guidance or directions by Welsh Ministers), subsection (1);

(f) in section 36 (power to make orders providing for civil sanctions), subsection (2);

(g) in section 59 (consultation and consent for civil sanctions orders: Wales), subsection (2);

(h) in section 73 (functions to which duty not to impose or maintain unnecessary regulatory burdens applies), subsections (3)(c), (4)(c) and (5).

(3) In section 73 (functions to which section 72 applies), in subsections (3)(c) and (4)(c), for “in Wales” substitute “in relation to Wales”.

(4) In section 74 (general interpretation)—

(a) omit the definition of “Welsh ministerial matter”;

(b) before the definition of “Minister of the Crown” insert—

““devolved Welsh matter” means —

(a) a matter within the legislative competence of the National Assembly for Wales (see section 108 of the Government of Wales Act 2006), or

(b) a matter in relation to Wales in respect of which functions are exercisable by the Welsh Ministers,

and in this definition “Wales” has the same meaning as in the

Government of Wales Act 2006;”.”’—(Anna Soubry.)

See the explanatory statements for amendments 1 and 2.

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 3

Apprenticeships: information sharing

(1) After Part 1 of the Apprenticeships, Skills, Children and Learning Act 2009 (apprenticeships, study and training) insert—

“Part 1A

Apprenticeships: information sharing

England

‘40A Sharing of information by HMRC and the Secretary of State

(1) HMRC may disclose information held by them to the Secretary of State for the purpose of the Secretary of State’s functions in relation to English statutory apprenticeships.

(2) The Secretary of State may disclose information to HMRC—

(a) for the purpose of requesting HMRC to disclose information under subsection (1), or

(b) for another purpose connected with the Secretary of State’s functions in relation to English statutory apprenticeships.

(3) In this section “English statutory apprenticeships” means—

(a) approved English apprenticeships within the meaning given in section A1;

(b) apprenticeships undertaken under apprenticeship agreements within the meaning given in section 32 that were entered into in connection with recognised English frameworks;

(c) apprenticeships in relation to which alternative English completion arrangements apply under section 1(5);

(d) apprenticeships undertaken under arrangements made in relation to England under section 2 of the Employment and Training Act 1973 that are identified by the person making them as arrangements for the provision of apprenticeships.

Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland

40B Sharing of information by HMRC and devolved authorities

(1) HMRC may disclose information held by them—

(a) to a Welsh authority for the purpose of the authority’s functions in relation to Welsh apprenticeships;

(b) to a Scottish authority for the purpose of the authority’s functions in relation to Scottish apprenticeships;

(c) to a Northern Irish authority for the purpose of the authority’s functions in relation to Northern Irish apprenticeships.

(2) An authority mentioned in paragraph (a), (b) or (c) of subsection (1) may disclose information to HMRC—

(a) for the purpose of requesting HMRC to disclose information to the authority under subsection (1), or

(b) for another purpose connected with the authority’s functions mentioned in subsection (1).

(3) In this section—

“Northern Irish apprenticeships” means apprenticeships undertaken under arrangements made under section 1 of the Employment and Training Act (Northern Ireland) 1950 that are identified by the person making them as arrangements for the provision of apprenticeships;

“Northern Irish authority” means—

(a) a Northern Ireland department, and

(b) any body or other person that is prescribed, or of a prescribed description;

“Scottish apprenticeships” means apprenticeships undertaken under arrangements made—

(a) in relation to Scotland, under section 2 of the Employment and Training Act 1973, or

(b) under section 2(3) of the Enterprise and New Towns (Scotland) Act 1990, that are identified by the person making them as arrangements for the provision of apprenticeships;

“Scottish authority” means—

(a) the Scottish Ministers, and

(b) any body or other person that is prescribed, or of a prescribed description;

“Welsh apprenticeships” means—

(a) apprenticeships undertaken under apprenticeship agreements within the meaning given in section 32 that were entered into in connection with recognised Welsh frameworks;

(b) apprenticeships in relation to which alternative Welsh completion arrangements apply under section 2(5);

(c) apprenticeships undertaken under arrangements made in relation to Wales under—

“Welsh authority” means—

(a) the Welsh Ministers, and

(b) any body or other person that is prescribed, or of a prescribed description.

(4) In subsection (3)—

(a) the reference to a Northern Ireland department includes a reference to a person providing services to a Northern Ireland department;

(b) the reference to the Scottish Ministers includes a reference to a person providing services to the Scottish Ministers;

(c) the reference to the Welsh Ministers includes a reference to a person providing services to the Welsh Ministers.

(5) Regulations under this section may amend the definition in subsection (3) of—

(a) “Northern Irish apprenticeships”,

(b) “Scottish apprenticeships”, or

(c) “Welsh apprenticeships”.

General

40C Wrongful disclosure

(1) Information disclosed by HMRC under section 40A(1) or 40B(1) may not be disclosed by the recipient of the information to any other person without the consent of HMRC (except so far as permitted by section 40A(2) or 40B(2)).

(2) If a person discloses, in contravention of subsection (1), any revenue and customs information relating to a person whose identity—

(a) is specified in the disclosure, or

(b) can be deduced from it,

section 19 of the Commissioners for Revenue and Customs Act 2005 (wrongful disclosure) applies in relation to that disclosure as it applies in relation to a disclosure of such information in contravention of section 20(9) of that Act.

40D Interpretation

(1) In this Part—

“HMRC” means the Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs;

“revenue and customs information relating to a person” has the same meaning as in section 19 of the Commissioners for Revenue and Customs Act 2005 (see section 19(2) of that Act).

(2) In this Part—

(a) references to HMRC include references to a person providing services to HMRC;

(b) references to the Secretary of State include references to a person providing services to the Secretary of State.

(3) Nothing in this Part affects any power to disclose information that exists apart from this Part.”.

(2) In section 262(6) of that Act (orders and regulations subject to affirmative procedure) after paragraph (aa) insert—

“(aaa) regulations under section 40B;”.

(3) In section 268 of that Act (extent)—

(a) in subsection (2) (provisions extending to Scotland) for “Sections 40,” substitute “Section 40, Part 1A, sections”, and

(b) in subsection (3) (provisions extending to Northern Ireland) for “Sections”, in the first place, substitute “Part 1A, sections”.”’—(Anna Soubry.)

This new Clause inserts a new Part into the Apprenticeships, Skills, Children and Learning Act 2009 providing for the sharing of information between HMRC and the Secretary of State, and between HMRC and certain devolved authorities, for purposes connected with apprenticeships.

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Anna Soubry]

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

[Anna Soubry]

We are introducing the apprenticeship levy and the step change in apprenticeship numbers and quality to deliver on the commitment of 3 million apprenticeship starts by 2020. We have set ourselves a high target and I am confident that we will achieve it especially when business fully appreciates—and I think it does—the huge importance of apprenticeships. When we ratchet up this work, everybody will play their part in making sure that we offer wonderful opportunities for earning and learning. The Government will legislate for powers to raise and collect the levy across the United Kingdom through the Finance Bill 2016, with the levy due to go live in April 2017.

For employers to get out at least what they put in, we need to know what they have put in in the first place. We want to do this in a way that minimises the administrative burden on businesses. Data sharing between HMRC and the Secretary of State for BIS is the most effective and most efficient way to do this. The legislation will enable information held by the Treasury on the employer’s levy to be shared, so that each employer’s entitlement to apprenticeship funding can broadly match levy payments made by employers.

Employers entitled to levy funds will be able to access the new digital apprenticeship service from April 2017, and over time the service will be expanded to cover all employers who take on apprentices. Each employer that has paid the levy will be able to see how much they have paid and therefore how much they have to spend in their levy account. That will help us to give employers a simple-to-use apprenticeship service that is clearly linked to their levy payments. We will publish details in due course about arrangements for employers not paying the levy.

Devolved Administrations will also have access to similar information to operate their own apprenticeship schemes. The legislation also creates a new funding power that will enable us to make levy-funded payments to employers across the full range of apprenticeships in England.

[Kevin Brennan]

We debated this matter extensively earlier in the Bill and we have not tabled amendments in this group, so I will make my remarks in relation to the next group in which we have tabled amendments. My remarks will be brief because we have debated this quite extensively and we made our positon clear. However, we want to hear an explanation of the Government amendments.

Question put and agreed to.

New clause 3 read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 4

Apprenticeship funding

In section 100(1A) of the Apprenticeships, Skills, Children and Learning Act 2009 (provision of financial resources in connection with approved English apprenticeships)—

(a) for “approved English apprenticeships”, in both places, substitute “English statutory apprenticeships”, and

(b) after subsection (4) insert—

“(5) In this section “English statutory apprenticeship” has the same meaning as in section 40A (see subsection (3) of that section).”” .—(Anna Soubry.)

This new Clause expands the Secretary of State’s funding powers in relation to English apprenticeships.

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill

New Clause 5

Market rent only option: rent assessments etc

In section 43 of the Small Business, Enterprise and Employment Act 2015 (pubs code: market rent only option), in subsection (6)(b), after “in lieu of rent” insert “(whether or not it results in a proposal that the rent, or amount of money payable, should increase)”.”—(Anna Soubry.)

This new Clause is intended to replace Clause 33, inserted by opposition amendment in the Lords. The changes are intended to achieve what the Government understands is the intended effect of the Lords amendment, namely to ensure that the Pubs Code will require pub-owning businesses to offer tied pub tenants a market rent only option in connection with a rent assessment (including a rent assessment required at a scheduled rent review) whether the rent proposed is an increase, a decrease or is unchanged.

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 6

Reports on avoidance

In Part 4 of the Small Business, Enterprise and Employment Act 2015 (the Pubs Code Adjudicator and the Pubs Code), after section 71 insert—

“71A Reports on avoidance

(1) The Adjudicator must report to the Secretary of State on cases of pub-owning businesses engaging in business practices which are, in the Adjudicator’s opinion, unfair business practices.

(2) A report under subsection (1) must include recommendations as to—

(a) actions to be taken to prevent pub-owning businesses from engaging in the business practices reported on, and

(b) how to provide redress for tied pub tenants affected by those practices.

(3) The Secretary of State must issue a statement within three months of receiving a report under subsection (1) setting out—

(a) action which the Secretary of State intends to take to protect tied pub tenants affected by the business practices reported on, or

(b) if the Secretary of State does not intend to take such action, the reasoning for that decision.

(4) In this section “unfair business practice” means a business practice which—

(a) is engaged in by a pub-owning business at any time after the passing of this Act in order to avoid, to the detriment of tied pub tenants, the operation of provision made by or under this Part, and

(b) is unfair.””—(Anna Soubry.)

This new Clause is intended to replace Clause 34, inserted by opposition amendment in the Lords. The changes are intended to clarify the effect of the Lords amendment. Instead of containing freestanding provision, the new clause inserts provision into Part 4 of the Small Business, Enterprise and Employment Act 2015. There are small changes to the detail of the drafting, principally to clarify that it applies to all regulations made under Part 4 of the 2015 Act and that the Adjudicator can report on business practices engaged in after royal assent of that Act.

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 22

The Institute for Apprenticeships

“Schedule (The Institute for Apprenticeships) establishes the Institute for Apprenticeships and makes provision about its functions.”—(Anna Soubry.)

This new Clause introduces NS2.

Brought up, and read the First time.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kevin Brennan]

The Minister is right to remind us that we debated apprenticeships two weeks ago, at the appropriate point in the Bill. People may have forgotten the reason we are debating this now, so it is worth reminding the Committee that it is because the Government were not able to get their amendments in on time to debate it at the appropriate place in the Bill. At that time, we tabled a new clause to create an institute for apprenticeships and we are still of the view that our proposal is better than the Government’s and that it is more comprehensive, inclusive and extensive. That is why we are disappointed by the Government’s proposal, although we will not vote against it as it is right to create this institute. It could be improved by some of the suggestions that we made in amendments (a), (b) and (c) that we tabled to the Government’s new schedule 2.

Amendment (a) to new schedule 2 would ensure that progress made in increasing the opportunities for disadvantaged groups to access apprenticeships under the framework was reported and monitored. To avoid the risk of being tedious, because we discussed that earlier I will not rehearse those arguments again. I will simply refer anyone reading the record to our earlier debate.

Amendment (b) to new schedule 2 would confirm reports produced by the institute for apprenticeships are read and reviewed by the relevant Committees, which we list, and enable them to raise directly with Ministers any issues arising. We think that is important because Select Committees with responsibilities for apprenticeships must have the opportunity to scrutinise and recommend action based on the institute’s work. I am interested to hear the Minister’s view on that.

With amendment (c) we return again to an earlier discussion—we have had to debate this at the end because the Government’s proposals were not ready in time. The amendment is intended to ensure that there is a broad membership of the board of the institute for apprenticeships. We discussed that extensively earlier so I will not repeat those arguments.

I would be interested to hear the Minister give the Government’s response to our suggestions in amendment (b) before we conclude.

[Anna Soubry]

I do not think I am in a position to be able to do that, Ms Buck. I will have to write to the hon. Gentleman because I do not have that amendment in front of me, unfortunately. I do not think it is actually in the document I have, so I apologise for that. I am more than happy to take an intervention, which might enable the hon. Gentleman just to hand it over to me. I do not think he has it either.

--- Later in debate ---

[Anna Soubry]

I am not sure whether that is terribly helpful.

[Kevin Brennan]

On a point of order, Ms Buck. Is there any means by which we could perhaps return to the matter this afternoon, to give the Minister and her officials an opportunity to provide the answer we were looking for to the amendment, which we tabled in time, and which appeared in the appropriate part of the amendment paper?

[The Chair]

I believe that the Minister may now be in a position to respond.

[Anna Soubry]

My hon. Friend the Member for Charnwood is sitting behind me, standing in for my normal Parliamentary Private Secretary and doing an excellent job, because unfortunately my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby is extremely poorly at the moment—and now, by magic, I can assist the hon. Member for Cardiff West. The view of the Government is that we do not need legislation to send the reports to Select Committees. It is as simple as that.

That relates to what I said about the fact that the procedures already exist. We do not need legislation, because we can already do it. If we need to do it we will. I am sorry that something so simple has taken so long for me to answer.

[Kevin Brennan]

May I gently say to the Minister that a lot of give and take is always required in Committee, and we have our job to do in scrutinising the Bill and proposing Opposition amendments? The Government have their job, and the minimum requirement is to turn up prepared to discuss with the Committee every clause and every amendment that has been selected. That, if I may say so, is government 101.

It is becoming a little bit of a pattern that that preparation has not been done, and I do not know why it is so, but there have been a number of occasions where it seems as if the Minister does not have the full briefing that she should have in front of her. If I am being unkind I will withdraw that, but it is for other Members who watch our proceedings and for Committee members to decide what they think about it. However, it is the minimum requirement, if I may put it as gently as that, that we should receive a response to our amendment from the Government. We are trying to do our job and the Minister is trying to do hers. We need the preparation to be done in advance of our proceedings. On that basis, and to save further embarrassment, I will not press our amendment.

Question put and agreed to.

New clause 22 read a Second time and added to the Bill.

New Clause 23

The Institute for Apprenticeships: transitional provision

“(1) Subsection (2) applies to—

(a) any standard approved and published by the Secretary of State under section A2 of the 2009 Act before the appointed day;

(b) any plan which—

(i) relates to the assessment of a person’s attainment of outcomes set out in a standard mentioned in paragraph (a), and

(ii) was approved and published by the Secretary of State for the purposes of that assessment before the appointed day.

(2) Such a standard or plan is to be treated on and after the appointed day as having been approved by the Institute for Apprenticeships under section A2A of the 2009 Act and published by it under section A2 of that Act (as amended by Schedule (The Institute for Apprenticeships)).

(3) A standard or plan within subsection (1) is to be treated for the purposes of section A2I of the 2009 Act (as inserted by Schedule (The Institute for Apprenticeships)) as having been approved by the Institute for Apprenticeship at the beginning of the appointed day.

(4) This section does not limit the provision that may be made under clause 37.

(5) In this section—

“the appointed day” means the day on which section A2A of the Apprenticeship, Skills, Children and Learning Act 2009 (inserted by Schedule (The Institute for Apprenticeships)) comes into force;

“the 2009 Act” means the Apprenticeships, Skills, Children and Learning Act 2009.”—(Anna Soubry.)

This new Clause makes transitional provision relating to the establishment of the Institute for Apprenticeships.

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 21

Extended Sunday opening hours and Sunday working

“(1) The Sunday Trading Act 1994 is amended in accordance with subsections (2) to (4).

(2) In paragraph 2 of Schedule 1 (which restricts the opening hours of large shops on Sundays), after sub-paragraph (3) insert—

“(3A) Sub-paragraph (1) does not apply in relation to the opening of a large shop during any other period on a Sunday in accordance with a consent notice published under paragraph 2A (subject to sub-paragraph (4)).”

(3) After that paragraph insert—

“Consent notices published by Sunday trading authorities

2A (1) The Sunday trading authority for an area may publish a notice (a “consent notice”) in accordance with this paragraph providing for large shops in the authority’s area to be permitted to do either or both of the following—

(a) to open on a Sunday for a continuous period of whatever number of hours is specified in the notice (in addition to the continuous period of six hours mentioned in paragraph 2(3));

(b) to open on a Sunday at specified times beginning earlier than, or ending later than, the times mentioned in paragraph 2(3).

(2) A consent notice published by a Sunday trading authority may apply in relation to the whole or any part of the authority’s area.

(3) A Sunday trading authority may, by publishing a further notice, vary or revoke a consent notice that applies in relation to its area.

(4) Before varying or revoking a consent notice under sub-paragraph (3), a Sunday trading authority must give reasonable notice to occupiers of large shops whose opening hours on Sundays would be affected by the variation or revocation.

(5) Publication of a notice under this paragraph may take whatever form the authority publishing it thinks appropriate for the purpose of bringing the notice to the attention of occupiers of large shops in the area to which the notice relates.

(6) Subject to sub-paragraph (7), the Sunday trading authority for an area is the local authority for the area.

(7) In relation to the area of Greater London, the Sunday trading authority is the Mayor of London acting on behalf of the Greater London Authority.”

(4) Accordingly—

(a) in paragraph 2 of Schedule 1 (restrictions on Sunday opening)—

(i) in sub-paragraph (1), for “and (3)” substitute “, (3) and (3A)”;

(ii) in sub-paragraph (4), for “exemption conferred by sub-paragraph (3) above does” substitute “exemptions conferred by sub-paragraphs (3) and (3A) do”;

(b) in paragraph 6 of that Schedule (duty to display notice), after “sub-paragraph (3)” insert “or (3A)”;

(c) in paragraph 8 of that Schedule (defence to an offence of contravening opening restrictions), after “paragraph 2(3)” insert “or (3A)”;

(d) in paragraph 1(a) of Schedule 3 (loading and unloading at large shops on Sunday morning: application), after “paragraph 2(3)” insert “or (3A)”.

(5) Schedule (Sunday opening hours: rights of shop workers), which contains amendments of employment legislation relating to the rights of shop workers to opt out of working on Sunday, has effect.”—(Brandon Lewis.)

This new Clause amends the Sunday Trading Act 1994, giving powers to local areas to extend Sunday trading hours for large shops (with a retail floor area greater than 280 square metres). The extended hours can apply to the whole or part of the local area. The new Clause also introduces a new Schedule to the Bill containing amendments to the Employment Rights Act 1996 and the Employment Act 2002 in relation to Sunday working.

Brought up, and read the First time.

Enterprise Bill [ Lords ] (Fifth sitting)

Debate between Anna Soubry and Kevin Brennan

Tuesday 23rd February 2016 Public Bill Committees

[Kevin Brennan]

Excitement mounts as we enter the third day of our proceedings and turn to part 6 of the Bill and amendments to clause 25. The common theme of the amendments is exploring the reform of the unwieldy nature of business rates and business rate appeals. How, without compromising fair access to justice, do we discourage appeals that have no chance of getting through and that may clog up the system? I will briefly go through the amendments in this group and I will make some more general points in the clause stand part debate.

The amendments are concerned with the information held by the valuation office and whether that information should be made available to parties that have a genuine interest, namely those whose property is being rated; hence amendments 95, 96, 97 and 98. The amendments would allow ratepayers to seek professional advice, armed with all the relevant facts and figures held by the valuation office. The Government have held a consultation, which started in late October, on the issue of information exchange between ratepayers and the valuation office. Will the Minister enlighten the Committee on the results of that consultation in relation to the group of amendments under discussion?

Amendment 100 covers the access to valuation office information for the billing authority on issues to do with business improvement districts. The local authority needs the information to judge the likely rate yield for a business improvement district in its authority area. In the Lords, Baroness Neville-Rolfe said that she was not aware of any rating issues involving business improvement districts or of any concerns about a lack of information. However, if that information is not commercially sensitive, why not make access to the information available anyway? That would allow a ballpark figure for a potential business improvement district bid to be known up front and could promote the take-up of future bids. I would be grateful for the Minister’s response on that.

We understand that the valuation office has a duty to respect commercial confidentiality and to protect the privacy of businesses that have supplied information in good faith. Although we understand the need to respect commercial confidentiality, there must be compromise when limited access to key information held by the valuation office is made available to ratepayers and billing authorities to allow them to fulfil their duties as businesses and public sector organisations. I am interested to hear the Minister’s response.

[The Minister for Small Business, Industry and Enterprise (Anna Soubry)]

I will deal with amendments 95 to 98, if I may. The Valuation Office Agency collects and holds commercially sensitive data from ratepayers, which it has a legal duty to protect. We understand the need for transparency to enable informed and well-founded rates appeals, but our recent consultation on rates appeals reform under the Bill proposed a check, challenge and appeal system that ensures that ratepayers will get more and better information earlier in the appeals process, while protecting sensitive information from excessive disclosure.

The amendments propose far greater disclosure of information and offer no protection to the ratepayer who provides that sensitive information, which is key to a successful valuation process. Although I understand why the amendments have been tabled, I firmly state that they are disproportionate and do not strike the correct balance between openness and the duty and need to protect privacy.

On amendment 100, I have some experience of BIDs. I do not know whether other Members have experience of them in their constituencies, but I had a BID in mine that did not work out. At the completion of the five-year tenure, the businesses—it should always be the businesses—voted not to have a BID anymore and, properly, have gone down a different route. I know that BIDs can be hugely successful; I have been told by my right hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough (Nicky Morgan) that the BID in her constituency works extremely well. Some are good and some are bad.

The proposals in amendment 100 are not needed and I am not aware of any evidence of anyone having said that they are a good idea. The amendment would require the information underlying valuations to be disclosed to the BID, and I do not think that that is based on any practical need. As we know, BIDs set their levies and collect from businesses based on rateable value information from the local authority that in effect operates the BID and collects the levies. We are not aware that the BIDs want any more information on valuation lists than they already have as they go about their business of setting levies.

The review is primarily within the domain of the Treasury, and I am sure we all look forward, the consultation having concluded, to the Chancellor making any such announcements on reviews as he sees fit and proper in his Budget speech. My views are widely known: I very much hope that someone’s rates will no longer go up if they do the right thing and invest in new plant and machinery. That seems perverse, and those of us in the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills continue to make representations to the Chancellor. As Members would expect from our exceedingly good Chancellor of the Exchequer, he is always willing to listen. I am also confident, based on his outstanding track record, that he will, as ever, be on the side of business, as we on the Government Benches always are.

[Kevin Brennan]

I thank the Minister for her response. I advise her not to have that extra Weetabix before our Committee in future; she needs to pace herself a bit before she reaches her red meat perorations in Committee.

I obviously agree with the Minister’s point about plant and machinery. She knows that Her Majesty’s Opposition completely agree with that idea, which could be of particular benefit to our steel industry; as we all know, it badly needs that kind of support. I hope we will have opportunities in the near future to press the issue further in Parliament and to discuss our steel industry, its future and the need for the Government to do more to support it. The Minister is very persuasive and influential, so I am totally confident that the Chancellor will announce those exemptions for plant and machinery in the Budget.

The Minister has just said that she is very strongly lobbying the Chancellor—whom she described as “listening”—for this exemption, which she sees as absolutely necessary to business, particularly to industries such as the steel industry. I will put my faith in the Minister as far as that is concerned, and I will not press these amendments to a vote today. I note that the Minister has said on the record how strongly she is lobbying for this exemption on plant and machinery, and I offer her my support on that. I am confident that there will be a result from the Government because it is simply common sense to do what the Minister said.

I take on board the Minister’s point about BIDs. That was a probing amendment, and it was useful to hear her views on the variable forms of BIDs and the fact that they can work in some cases, but do not work so well in others. It is worth the Government having on their radar the fact that these sorts of issues around rating could be quite important for BIDs. I note what the Minister said about the broader issues of the consultation, not only the issue of plant and machinery. We can expect to hear from the Chancellor in his Budget statement as to the outcome of that consultation, which Baroness Neville-Rolfe mentioned in the other place. We will obviously be listening very carefully to what the Chancellor has to say when the time comes. On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[Kevin Brennan]

Clause 25 is about the disclosure of information by HMRC in relation to non-domestic rates. It is fairly generally agreed that the business rates system is broken, and probably has been for some time. It needs significant reform. There are an estimated 300,000 appeals in the system, and back in 2013 the Chancellor promised to deal with that backlog.

Businesses need a much better understanding of how their rates are calculated and to be able to be confident that they are paying the correct amount of tax, so that appeals are much less common than they are currently. There is probably broad agreement on that across the House. If businesses had more access to the information, they would be less likely to appeal. It would save time, effort and money all around. A more efficient, fairer and reformed business rates system would enhance the enterprise environment, which is, after all, the purpose of the Bill.

The actual workings and calculation of how the valuation office arrives at its conclusions are not generally available to businesses. The Department for Communities and Local Government and the valuation office have maintained that the information is commercially confidential, and businesses’ concerns about the process are very well known. Without access to valuation office information, ratepayers cannot have the confidence that their bill is absolutely correct.

A three-stage process is currently in place, which is overly long. It can take nearly three years before even the first two stages of the process are concluded. That sort of delay harms businesses’ cash flow. Under this system, the onus is on the business to prove, with evidence, that the bill is wrong, but they have very limited access to that information. There is no obligation on the valuation office to prove that the information is correct. In other words, in this system the valuation office is both judge and jury in appeal cases, and the appellant has no right to see the evidence used to assess their case.

Valuation tribunal hearings for England will now no longer be free. That represents an additional burden on businesses. Tribunals will listen only to original evidence submitted at the time of the appeal. By the time everything is determined, that evidence could be nearly three years old, as I said earlier. If any new evidence comes to light in the intervening three years, it will be deemed inadmissible. That applies both to the valuation office and to the appellant. It is also proposed that there will no longer be a right of appeal to the upper tribunal on matters other than points of law.

In this system, the valuation office has the monopoly on knowledge and power in terms of business rates and business rates appeals. Those concerns were all raised in the other place when the Bill was discussed there. Another concern was that the proposed challenges to the business rates appeal system will shift the burden of proof even further from the valuation office, which has access to all the relevant information, to the ratepayer, who has no access to it. Will the Minister accept that as a fair assessment of the changes being made?

Checking assessed values will likely become more costly and time-consuming for business. The burden will fall especially on SMEs, which will become increasingly susceptible to the activities of unscrupulous rating advisers. Is it acceptable for the state to impose a significant tax on businesses without any obligation to justify the derivation of that tax liability? I cannot think of any other tax that can be levied where the taxpayer does not understand in detail the basis on which the tax man or woman has calculated the tax due.

The valuation office is currently willing to share rental evidence as part of the procedures leading to a valuation tribunal hearing. Is there any reason why, in principle, that sharing could not be undertaken during the initial check stages? Surely that would make much more sense. The current system forces businesses to overcome many hurdles before they can access that limited information. How do the Government respond to the concerns raised by businesses that they are being given extra burdens rather than relieved of them?

[Anna Soubry]

I will speak directly to clause 25 and the reasons why I urge everyone to vote for it to stand part of the Bill. Clause 25 removes a major barrier to the efficient system that we all want. The Valuation Office Agency collects information about taxpayers and their properties. That may include plans of a property, details of property use and occupiers’ names. By virtue of the Commissioners for Revenue and Customs Act 2005, the VOA may be prevented from sharing certain information with local authorities, which can result in the same property being inspected by both the local authority and the VOA. Clause 25 reduces the burdens for business while protecting taxpayers’ information by creating a gateway for the exchange of information between the VOA and local authorities.

Clause 25 inserts new sections into the Local Government Finance Act 1988. New section 63A allows the VOA to share information with local government for business rates purposes, and new section 63B ensures that taxpayers’ information is safeguarded, with enforcement penalties for wrongful disclosure of information. New section 63C exempts the information from the Freedom of Information Act 2000, which is consistent with the Commissioners for Revenue and Customs Act 2005. In short, clause 25 will begin to reduce the burden on our businesses, and will make the system better. I am not pretending that it is perfect, but it will certainly make things considerably better.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 25 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 26

Alteration of non-domestic rating lists

Amendment made: 10, in clause 26, page 43, line 31, after “English list” insert “or a Welsh list”.—(Anna Soubry.)

This amendment and amendments 11 to 15 extend the amendments made by clause 26 to section 55 of the Local Government and Finance Act 1988, which currently apply to England only, so that the Welsh Ministers have the same power by regulations to make provision in relation to proposals to alter local or central non-domestic rating lists for Wales.

[Kevin Brennan]

I beg to move amendment 99, in clause 26, page 43, line 41, at end insert—

“( ) provision for valuation officers to provide such information as to the basis of an assessment to alter or enter a rating assessment in the rating list as shall be sufficient for the ratepayer to understand the underlying valuation evidence;”

--- Later in debate ---

[Kevin Brennan]

We will think about new clause 31, although my understanding was that we could not refer to it in this group. In any case, I will refer to the group before us. We are due to discuss new clause 31 on Thursday, and I might make passing reference to it.

Amendment 99 would require valuation officers to provide enough information for businesses to make sense of the underlying reason for their valuation. Amendment 101 is about trying to improve the service of the valuation office by introducing performance standards, appeals where decisions are not timely and time limits on determining appeals, and I would be grateful if the Minister could outline her response to those proposals.

Amendment 102 also deals with appeals. The Bill proposes that a charge be made to a business that puts forward an appeal. This is an enterprise Bill; to add an additional expense to businesses to access a review or appeal at this point in the economic cycle does not seem to be the most enterprising of proposals. As the Minister knows, the international and national markets are volatile at the moment and we are not yet out of the economic danger zone. Placing additional cost on businesses is a threat to recovery and to existing businesses and new start-ups. Why are the Government placing an additional cost burden on business in what they deem to be an enterprise Bill? Amendment 130 includes the billing authority in the appeals process, which seems to be a sensible suggestion.

New clause 29 makes provision for an alternative dispute resolution procedure to cover the work of the valuation office. Does the Minister agree that this is a reasonable proposal? Has any progress been made on the issue since it was raised in the other place, where there was some discussion about an alternative dispute resolution procedure? If the Government are still arguing that existing powers already provide for matters to be refereed for arbitration and that the addition of more processes would complicate and slow down the system, will the Minister agree to a review involving key stakeholders a year or two after implementation, with a view towards full ombudsman status if there are still problems around dispute resolution?

New clause 30 is about plant and machinery that, in this instance, is required for health and safety or environmental reasons. In the Lords Baroness Neville-Rolfe said that the Government were conducting a review of business rates, as we discussed earlier, including the rating of plant and machinery and the roles of reliefs and exemptions. She said that the business rates review was to report by the end of last year. With reference to what we said earlier, will the Minister confirm that the review has concluded and is on the Chancellor’s desk? Will she also tell the Committee whether the review will cover our proposal in the new clause, namely plant and machinery specifically required for health and safety or environmental reasons?

[Anna Soubry]

I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman will press the amendment to a vote. Although he is right that there is nothing wrong in tabling amendments in order to probe and see whether there areas where we agree, there is a real danger that these amendments would undermine the new appeals process by removing features: for example, the power to charge a fee for appeals, the flexibility for timescales to be determined as the new system beds in and the ability to respond quickly to address performance issues.

I am helpfully assisted, as ever, by my hon. Friend the Member for Great Yarmouth, who is also the Minister in the Department for Communities and Local Government, who makes a clear point about why we are so firm in our desire to make these reforms in relation to charging. It is to ensure that people are dissuaded from making spurious claims and that the whole appeal system concentrates on genuine appeals that must be heard. Unfortunately, there is evidence that the system is effectively being somewhat abused. It is also terribly important to add that we have consulted on proposals and discussed them with business groups, and that we continue to take a collaborative approach as we draw up the draft regulations, on which we will consult.

[Kevin Brennan]

I think that we all accept that we must reduce the number of appeals within the system, but is it not the case—this was the point behind some of our previous amendments—that the current system almost compels people to appeal due to the lack of information available to businesses? In charging fees before reforming that aspect of the system, the Government might be accused of putting the cart before the horse.

[Anna Soubry]

The danger, as the evidence suggests, is that businesses will just give it a punt. They will be encouraged by people out there saying, “We can reduce your bills if you let us appeal,” and will think, “I’ve got nothing to lose by doing this, so I’ll have a go.” That is one reason why the system at the moment is indisputably clogged up. I can understand why businesses will say that, but it is not the right way to approach any appeal, in whatever field.

Our other concern about amendment 101 is that it will interfere wrongly with the independence of the judicial body. The amendments will introduce unnecessary and unwanted complications through an alternative dispute resolution mechanism, greater involvement of billing authorities and inappropriate sharing of sensitive ratepayer information, and will pre-empt the outcome of the business rates review by addressing unrelated issues in appeals.

In summary, we have struck the right balance. We are making the necessary reforms, and part of that is ensuring that the appeals that go forward have some substance. The changes will help address that. For those reasons, I oppose the amendments.

[Kevin Brennan]

I thank the Minister for her response. She is right that we are probing the Government’s thinking in our amendments. Not only is that appropriate, it is our duty as Her Majesty’s loyal Opposition. It is our duty to probe forensically and in detail, and to press her and the Government if necessary, because that is how we make better law.

The Minister rather dismissed amendment 101. I remind her that the amendment simply says that the valuation office should perform according to performance standards, which I had thought would receive a better response from her. She might have said that there is a better way to achieve performance standards, rather than simply dismissing the idea. Our amendment would hold the valuation office—a public body that determines people’s taxation—to better standards for the time that it takes to respond to appeals. It would set a time limit that is not inflexible and that could be varied if there were reasonable grounds for doing so, yet she chose not to respond to the reasonable points made in our amendment.

The Minister almost suggested that the amendment simply seeks to add bureaucratic burdens to the system. It does not. It seeks to bring fairness into the system, rebalancing it away from faceless bureaucrats determining people’s taxation on the grounds of information that businesses know nothing about and back towards businesses, which are not simply composed of feckless individuals who appeal against their taxation on a whimsical basis but are struggling to get by and face significant tax bills, with no idea how they have been determined. To dismiss it, as the Minister for Housing and Planning did in reported speech via the Minister, as simply being a process by which they have a punt is very unfair to many of those businesses, which are trying to understand whether the tax determination that they face is based on real evidence—evidence to which they have no access.

--- Later in debate ---

[Anna Soubry]

The Industrial Development Act 1982 is 30 years old, and the Government are updating it to reflect economic developments. The clause amends the threshold before which a parliamentary resolution is needed to authorise financial support under section 8 of the 1982 Act. It increases the threshold from £10 million to £30 million, which is a reflection of inflation. A resolution of the House of Commons would still be required for projects over £30 million. It is a technical change, which will result in more efficient procedures to fund section 8 projects worth under £30 million. This would have removed the need for a resolution, for example, in 2013, when support for the start-up loan scheme was increased from £10 million to £15.5 million. I am not saying that that is a small amount of money—of course it is not—but it is in Government terms. It is simply a reflection of the fact that the provision of £10 million was made all those years ago and here we are in this day and age, when inflation has taken that threshold to £30 million. We say that this is a reasonable thing to do and does not take away power from Parliament that it already has.

[Kevin Brennan]

I thank the Minister for that explanation. It makes sense to update the limit after such a lengthy period and on that basis we do not intend to divide the Committee on clause stand part.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 27 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 28

Grants etc towards electronic communications services and networks

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[Kevin Brennan]

I should say from the outset that we also support this clause, but we would like clarification on how, and how often, the Minister expects these powers to be used. I would like to discuss that before we give the clause a fair sending-off. Ensuring adequate infrastructure provision is obviously a very important role of Government. To be slightly controversial—though it is not controversial with Opposition Members—this Government and its coalition predecessors do not have a good record when it comes to infrastructure in general and digital or communications infrastructure in particular. As this week’s leader in The Economist makes clear, investment in infrastructure is vital to stimulate the long-term health of the economy.

It might look as though this clause represents a “get out of jail free” card for Ministers as regards communications infrastructure. This week a businessman in the north-east told the North East chamber of commerce that he can see his house, with its 50 megabit connection, from his office window; but he has to go home to send important work emails because the business park he works in does not have decent enough broadband.

Ministers have handed hundreds of millions of pounds to BT to roll out what a well-functioning market would potentially have delivered anyway, leaving harder-to-reach communities behind. The result is that we have a superfast broadband roll-out programme that is fragmented and monopolistic and that will be bad for consumer choice, bad for the taxpayer, bad for competition and bad for investment. The Government seem to have realised this and triggered their own Back Benchers, in a classic move, to clamour for the break-up of BT after the Government handed it the monopoly in their bungled procurement programme. Will the Minister assure the Committee that they have learnt lessons from these mistakes about broadband? Are the powers contained in the clause just for Ministers to cover over their own record on broadband roll-out, or will they fit into some kind of strategy and long-term vision for communications infrastructure? Broadband Delivery UK and Ofcom have no plans for broadband roll-out to business parks, meaning that many are being left behind as the Government’s superslow broadband roll-out creeps out to residential areas. Will the powers in the clause be used to address what is becoming an increasing problem for firms based in business parks, and what else are the Government planning to do to sort that out?

We have also tabled new clauses that might be debated on Thursday. I hope that between now and then, Ministers will take a good look at them. If they are serious about tackling the issue, I hope that they will support the clauses when we come to discuss them.

[Anna Soubry]

If I may, I will speak specifically to the clause. If we were to stray into discussion of the successes—there have been many—of the Government’s programme to roll out superfast broadband and generally improve access for individuals at home and businesses in a digital age, we could be here for the rest of the morning. We do not mind debating such things, but this is neither the time nor the place to do so; a number of hon. Members, particularly on the Government Benches, might want to make all sorts of contributions to that debate based on their experience and that of their constituents.

We know that there are concerns and that much more needs to be done and will be done. Clause 28 is essentially one of the pieces of the jigsaw. The Industrial Development Act 1982, to which I have referred, is now more than 30 years old, and some parts need updating.

--- Later in debate ---

[Anna Soubry]

That is excellent news. I am sure that all of us will ensure that it is communicated all the way down to our local authorities.

[Kevin Brennan]

We are enjoying this subject; I think the Minister made a further policy announcement in saying that in future, the Government intended to make it a requirement of planning applications—

[Anna Soubry]

No. It is my own opinion.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kevin Brennan]

I am sorry; I thought that when Ministers spoke in this place, they spoke on behalf of the Government. Is it the Government’s intention, given what the Minister said earlier, to make broadband part of a planning application? Can she clarify that for the Committee?

[Anna Soubry]

The hon. Gentleman has a remarkable ability to take what I would have thought was the most innocuous of statements and turn it into some sort of great Government policy announcement. He does not understand localism. He thinks that all power must vest here in Parliament, centrally in Whitehall, but one of the great joys of our Government is that we believe in devolving power down to local authorities. All I was saying was that as far as I know, there is nothing to prevent a local authority from making such a condition, whatever the development might be. That is the joy of localism: planning officers can look at an application and say, “Let’s make it a condition of this planning application that you provide access to superfast broadband.”

What is not to like about that? We do not need the heavy hand of Government for that to happen. Local authorities are to be wildly encouraged to use common sense so that they deliver to householders and businesses the tools that they need in a modern age. That is what I am saying, and I do not think that there is anything contentious about it. I did warn you, Sir David, that if we got into this debate we would be here all day.

[Kevin Brennan]

But we are going to be here all day.

[Anna Soubry]

But we are not going to be stuck on this clause all day. This clause is technical and will enable financial assistance to be granted to improve electronic communication networks and services. The power will not and should not be used to displace investment by industry.

Communications infrastructure investment, as we know, continues to grow. I am happy to put it on the record that I have not enjoyed the best of experiences with BT. I was due to meet BT representatives one day, and on that very day BT decided to disconnect my constituency telephone. You couldn’t make it up.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kevin Brennan]

The Government spokesperson in the other place said that the clause

“is an administrative measure to enable the Shareholder Executive’s ongoing work to continue after its functions transition to UKGI and ensures that a specific funding power is in place”.—[Official Report, House of Lords, 30 November 2015; Vol. 767, c. 937.]

A number of questions were raised in the Lords, and I want to give the Minister an opportunity to update the Committee on some of those issues. Will she give us some idea about the combined costs of UK Government Investments and whether there are cost savings as a result of merging the two entities under the clause? Will she give us any information about the status of civil servants if they are recruited to the new body? Will they become agency employees or secondees to the new organisation?

Will all the employees in every part of UKGI be subject to the proposed public sector exit payments that come later in the Bill? I assume that the restrictions under those public sector payments may well apply to the new employees of UKGI, but it would be helpful if the Minister confirmed that. Will guaranteed bonuses be offered to the staff? For higher earners in Government, that is the traditional method of incentive and is currently outside the public sector exit payments provision.

If the permanent secretary to the Treasury is on the board of the new body, how will that role be squared with their role as an accounting officer, given that they will have duties to the company under company law? Is there a conflict of interest, and what will the relationship to Ministers be?

On improving the service to customer departments, what are the current identified weaknesses and how will these arrangements help to improve that? How are the Government going to evaluate the new body’s performance in relation to improving the service to its customer departments? What independent body will be charged with evaluating whether it has provided a better service to those customer departments?

I would also be interested to know whether this arrangement has any implications—this is reasonably topical at the moment, given our recent discussions—relating to the requirements of state aid rules and Brussels? Do we need to be aware of any particular interplay here? What would the role of UKGI be in relation to the Department of Energy and Climate Change? That Department is responsible for environmental improvements, so how will it relate to UK Government Investments Limited? Do the Government have any intentions about—or have they given any thought to or had any discussions on—the possible privatisation of the company at some future date? Is that part of the Government’s thinking in setting up the body under the Act? I look forward to the Minister’s response.

[Anna Soubry]

I may not be able to answer all the questions that the hon. Gentleman has asked, but I assure you, Sir David, that I will write to him with any answers that I am not able to give today.

Clause 29 ensures that UK Government Investments Limited can carry out its important work, which is managing taxpayer stakes in businesses, running corporate and financial asset sales and providing corporate finance advice across government. The creation of UKGI will bring together the Shareholder Executive from the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills and UK Financial Investments Limited from the Treasury into a single company. I pay tribute to all the members of ShEx whom I have met. It has been a pleasure to work with them. I value the advice they have given me; I know I speak for all Ministers who have come into contact with them. I do not know United Kingdom Financial Investments Limited as well, but I know the Shareholder Executive and it has served me extremely well. I just wanted to record that.

This coming together with respect to Government investments—I do not know what one would actually call it, as it would not be a company; it is indeed a body—will provide corporate finance services across Government. The decision to establish it as an arm’s length company will provide it with additional independence and a clear corporate governance structure. Again, it needs to be stressed that ShEx has a level of independence that means that one trusts the advice given.

ShEx operators will transfer out of BIS to UKGI, and ShEx will be rebranded as UKGI. It will continue to offer impartial advice directly to the Secretary of State and to the permanent secretary of the Department. That point is worth mentioning: the advice is given not just to Ministers but to the permanent secretary and civil servants throughout the Department.

From 1 April, UKFI will become a subsidiary company of UKGI, continuing to operate as it currently does until, in time, it fully merges with UKGI. The Chancellor will be the Minister responsible for the company and will bring together expertise from the private sector with that of civil servants. The Government intend that UKGI will be directly funded by its parent Department, HM Treasury. That will enable ongoing ShEx work to continue after it becomes part of UKGI.

UKGI’s arm’s length status as a company means that it cannot be directly funded on a continuing basis as an element of administrative expenditure without a specific power. The clause is in line with HM Treasury’s manual, “Managing public money”, which requires specific statutory authority for significant items of ongoing Government expenditure. Given that the activity and staffing levels of ShEx and UKFI will continue in UKGI, costs for the company are not expected to depart greatly from the current costs, which are about £14 million combined. Of course that may vary, depending on the work that UKGI is asked to perform.

I am confident that I have not answered all the questions, and I apologise for that, but I will write with all the answers.

[Kevin Brennan]

I thank the Minister, and I appreciate that I asked a lot of questions. I am perfectly content for her to provide us with the answers to all of the unanswered ones via correspondence. I think it is right that the body should be part of the Treasury and it is right to legislate through the clause to give it authority. We will support the clause on that basis.

It would be useful if the Minister answered one of my questions if she can, although if she cannot I accept that. Quite soon we will discuss the UK Green Investment Bank, a Government-created company that has been put out to privatisation. My question is whether there is any intention—I do not think there should be—

[Anna Soubry]

I have been helpfully advised. I did not think there were any plans for privatisation, and I am more than happy to confirm that. Perhaps I can also add that there are no guaranteed bonuses—they are all performance-based. Any secondments would be on the same terms as the Home Department.

[Kevin Brennan]

Through that intervention the Minister has helpfully shortened the letter that she will have to write to the Committee. With her assurance on the privatisation question, I am happy, at this point, with the promise of correspondence from the Minister, to allow clause stand part to proceed without any intervention on our part.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 29 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 30

Disposal of Crown’s shares in UK Green Investment Bank company

--- Later in debate ---

[Anna Soubry]

The hon. Member for Livingston—

[Kevin Brennan]

Livingston, I presume.

[Anna Soubry]

Behave!

The hon. Lady asked whether the Government would guarantee that the bank will keep its headquarters in Edinburgh. GIB management have made it perfectly clear that Edinburgh is the best place for the bank to do business and why would they not say that, because Edinburgh is indeed a fabulous city in which to do business. Lord Smith, who is the chair of the bank—I will refer to him in our next debate—wrote to the Scottish Government, John Swinney in particular, to confirm his personal commitment as chairman of the Green Investment Bank to Edinburgh. We cannot of course force the bank to remain in Edinburgh, but I can see no good reason why on earth its management would not want to stay there.

The hon. Member for Wakefield asked whether we would publish the market testing. No, we will not. It is commercially confidential, as might be imagined, so that is perfectly normal. By the way, I congratulated the hon. Lady last week on her election—I add that in case anyone thought I was being churlish for not mentioning it.

The right hon. Member for Don Valley asked whether the Government would retain a minority stake in the bank. We intend to sell a majority. It is crucial that the Green Investment Bank is classified as being in the private sector—that is absolutely what we want. We may retain a stake, but at this stage we cannot commit to that. When we debate the next clause I will explain why and what we are seeking to do—in essence, to protect the green credentials, as so many hon. Members agree that we should.

To turn specifically to the amendment, once GIB is sold it will be subject to normal company law, under which a company of the size of the Green Investment Bank—GIB is a horrible term—that is not quoted and listed on the stock exchange is required to include aggregate information on total remuneration and specific information on the highest-paid director. Those are the minimum requirements—please note “minimum”.

The Green Investment Bank is currently required to report to higher standards, which is right, because it is entirely publicly owned. It currently reports the details included in the amendment and it may choose to continue to do so once it is in private ownership. I cannot see any reason why it would want to move away from its established principles.

When the Green Investment Bank is privatised the Government will not control its remuneration policy. We cannot control key aspects of corporate policy, such as remuneration, in a private company, and rightly so. There is no reason why the privatised Green Investment Bank should be singled out by the Secretary of State to report on its remuneration to Parliament, especially if it is not spending public money. If the Government do not hold any share in the Green Investment Bank, we would have no power to compel it to provide the amendment’s level of information if it chose not to do so.

[Anna Soubry]

The thing is that we do have requirements for private companies, and I have explained what they are, but we cannot make the Green Investment Bank do anything more unless it chooses to lead the way. There are many companies, for example, that will only deal with Fairtrade products; many companies choose to do things in a certain way and can in many respects, it can be said, change the culture. I am firmly of the view that this amendment is not necessary and should be resisted.

[Kevin Brennan]

Will the right hon. Lady give way?

[Anna Soubry]

Quickly, yes.

[Kevin Brennan]

It saves time if the right hon. Lady gives way, because, as she knows, under Committee rules we can make further speeches if necessary. Is it not the case, following privatisation, that the Government intend to retain the ability to invest in the bank? Is it not still the Government’s intention to hold a stake in the bank following privatisation? Therefore, why is it inappropriate for the Government to have influence over remuneration policy?

[Anna Soubry]

I thought I had made it clear that we have not decided whether we will retain a stake. We do not know whether we will retain a stake at this moment. When it is privatised there is no reason why it should be subject to laws that are different from those that other companies are subject to. When we come to our second debate, which I think is the real bone of contention, or the cause of concern, I will explain what the Government are doing and, most importantly, what the Green Investment Bank’s chair has said about keeping its green credentials.

--- Later in debate ---

[Anna Soubry]

With respect to the right hon. Lady, that is not what her amendment is about. She is now talking about what is to come in the next debate. Clause 30 seeks to put something on to this business once it has been sold into the private sector. It is important that we remember that when it is sold is when taxpayers will get their money back. Having got their money back, that will be the end of their involvement in it, save for the bank, which we created, continuing to have its green credentials, as I will describe when we reach the relevant clause.

The amendment is unnecessary. When the bank is privatised, we will not control its remuneration policy, and rightly so. If the Government retained a minority stake, we could not control remuneration policy because it would be wrong of us or Parliament to seek to control the decisions that are properly for the board of the company and its shareholders to make. The bank will not be treated differently, nor should it be. As I said, the investment made on the behalf of the taxpayer will have been paid back and the bank will then be free to continue its great work, unconstrained by anything that Government might put on it. As a shareholder, however, we can still express views and agree with other shareholders as to the level of reporting that would be appropriate on this and other issues. I therefore suggest that the amendment might look good on paper, but is absolutely not the right thing to do in reality when we privatise 0the Green Investment Bank.

[Kevin Brennan]

Before my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield responds to the debate, I want to reply to some of what the Minister said. It was interesting to hear the Minister accuse the Opposition of not being prepared to trust business. She is asking us to trust investment bankers. The Minister proposes that we should abrogate our responsibility and give way on our social and environmental consciences to the man from Deutsche Bank. I am afraid that that will not happen.

[Anna Soubry]

Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that the clause should apply to all banks? If he is, why did he not do that during the 13 years that his party was in power?

[Kevin Brennan]

My view, which I have made clear previously and with which many people agree, is that we should have done more to regulate the City’s activities during our years in power. Having said that, some of the siren voices in our ear screaming that we should not do so came from Conservative Front and Back Benchers, who were saying that regulation was unnecessary and would spoil the UK’s position as a global financial centre. The very voices that were shouting at the previous Government not to do it were those on the Conservative Front Benches.

It seems pretty rich, in all senses of the word, for a Department that is led by a former investment banker, who was earning £3 million a year from a bank that was fined £600 million by the European Union, to lecture the Opposition on trusting investment bankers when the Green Investment Bank is privatised. The genuine concern is that it may end up being a Chinese-owned investment bank. That is the pathway the Government might be setting us on with this privatisation proposal.

[Anna Soubry]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Kevin Brennan]

I will in a second. I want to make it clear—

[Anna Soubry]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Kevin Brennan]

As I have already said no, I will in a moment, if the Minister will allow me to finish my point. We believe it is absolutely essential that we do not miss this legislative opportunity to make it clear that we want the Green Investment Bank, if it is to be privatised, not to turn into just another investment bank—a bank that is going to be investing in non-environmental projects, for example.

[Anna Soubry]

Is the hon. Gentleman not giving way?

[Kevin Brennan]

I have already indicated that I will give way. The Minister should understand that the conventions of the House mean that I will do so when I have finished my point, and that any number of sedentary interjections from her will not stop me from finishing my point before I do her the courtesy of giving way, which is entirely my choice, as you will confirm, Sir David. I am happy to give way to the Minister.

[Anna Soubry]

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is not trying to suggest that the Secretary of State for business is in any way untrustworthy.

[Kevin Brennan]

I certainly am not doing so. I am saying that the organisation that the right hon. Gentleman previously worked for was fined £600 million by the European Union for its dodgy dealings.

[Anna Soubry]

What has that got to do with this?

[Kevin Brennan]

That was not the Secretary of State’s responsibility, but I am pointing out that being lectured by Government Members on trusting investment bankers might occasionally provoke a response from us. If the hon. Lady does not like that, that is tough.

My right hon. and hon. Friends have made extremely important points about what could happen following privatisation unless better assurances are given by the Government. To complacently say that after privatisation the Government—who, despite what the Minister said, will probably retain a stake in this bank and will almost certainly have some part to play in providing finance to the bank for its green investments—should have no influence over the remuneration of the directors of the bank seems to be a complete abdication of responsibility. I encourage my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield, should she choose to do so, to press the amendment to a vote.

[Mary Creagh]

This has been a lively debate, which is always a good thing. I take issue with some of what the Minister said. First, we have just had our half-term recess, so Committee Members may have seen the excellent, Oscar-nominated film “The Big Short”, but if any have not seen it, I recommend that they do so as soon as possible to see exactly what was happening in the banking industry in 2007.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kevin Brennan]

So much for the Secretary of State’s fat cats after that debate. This stand part debate is probably a good way for us to move towards our lunch-time break—or should I say our break for prime time in the House, to be more accurate? We will probably come to the meat of this part of the Bill when we discuss clause 32, but I would be grateful if the Minister explained the purpose of clause 31 and why it is necessary that it stands part of the Bill. That might run us nicely towards that prime-time break.

[Anna Soubry]

As I rise, I am helpfully provided with those very reasons. The clause is a transitional provision relating to the clause 30 provisions on the Green Investment Bank that requires the Government to report to Parliament with details of a proposed sale of the bank before that clause, which repeals and amends parts of the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Act 2013, can come into force. The report must include details of the type of sale that the Government intend to undertake, the expected timescale and the objectives to be achieved. That will ensure that Parliament is kept informed and demonstrates that we will bring the repeal into force only at the appropriate stage in a transaction process. Like the report in clause 30, this report must also be sent to devolved Ministers. That, in short, is the reasoning behind the clause, which I commend to the Committee.

Enterprise Bill [ Lords ] (Sixth sitting)

Debate between Anna Soubry and Kevin Brennan

Tuesday 23rd February 2016 Public Bill Committees

[The Minister for Small Business, Industry and Enterprise (Anna Soubry)]

Good afternoon, Ms Buck; it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. I shall explain why this clause should not stand part of the Bill. The clause was inserted by the Lords, and I can understand why it was felt that that was the right thing to do. There is a general agreement that the Green Investment Bank—there is no debate about this—has been extremely successful. It is beginning to return some money and has also made it very clear to the market that it is possible to invest in excellent green projects and get a return.

The time has now come for us to sell the Green Investment Bank, so getting back the money that has been invested by the taxpayer and, most importantly, ensuring that it goes into the private sector not just for the sake of it, but so that it can continue to do its excellent work and, crucially, be free to raise equity.

We have always said that the Green Investment Bank will still be green after privatisation. Green investment is what it does, and it is difficult, frankly, to believe that anybody would want to buy it or have a share in it unless they subscribed to its fundamental core business, which is to invest in green projects. We have to be realistic: why would anybody buy it if they wanted to turn it into some other bank?

We also said that the only reason we had to repeal the green protections from existing legislation was to allow the Green Investment Bank to be off the Government’s balance sheet post-sale. In other words, we have to do this—repeal the green protections—or it will still, in blunt terms, be on the Government’s books. However, if we repeal them, it will be off the books and in the marketplace and able to trade in the way that it has been doing.

However, because we understand the concerns of hon. Members and noble lords in the other place—indeed, many of us share those concerns—we have found a device to protect the Green Investment Bank’s green purposes but without the need for legislation. In other words, to use a phrase that has been used quite a lot so far this week, we are having our cake and eating it.

The Green Investment Bank will implement a special share to be held by an independent company—that is, independent of the Government, Parliament and the Green Investment Bank itself. The special shareholder, as it will be called, will have the right to approve or reject changes to the Green Investment Bank’s green purposes if such a change is ever proposed. Work is under way now by the Green Investment Bank to put that in place and it will be implemented at the point of any sale. We will not repeal the current statutory protections until that point. In other words, there will be no gap in protection.

To provide further assurances to hon. Members that we will do this, the Secretary of State said on Second Reading that the special share will be put in place, and the chairman of the Green Investment Bank, Lord Smith, wrote to Lord Teverson on 5 February to give him that assurance. Baroness Neville-Rolfe, who is a Minister in Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, also wrote to Lord Teverson on 17 February saying the same. On that basis, we believe that we do not need green protections in legislation.

[Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)]

Were that proposal to be implemented, it would in effect do the same as is being proposed in clause 32, which still remains part of the Bill at the moment. The key question, however, is not that, but whether that will satisfy the Office for National Statistics in relation to whether the Green Investment Bank will be treated as being on or off the books, as that seems to be the Government’s primary concern. What guarantee can the Minister give about that?

[Anna Soubry]

The best thing that I can say and do is this. I am very grateful because I have copies not just of the letter from Baroness Neville-Rolfe, but of the letter from Lord Smith who, as we all know, is the chairman of the Green Investment Bank. He wrote to Lord Teverson of Tregony. I am more than happy to share the letter in whichever way is best, whether by sending a copy to all members of the Committee or even by putting it in the Library. Although, actually, it is not my letter to put in the Library, I am more than happy—and I know that the noble Lord is more than happy—for it to be shared with everyone. I will not read it all because it is rather long and, interestingly, deals with a number of matters, but I want to put his words on the record. He wrote:

“In this letter I would like to set out the steps GIB plans to take to deliver the full spirit and intent of the Lords’ amendment. The only substantive difference between this plan and the Lords’ amendment is that the establishment of a special share would not be required by statute. Requiring the special share by statute is a key indicator of public control preventing the company’s re-classification to the private sector. GIB instead will create a special share in the bank on a non-legislative basis, to enable the company’s re-classification to the private sector. This is essential to give GIB the freedom to borrow without this impacting on public sector net debt and more importantly to allow GIB to raise equity. GIB intends to have in place a clear process detailing how a special share will be created and will set out that process, and show our progress in delivering it, before the Enterprise Bill returns to the Lords. It is my intention to share our progress as transparently as we can, as a means of building confidence that the special share can be put in place without the requirement to do so in law. I would also note that the current statutory protections over the green purposes will remain in place until the point that the special share is implemented. There will be no gap.”

Now, we all want the Green Investment Bank to continue its investments in the green sector, but I hope that everybody in the Committee will accept the noble Lord’s words about exactly what he is now undertaking. As he says, we should protect the special green background of the bank—the whole thrust of it. He is already doing that to protect its special workings. There will be no gap, and it will therefore continue as it is sold and, no doubt, in perpetuity.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kevin Brennan]

I have a copy of the letter, as Lord Smith also sent it to Lord Mendelsohn on our Front Bench and he was also involved in the amendment. Will the Minister confirm, however, that the letter contains no indication of the view of the Office for National Statistics about using this mechanism, rather than the mechanism currently in clause 32? As far as I can see, the letter contains no reference to the ONS directly approving this mechanism.

[Anna Soubry]

I undertake to find Lord Smith, and I will ask him for his views. In the meantime, I can tell the hon. Gentleman that we believe that the proposal will satisfy the ONS. As he can imagine, my officials have engaged with the ONS for some considerable time and have continued to do so specifically about this proposal from the Green Investment Bank. We are satisfied that it will allow the Green Investment Bank to move to the private sector and to protect its green objectives.

Baroness Neville-Rolfe, in her letter to Lord Teverson, who moved the amendment in the other place—it matters not that he is not of the political persuasion of anyone on this Committee—said:

“I would like to reiterate the commitment that the Secretary of State made in the House of Commons during Second Reading of the Enterprise Bill on 2 February, that a special share will be created in GIB with the power to protect the green purposes.”

I therefore seek to persuade the Committee that there is no need for this clause, notwithstanding the fact that the noble lords, with great respect to them, inserted it in the Bill after a debate. Given that the Green Investment Bank has come up with this device—I do not mean that in a bad way; quite the contrary—I seek to persuade the Committee that the rightful concerns about the future of the Green Investment Bank’s green objectives are now properly secured for a very, very long time. On that basis, I will ask the Committee to agree that clause 32 should no longer stand part of the Bill.

[Kevin Brennan]

It is nice to see you again in charge of our proceedings, Ms Buck. We come to an unusual role reversal in that the Minister is arguing that a clause should not stand part of the Bill, and we are arguing that it should. In fact, she is so keen that clause 32 should not stand part of the Bill that she tabled amendment 30, which was not selected, to delete it. The amendment was not selected because, in essence, it was otiose, as the correct way to get rid of a clause is to vote against it following a stand-part debate, which is what she now proposes. I interpret the tabling of the amendment as a kindly way to indicate the Government’s position to the Opposition, rather than any incompetence on her part, although she wrote to my hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Ms Eagle), the shadow Secretary of State, following Second Reading to indicate that she wanted to get rid of the clause. As the Minister has rightly indicated, the Secretary of State gave such an indication on Second Reading.

The Minister wants to get rid of the clause because the Green Investment Bank would remain on the Government’s books after privatisation, according to the Office for National Statistics, if there was any suggestion of statutory control of its purpose. Of course, there is currently statutory control of the bank’s purpose. The first point one might raise is whether the Government should allow that ONS ruling to drive policy in this area. It seems pretty obvious that they should not allow the ruling to drive policy so powerfully, but they are so obsessed with being able to say certain things about public debt that they are unwilling to allow a technical issue—that is what this is—that does not truly reflect problematic public debt to spoil their narrative on public finances. That is driving their obsession with removing statutory protection for the Green Investment Bank’s purposes. Ironically, that does not always happen. The Treasury is all too ready to allow UK borrowing to be part of the financing of the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank. The Treasury was not worried at all that public debt will be part of the financing of that bank, yet it is extremely reluctant to allow the same for our own Green Investment Bank.

The Green Investment Bank is a flagship Government policy, and it is a genuinely innovative policy in the public sector. I praise the coalition Government for introducing it, as I have in previous debates. I should point out that it was initially conceived during the previous Labour Government. It would be a terrible shame if we did not acknowledge that; I am sure that no one in the Committee would like me to leave out anything of factual importance for the historical record. It would be a terrible shame if the Government were not willing to do for our own Green Investment Bank what they were willing to do, and have done, for the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank. Will the Minister tell the Committee why the Government were prepared to do that for the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank but not for the Green Investment Bank?

--- Later in debate ---

[Anna Soubry]

I am more than happy to circulate the letter, but the point remains that this is not about process, but substance. I started off by saying—I am happy to repeat it—that we understand hon. Members’ concerns. We have found a device to protect GIB’s green purposes. GIB will implement a special share, to be held by a company independent of the Government, Parliament and GIB itself. The special shareholder will have the right to approve—and so it goes on. I referred to letters, and I read out those letters, though I did not have to do so.

The simple truth is that Opposition Members perhaps now realise that we have grabbed hold of the intention of the noble lord’s amendment that was successfully moved in the other place. Nobody should have a problem with that. As I said from the outset, we have found a device to implement it without passing legislation, to secure the objectives of the Green Investment Bank. Nobody can have any complaint. On that basis, I hope that the Committee will vote to reject the noble lord’s amendment and that the clause does not stand part of the Bill.

[Kevin Brennan]

I say gently to the Minister that we are not discussing a matter of arid process.

[Anna Soubry]

Why didn’t you share the letter?

[Kevin Brennan]

The Minister asks me from a sedentary position why I did not share the letter, yet she is the person whose legislation this is. She is the person who has the panoply of a Bill team of civil servants supporting her in her work. I have told the Committee that I am in possession of a letter to Lord Mendelsohn, which I presume is identical to the letter on which she relies in praying in aid her policy. I have a copy of a similar letter among my papers, which I happened to procure. If she wants to pray mainly in aid a document to support her position as a Minister in Committee, at the minimum, it is a simple courtesy to share that document with all Committee members in advance. She knows that to be true.

All manner of huffing, puffing and bluster will not take away the fact that that is the sort of courtesy from Ministers—whatever political party they come from—that is part of this House’s procedure and has been for a very long time. Rather than trying to defend her position, she should go away and think about what needs to be done, as a Front Bencher, in relation to making arguments and providing documentation to the Committee, as the normal courtesies require.

Apparently, we are going to get the letter circulated to hon. Members at some point, but not until after we have disposed of the very clause that she is praying that letter in aid of, so that she can expunge it from the Bill. That is not good enough. It is a slipshod approach to parliamentary scrutiny, so the Government must improve how they handle such matters in Committee.

--- Later in debate ---

[Anna Soubry]

I did not respond to that because I did not think it was particularly relevant, but I am happy to tell the hon. Gentleman that that is an international bank and, because of that, we are not aware of any legislation over it that comes from this country. I therefore do not think he can make that comparison.

[Kevin Brennan]

Frankly, sometimes the Minister seems to want to chair the Committee as well as be the Minister on it so that she can decide what is relevant, what is in scope and what is not in scope. The Chair is perfectly qualified to tell us what is in scope when we discuss clauses and amendments to the Bill and I am sure that, if we were out of scope, Ms Buck would be quick enough to tell us. That is not for the Minister to decide. As I have said before, the Government have their way and the Opposition have their say and it is her minimum responsibility to make a good attempt to answer questions that are put to her about the Bill. She really should respond to such inquiries in a more appropriate fashion.

The Minister did not answer that question in the course of the debate and she has not explained fundamentally what the problem is with the Green Investment Bank being on the books. She gives the impression that it cannot be privatised without getting rid of the statutory requirement for the bank to have green purposes to its investment, but it can be. The Government could privatise the bank and hold not a single share in it, it could be completely in the private sector, with every intent and purpose except one: the technical ruling by statisticians in the Office for National Statistics —I am not sure whether boffins is the right term, so I will call them statisticians. I will not call them boffins, as long as she agrees not to call hard-working public sector and private sector workers “fat cats”. The bank could be in the private sector completely, the Government could hold no stake in the bank whatever—to all intents and purposes it would be a private sector company—but it could retain, perfectly legally, a statutory obligation to invest in green projects.

--- Later in debate ---

[Anna Soubry]

I realise that it is a bit embarrassing that the hon. Gentleman has a letter he has not shared with his colleagues, but in any event, it does not matter. The most important thing is that we are going to share it. I assure him—he need have no fear—that if there are any such letters that support a good argument, I will be more than happy to share them with everybody on the Committee. It is not a problem.

[Kevin Brennan]

I will interpret that in an extremely generous way and take it that the Minister is promising not to rely in future on a letter in this way without sharing it with the Committee, as per the usual conventions and normal courtesies of the House.

I return to the Government’s desire to remove the clause from the Bill. I am not satisfied—I sense, looking around me, that my right hon. and hon. Friends are not satisfied either—that that is the right thing to do at this stage. Not least because of the issue around the letter, we should at the very least be given time to cogitate further between now and Report on the protections in the clause. The Minister is confident on this; she always displays confidence, so there is nothing unusual about that, but it is still not a guarantee.

I cannot say in all honesty that I am convinced the special share proposal—interesting though it is; I am certainly not ruling it out—provides a guarantee that the green purposes of the bank will be protected, without a clear indication from the Office for National Statistics, rather than the coded message the Minister has given the Committee. On that basis, I will resist the removal of the clause from the Bill at this stage, so that we can consider it on Report. If Government Members choose to exercise their majority and the clause is removed from the Bill, despite the debate we have had, we will certainly want to consider that further on Report.

--- Later in debate ---

[Anna Soubry]

I move that the clause does not stand part of the Bill.

[Kevin Brennan]

On a point of order, Ms Buck. The Question was that the clause stand part of the Bill. The Committee voted that the clause should stand part of the Bill. The Minister cannot then move that the clause should not stand part of the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kevin Brennan]

I do not believe the provision is retrospective—retrospective legislation is rare in the direct sense—but it certainly affects existing agreements and undermines previous agreements that the Government made and said were fair and would stand for a very long time. In the case of contractual obligations, the provision raises serious questions as to whether the Bill as it stands is legally sound. As well as the practicalities of the measure to include notice pay in the cap, there is also the impact on those who are too ill to work. Modelling by the National Association of Head Teachers shows that a headteacher who is compelled to leave work due to developing a physical condition and who is unable to work out their notice due to illness will be significantly worse off compared with an able-bodied head because of the proposed cap currently being drafted to include pay in lieu of notice. Does the provision to include notice pay and holiday pay comply with the provisions of the Equality Act 2010? What advice has the Minister had on that?

My next point relates to the way in which schools are run, because they are different from other organisations in relation to notice for obvious term-time reasons. The Government have committed to academise poorly performing schools. That can often include the removal of a headteacher from a school. How would that be possible under the provisions if that same headteacher decided to work out their notice, rather than leave straightaway? That is what anyone would do if their payment in lieu of notice was to be included in the exit payment. If a school is trying to make a fresh start under a new head, it will find it very difficult to remove the incumbent swiftly, because that person will seek to work out their notice rather than depart immediately. That is understandable, because who would act in a way that was financially disadvantageous to them in such circumstances?

The real problem is that notice periods for headteachers are often exceptionally long. If a headteacher is leaving just after Christmas, their period of notice might not technically run out until after the summer holidays in some cases. Schools and pupils could suffer under these plans if there were such delays. Has the Minister considered that? What is her response to that problem?

Amendment 105, on which I may well seek the Committee’s opinion, provides that regulations may exempt from the public sector exit payment cap those earning less than £27,000. Amendments 115, 105 and 106 offer protection for low to moderately paid public sector workers who have provided long service. I will not repeat the arguments made earlier, but the fact remains that excluding workers who earn less than £27,000 per year would protect workers earning the average wage of £26,400. A promise to protect those workers was made by the Government; that is the point.

[Anna Soubry]

indicated dissent.

[Kevin Brennan]

The Minister shakes her head, but the then Treasury Minister specifically made that promise. I will read the quote again:

“those earning less than £27,000 will be exempted to protect the very small number of low earning, long-serving public servants.”

I cannot imagine anything more emphatically clear being said by a Government Minister, so why has that exemption not been included in the Bill? Amendment 105 would provide that exemption. As such, unless the Minister can convince us otherwise, we should insist on the Government keeping their word by pressing the amendment to a Division.

Amendment 108 is about the waiver process. The Government’s consultation response made mention of a waiver process and said that the full council would

“take the decision whether to grant a waiver of the cap in cases involving Local Authorities and for local government bodies within their delegated powers”.

In the Lords, Baroness Donaghy said that despite the assurances made in the consultation response, there was no reference to that in the Bill. That is a crucial issue for local government and should be dealt with in the Bill, rather than through secondary legislation. The Government’s draft statutory instrument allowing a waiver if the full council agrees has been published. That does not give local government the certainty it needs if it is to continue the job of restructuring itself in the face of the huge cuts to it. We have already seen agreements dealing with pay and conditions that were drawn up in 2010 disregarded just six years later. There is a concern in local government that it is not being given the certainty on waivers that it expected to see in the Bill, and it would like to know why.

Which public authorities will be allowed to exercise a waiver, and which will not? If there are exemptions from the waiver, will the Minister explain her logic in deciding which public bodies should be exempted and which should be included? The Government have done much to try to remove schools from local authority control. Will the waiver apply to all schools in local authority control? Will waivers apply to academy schools? Will there be a level playing field between the two categories of taxpayer-funded schools, or will one be favoured more than the other?

The ability of a local authority or other public sector body to seek a waiver would concur with the Government’s professed desire for local democracy and localism in general. Will the Minister explain how she drew up the rules for including or excluding public bodies and her role in the monitoring of waivers?

--- Later in debate ---

[Anna Soubry]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. Another question that has been asked is why so much will be in secondary legislation. One reason why we are doing that is that it is genuinely a much better way to introduce something that will undoubtedly—I am not going to pretend otherwise—have its complications and nuances. It is important that we do not just introduce blanket rules, but have provisions to look at any cases that might or should be exempted.

Somebody asked a question—forgive me for not remembering who, but I think it might have been the hon. Member for Wakefield in an intervention—about the national health service, which, as she identified, has a cap of £160,000. This legislation will affect the existing cap, taking it down to £95,000.

I want to make some progress and deal with the amendments. Amendment 109 seeks to raise the cap to £145,000. I would argue that it is unclear whether the Opposition favour completely uncapped exit payments or a cap set at what could be over 10 times the maximum statutory redundancy. The Government have made it clear, however, that we want to put the figure at £95,000. We were very clear about that in our manifesto.

Amendment 105 seeks to impose a £27,000 earnings floor for the cap, but the cap will have no impact at all on the large majority of public sector workers. As I have said, it will affect only the top 5%. We are really struggling to find an example of any civil servant earning below £25,000, for example, who would be in any way affected by the cap. Those earning below £27,000 will not be caught and, in any event, we believe that this represents a generous package that many will be entitled to.

Amendments 106 and 115 would exclude those in long-term service. There may be some instances where individuals with very long-term service on more modest salaries could be affected by the cap, but as I have explained, the £95,000 represents a generous package compared with what is available to those on similar pay in the private sector. The majority of long-serving employees caught will be those with high or very high salaries.

Amendments 112, 116, 122 and 128 relate to annual revaluation. Amendments 112, 122 and 128 all seek to subject the cap to annual revaluation, while amendment 116 seeks to impose a minimum level of £95,000 for the cap. All those amendments fail to offer the flexibility that the clause provides for. The clause allows the Government to amend the level of the cap to take into account all prevailing circumstances, with the additional scrutiny of the affirmative procedure. Any form of fixed-term revaluation would just create an artificial and arbitrary mechanism. As any amendments to the cap require an affirmative procedure, the current mechanisms for changing the cap offer both flexibility and full parliamentary scrutiny.

Amendments 104 and 121 would exclude pension top-ups and payment in lieu of notice. We are not discussing retirement in the normal manner; we are discussing the additional top-ups linked to redundancy, funded by employers. As I mentioned previously, any earned pension that has been accrued by an individual is outside the cap. Again, it is really important that everybody appreciates that any sums of money paid by an employee into a pension pot of any description—anything accrued by them through their own money—is outside the cap. These top-ups linked to redundancy can greatly increase the value of pension payments above the level that has been earned through years of service. They often represent a substantial amount of an individual’s exit payments.

Payments in lieu of notice are also part of an exit payment and can be substantial for high earners—again, the emphasis really is on high earners—as some recent high-profile exits have shown. Excluding such payments would not just be unfair, but provide an obvious loophole to avoid the effect of the cap.

Amendments 108 and 124 relate to extending the waiver to local authorities and public authorities. Although we note and agree with the intentions of amendment 108 to give the full council of a local authority waiver power, I would argue that the amendment is unnecessary. Our indicative regulations, published on 3 November 2015, demonstrate that it is already our policy to give the full council of a local authority waiver power, and that will be articulated in the final regulations.

Amendment 124 seeks to grant all public sector authorities waiver powers. However, the potential inappropriate use of settlement agreements and exit payments more widely is precisely why the clause requires approval by a Minister of the Crown— rather than the employer—to relax the cap. Ministerial or full council approval means that the power will be exercised objectively with full accountability and will prevent circumvention and misuse.

For all those reasons, I very much hope that Committee members will take the view that the amendments add nothing and are not necessary, and that the Government have done the right thing by introducing the cap at £95,000. The reality is that in any event very few, if any, lower-paid workers will be affected if they are made redundant. It has to be said again that, compared with what is available in the private sector, an exit payment of £95,000 for someone who has been on low pay must be seen as generous.

[Kevin Brennan]

Let us make sure that that “very few, if any” is none. We have the opportunity to do that now. We could fulfil the Government’s objective and, if the Minister is right that no lower-paid workers will be affected, it would cost nothing at all, but it would provide assurance to people who are not fat cats on high pay in the public sector that the provision is not intended for them and will not affect them.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kevin Brennan]

Yes, and that is exactly how bad law gets made, as we know. Therefore, I encourage the Minister to give some further thought to those points if she has not already decided how she will deal with them.

Amendments 111 and 125 would provide protections for whistleblowers—my hon. Friend mentioned this earlier—and remove them from the cap on exit payments. Capping payments could act as a deterrent to whistleblowers. There is concern across the House about the unintended consequences of an exit cap on whistleblowers’ willingness to come forward. Whistleblowers are public-spirited individuals who, when they spot an injustice or malpractice, make it public. We have seen their value not just in the public sector but in the private sector as well, but whistleblowing often leads to a backlash from the authority or business concerned. As a result, many whistleblowers do not continue to work in the same industry, understandably, and they often suffer financially as a result of their brave actions.

It is possible that such workers might think twice about whistleblowing if they are to be further punished financially by the proposed cap. Will the Minister update us on the latest view of the Treasury and her own Department on relaxing the cap for whistleblowers? The Government would do a grave disservice to openness and transparency in the public sector if they did not afford those brave individuals the protection they deserve.

[Anna Soubry]

I get slightly agitated when it is suggested that we did not think of something. Obviously we have thought about this issue, and we have already discussed with officials precisely those two points about people who have been booted out or unfairly dismissed for whistleblowing or through discriminatory injustice by their employer. As we know, tribunals—unusually, given the powers of the various tribunals—can give an award that is basically unlimited, meaning that in such circumstances, people who have done the right thing by whistleblowing or who have been treated unfairly through discrimination would find themselves unfairly treated by the imposition of a cap. We are absolutely alert to that issue.

--- Later in debate ---

[Anna Soubry]

Absolutely not—and for the exact reason that the hon. Lady gave: we know that lots of people in settlement agreements will not accept liability. We also know that if we agree to the amendment, we will open the floodgates for people to make spurious claims that they have been made redundant on the grounds that they were a whistleblower. We will then get into a nightmare situation where there is a hearing to determine whether that person’s claim is accurate. Members are not letting me make progress, so that I can further explain this provision, which we have put some thought into.

Ministers of the Crown and Scottish Ministers will have discretion and be able to delegate it in the normal way. Under draft regulations, discretion will also be held by full council for local government bodies and for Welsh Ministers. A blanket exemption from the cap would unfortunately open the door to sweetheart deals designed to avoid the effect of the cap, based on dubious claims.

On amendment 125, there is no need for a regulatory referral scheme for whistleblowing claims. Whistleblowers can already make a disclosure directly to the relevant regulator or other prescribed person. Settlement agreements cannot stop them; the law is clear on that. There is no need to require that whistleblowing claimants have access to legal advice before entering into a settlement agreement. The Employment Rights Act 1996 already makes settlement agreements unenforceable unless the employee has received independent advice, so there is no need to require Ministers to produce guidance on settlement agreements for whistleblowers. In fact, we have already had three guidance documents in 2015 alone.

We have looked at this issue. Although I am not an employment lawyer, I am an old lawyer, so I can see the difficulties, but I am satisfied that the way we craft the regulations and, most importantly, the guidance we give to employers will cure the mischief that we all want to be cured.

[Kevin Brennan]

This is a complicated area. We have skirted over it a little bit, but there are real concerns about the implications for things such as early conciliation, which I raised under amendment 110. It has been rightly pointed out that that is a concern to trade unions, and Unison in particular. There is also a concern about the impact on whistleblowers. I think that the Minister was trying to give the Committee an assurance, in her own unique way, that the Government are committed to ensuring that genuine whistleblowers—

[Anna Soubry]

And people who are discriminated against.

[Kevin Brennan]

And, as the Minister rightly says from a sedentary position, people who are discriminated against are not impacted when made redundant. I will not press the amendments to a vote at this stage.

[Anna Soubry]

As the hon. Gentleman might imagine, I often am quite robust with my officials. I am keen to ensure we get this right. If we need to go away and make another tweak, we will, because I want to be sure we get this right.

[Kevin Brennan]

The Minister said in response to one of our amendments that, in such areas, secondary legislation is often a better way to do things. If the Bill were rigid, it would create the kind of anomaly and cause the kind of concern raised by myself and other Opposition Members.

I take at face value the Minister’s commitment to go back and think about this, and we will have an opportunity on Report to explore some of these issues further and to ensure that we get the right sort of response from the Government. No doubt, those who watch our proceedings will have listened carefully to what the Minister had to say. Perhaps she will provide the Committee with some further information to help our proceedings on Report. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kevin Brennan]

I am afraid it is me again. Hopefully, we do not have too much longer to go this evening.

This third group of amendments on clause 35 is about exit payments, which we have already started debating, and whether the Bill—my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield, who is not in her place at the moment but has been here for the vast majority of our proceedings, raised this issue earlier—will retrospectively apply to agreements that have already started.

Let me first turn to amendment 113. A public service agreement was introduced by Lord Maude in 2010 that saved a significant amount of money in the first year in which it was implemented. More than 90% of one union—Prospect—voted for it. The review was based on research, analysis, consultation and, I think some would agree, a degree of give and take. It was an attempt to find a solution that was fair to both the taxpayer and the employee. It was supposed to settle the issue of access to pensions for 25 years, but now 100 pension schemes will be forced to change their rules. People made plans on the basis of those renegotiated conditions, which were supposed to last for 25 years. They had a significant effect on those workers’ life plans and the decisions that they made.

Comparing the quality of the process and the outcome, the 2010 review and the present review are light years apart. That has added to the worry of many workers, particularly those who are in a state of limbo when considering the outcome of the Bill. Why have the Government not considered allowing workers who were covered by the 2010 Maude agreement to continue to be covered by its terms and conditions? If that is not possible, will the Minister at least consider letting workers who started the process under the Maude review continue through to completion?

On amendment 119, many workers would have already started and completed their redundancy process had they known of the Government’s true intentions last January. They were wooed into a false sense of security by the pledge that the Minister for Employment said would be made, which I referred to earlier. The Government are directly responsible for the many workers who are now trying to complete their redundancy process before the Government pull up the drawbridge with this change of approach. They would have been reassured by the Government’s manifesto pledge to end taxpayer-funded, six-figure payoffs for the best paid public sector workers, because they did not think it was intended to cover them. They would have looked at their pay packet and thought, “I’m on £25,000, £26,000 or £27,000. The Government couldn’t possibly mean me.” Many people who might have considered taking voluntary redundancy would have thought, “I have had that reassurance from the Government. It has been made twice, so they are not thinking about me. I won’t be affected by these measures.” If they had known the full story, they might have changed their decision. They might have finished the exit process by now, so they would not be caught in this widened net.

Many of those people are on low or middle incomes and have not had the ability or the time to save large amounts of money to see them through the crisis of redundancy that they might be facing. What assessment has the Minister made of the number of workers who are already in the process of negotiation? What would the cost to the public purse be if all those who have started the process were allowed to finish and not to fall victim to the retrospective nature of this Bill? I am interested to know what figures the Minister has on that, because if she opposes the amendment today, she will obviously be doing so for a reason.

Will the Minister give us an idea of the Government’s intended date for the implementation of the Bill, assuming that it completes its passage through Parliament? We found out today that it will be considered on Report in the Commons on 8 March, and then there may be reconsideration in the Lords. When does she expect that it will be implemented? What reassurance can she give to workers that, if they have already negotiated exit settlements, the Government will not overturn those plans at the last minute and in effect make them the victims of a retrospective measure? Many of the arguments that I used for amendment 119 also apply to amendment 120, and I respectfully ask for her responses to them.

I turn to amendment 107. In speaking to amendment 119, I mentioned how workers were caught unaware by the Government’s widening of the net. A sensible solution might be to accept that there should be a period of grace, given that there was a change of approach. Amendment 107 would propose a period of two years before the legislation takes effect. Baroness Neville-Rolfe said that that would frustrate the intention of the cap. It would not do that, but it would give people who have plans under way an opportunity to complete them before it comes into force. After all, their expectations were very different as a result of Government’s previous statements.

[Anna Soubry]

Amendments 113 and 119 would limit the cap to new entrants, as has been described, and therefore not stop existing highly paid individuals from receiving six-figure payouts. That is why I oppose those amendments. Public sector exit payments have cost £2 billion a year in recent years and asking taxpayers to continue to fund exit packages of more than £95,000 for those already employed does not represent value for money and goes against our manifesto commitment.

We signalled our intention to end six-figure exit payments as far back as January 2015. We committed to do so again in our manifesto and in the Queen’s Speech. We have since issued a public consultation and consultation response. Public sector employers can therefore be in no doubt about the Government’s intention to end exit payments of more than £95,000 and should be planning accordingly. To answer the hon. Gentleman’s question directly, the regulations giving effect to the cap will not be in force until 1 October 2016 at the earliest, giving employers and employees time to prepare. The power to relax the cap can address any unforeseen unfairness or hardships that arise, which will include cases where the exit is agreed and scheduled to take place before the regulations come into force, but, for a reason beyond the control of the employee, the exit occurs after they have come into force. For those reasons, I ask the Committee not to support the amendment and I ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw it.

[Kevin Brennan]

I will not press the amendment to a vote. I am grateful to the Minister for indicating the earliest date at which the legislation can come into force; it is useful to have that guidance. I do, however, think that again the emphasis on the very highly paid is not correct. Many on lower pay who have made plans accordingly could be affected, but I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Kevin Brennan]

I beg to move amendment 103, in clause 35, page 50, line 38, at end insert—

“( ) Regulations shall make provision to require prescribed public sector authorities to consider, prior to making a public sector exit payment—

(a) whether the payment being paid is appropriate; and

(b) whether the payment would provide value for money.”

This amendment would ensure that when considering staff for exits value for money is considered.

Value for money is a key concern, which is why it is mentioned in the amendment. The Government seek to justify a cap on exit payments solely on the basis of the cost of payments to staff between 2011 and 2014, which is not a helpful period to look at because the evidence provided fails to recognise that during that period employment across the public sector was reduced by 790,000, which inevitably affected the cost of exit payments. During that period, civil service employment fell by 107,350 using the current compensation scheme arrangements. No evidence has been offered to demonstrate that an exit payment cap would deliver real value for money and savings into the future, and it could do the opposite, as changing the compensation payments will naturally affect the willingness of staff to exit the public sector, which could lead to higher costs elsewhere.

We have already heard about the deal that Lord Maude described in 2010 as fair to the taxpayer as well as fair to workers; he also said that the deal was fair to employees. The agreement took into account length of service, salary and age, and there was a salary cap that protected against extremes, which resulted in a huge decrease in the number of settlements over £100,000, which is the Government’s intention in the measures before us.

Exit payment caps will have significant effect on workers, whose terms and conditions will be dramatically altered; there will also be an impact on the efficiency of the Government. Both of those issues should be of concern to the Minster. Baroness Neville-Rolfe said in another place that the amendments on value for money were not “necessary or desirable.” She went on to say,

“There is already a fundamental duty on the public sector to ensure that exit payments are value for money and that they are made in the most appropriate manner.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 30 November 2015; Vol. 767, c. 981.]

What is the clear evidence that imposing the cap does not represent value for money or is not appropriate in a particular case?

Does the Minister now agree that it might have been a mistake not to have the formal impact assessment that colleagues referred to earlier? Even the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 had an impact assessment that reached some 50 pages.

[Anna Soubry]

That didn’t stop it being rubbish law.

[Kevin Brennan]

That is exactly my point. Even the Dangerous Dogs Act had an impact assessment that was 50 pages long. The idea here is that we should not have an impact assessment of a measure that is extremely complicated and affects tens of thousands of workers and hundreds, if not thousands, of public and private sector businesses and bodies. It deserves an impact assessment. It would have made the issue of value for money far more transparent than it is to us in Committee. There is a lack of information about the likely savings to the taxpayer because a proper impact assessment has not been undertaken.

Perhaps the Minister can tell us what proof she is offering that what she is proposing will offer value for money and will bring genuine savings, and that some of the unintended consequences will not militate against that and make any net savings very small or even negative? Where are the facts and figures to support the Government’s claim that the previous schemes did not offer value for money and her new scheme will? In 2010, the scheme the Government introduced was said to offer value for money. Does it still offer value for money now? If not, what has changed in the meantime? Can the Minister guarantee that her changes will not damage the existing value for money that is being achieved as a result of that settlement?

What assessment has the Minister made of the impact of reduction of flexibility brought about by the exit payments cap on the ability of management to manage restructuring of organisations in terms of downsizing? What assessment has she made of the potential impact on staff morale? Is she satisfied that introducing exit payment caps will not actually result in moving costs from one section of the public purse to another. Why are the publicly owned banks the ones that are exempted from the value for money test in the Bill?

I want to mention the fact that the impact on value for money also affects the private sector. Private sector companies working in the nuclear industry will be affected by the exit payment proposals and their impact on value for money. We know about the specific concern in relation to Magnox, which we will discuss further at a later stage. When Magnox stopped producing electricity and moved into decommissioning, the staff were promised that their pensions and severance benefits would be safeguarded. If the Bill goes ahead as it stands, many hard-working and long-serving staff would lose a significant amount of money. There could be a significant impact on value for money in the private sector.

Value for money needs to be looked at in the round, taking in its impact on workers, employers’ ability to manage change, and the knock-on effect on other Government Departments and, indeed, on nuclear safety. I look forward to the Minister’s response.

Ordered, That the debate be now adjourned.—(Stephen Barclay.)

DRAFT REGISTER OF PEOPLE WITH SIGNIFICANT CONTROL REGULATIONS 2016 DRAFT LIMITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIPS (REGISTER OF PEOPLE WITH SIGNIFICANT CONTROL) REGULATIONS 2016

Debate between Anna Soubry and Kevin Brennan

Monday 22nd February 2016 General Committees

[Anna Soubry]

Perhaps I may begin by answering the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Bedford. The regulations were out of scope because they were an international requirement, so the one in, two out principle did not apply to them. We had international obligations.

I am sure my hon. Friend will be interested to know that the final state impact assessment estimated the costs as a net cost to business per year of £97.5 million. Over 10 years it is £1,086.2 million, so it is not exactly small. What will please my hon. Friend, however, is that that final assessment also found that there would be a cost of £10 to small simple companies in relation to updating beneficial ownership information annually and, of course, £10 in relation to providing information to the central register annually. The good news is that for the smaller businesses the amount of money involved is very small. It has been argued, and I would argue, that it is well worth paying because of the importance of making sure that we tackle the problem.

[Kevin Brennan]

I think I heard the figure that the Minister used then, but the impact assessment documents for the two sets of regulations state that the net cost to business in relation to the PSC register would be £10.09 million per year, and that the net cost to business per year in relation to the other one would be £4.7 million per year—both on 2014 prices. I think she gave a considerably higher figure, so I wonder whether she could explain the difference.

[Anna Soubry]

I am afraid I cannot. I would be delighted if the figure that I had been given is wrong and the one that the hon. Gentleman has is correct. One thing that is for sure is that if I am wrong—if the figure I have been given is incorrect, as I hope it is—I will happily write to all members of the Committee to correct that. If the hon. Gentleman is right, that will be good news all round. Obviously, we are determined to make sure we keep the cost as low as possible. The regulations are serious and important, with the aim of tackling a genuine problem; it is sometimes a mark of their seriousness that such things cost money. However, I will sort that matter out.

[Anna Soubry]

I think the best thing I can do, although I am always happy to talk to my hon. Friend, is to write to him in more detail. We have saved a huge amount of money—around £5 billion—for businesses over the past five years through deregulation, and it is now accepted that we are one of the best places in the world to do business, specifically because we do not over-regulate in the way that we did. We have made huge strides. There is more to be done in the next five years, but we have made enormous progress, which is now being recognised. When I meet smaller businesses and, notably, the Federation of Small Businesses, they do not complain as they used to about the amount of regulation, but it is absolutely accepted that more can be done.

On the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes, I am told that the Act introduced robust penalties to deter and sanction those who seek to misuse UK companies. Those penalties will, of course, support law enforcement tax authorities’ existing powers of investigation. The details, if I may be so bold, are in the Act, but if she would like me to point to them, I am more than happy to do so. However, as I have said from the outset, this is a serious piece of work due to the nature of the threat to the security of our nation, particularly in the business sector.

I agree with some of what the hon. Member for Nottingham North said, but it is often the case that the United Kingdom is doing all that it can, and this is a good example. Others will no doubt come and play, but we cannot force other countries to follow our example, any more than we can force companies registered in other countries to abide by our law. That has always been the case, and rightly so.

I hope that I have been able to answer right hon. and hon. Members’ questions. It is an important new regime for companies, increasing the transparency of who owns and controls UK companies. It is important to maintain the United Kingdom’s high standards of corporate trust. Anti-corruption is a key priority for this Government, and our Prime Minister has taken a serious personal interest in it. I know that there is, quite rightly, cross-party support for the issue.

[Kevin Brennan]

I am grateful to the Minister for giving way, which will undoubtedly save us time. Although we are content, as I said earlier, to let these regulations pass without asking for a Division, I would like to put it on record that it is important to get accurate figures on the impact assessments and the cost to business when we discuss such matters. Who knows; inspiration might come to the Minister while I am on my feet. However, if she is unable to clarify that matter now, I would welcome an early communication from her, as I am sure would other Committee members, about the correct figure. We are content to let the regulations go through on trust because we think that they are good measures, but nevertheless, it is important when we debate such things that the Minister has the correct information before her—it is not her fault—so that the Committee can discuss them with the full information before it.

[Anna Soubry]

I apologise for being unable to give the definitive figure. I can tell the Committee only what I have been given, and it is not the same as the figure that the hon. Gentleman has. However, there is some indication that he might be right and that, for reasons that I do not understand, the figure that I have been given is not. Either way, we will sort out the matter, and I apologise. One would think from the abundance of papers and officials that I have that somebody might be able to give a definitive answer.

Notwithstanding that, these are important regulations and I am pleased that they have cross-party support. I commend both statutory instruments to the Committee.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That the Committee has considered the draft Register of People with Significant Control Regulations 2016.

Draft Limited Liability Partnerships (Register of People with Significant Control) Regulations 2016

Resolved,

That the Committee has considered the draft Limited Liability Partnerships (Register of People with Significant Control) Regulations 2016.—(Anna Soubry.)

Enterprise Bill [ Lords ] (Fourth sitting)

Debate between Anna Soubry and Kevin Brennan

Thursday 11th February 2016 Public Bill Committees

[Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)]

The Minister is explaining that from the Government’s point of view, these are technical amendments. Will she confirm that the National Assembly for Wales and the Welsh Government are satisfied that the amendments are both necessary and appropriate?

[Anna Soubry]

Yes. They have been tabled at the request of the Welsh Government and therefore, I am sure that the hon. Gentleman—[Interruption.] He is putting his thumb up, and rightly so. They are technical, but they have been done at the request of the Welsh Government and I am sure that they are absolutely right to make that request, which is why we hope this is uncontentious.

--- Later in debate ---

[Anna Soubry]

It was a very good idea. I pay particular tribute to those local authorities that are primary authorities. In my experience, they do an outstanding job. Early access to regulatory advice helps businesses to get things right first time. Enforcing authorities can also better target their resources. The clause gives national regulators a role in supporting the provision of advice to businesses. I will say no more than that, because if I did, I would be wasting the time that we hope to devote to Sunday trading.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 19, as amended, accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 3 agreed to.

Clause 20

Public sector apprenticeship targets

[Kevin Brennan]

I beg to move amendment 70, in clause 20, page 35, line 29, at end insert—

‘(2A) An apprenticeship target shall specify what proportion of the number referred to in subsection (2) is to be applied for apprenticeships for people—

(a) who have been looked after children, and

(b) people with disabilities.’

--- Later in debate ---

[Anna Soubry]

Good point.

[Kevin Brennan]

As the Minister says from a sedentary position, my hon. Friend makes a good point, and one that I think the Committee would agree with. We need to think about why, apparently—perhaps this is not right, and the Minister will tell us differently—there is a trend that seems to show a decline in the percentage of apprenticeships being taken up by, for example, disabled people. Perhaps that is a statistical blip, but we need to dig a bit deeper to find out what is going on. Is it the case that in the appropriate desire to make sure apprenticeships are of a high standard and quality, which we all support, there may be insufficient reasonable adjustments, as required by the Equality Act 2010, to make them accessible to disabled people? Let us take a good look at that.

I welcome very much the fact that Ministers have agreed to meet the Alliance for Inclusive Education, or Allfie as the Minister rightly said it is known as. I welcome the fact that it will be able to put its perspective directly in front of Ministers. The 20 recommendations she and I referred to were not Allfie’s but those of a Government body. She did not elucidate in great detail on what was happening about the recommendations and I wonder whether, following the Committee stage, she will write to its members about the Government’s progress in implementing those 20 recommendations. I am happy to give way if she is willing to indicate that she might do that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Anna Soubry]

The meeting has not taken place, so I cannot give a promise to the Committee. It may well be that for whatever reason the meeting does not have conclusions or things that come out of it that will accord with our timetable, but if there is any update, we are more than happy to share.

[Kevin Brennan]

I am not asking the Minister to report on a particular meeting that has not taken place. I am asking her to clarify something for members of the Committee. I completely understand why she might not have the answers at her fingertips, but what progress has been made since 2012 on the 20 recommendations of the Little and Holland review, “Creating an inclusive Apprenticeship Offer”, which was commissioned by the Government’s apprenticeships unit?

I would have hoped that it would be straightforward for the Minister to agree to write to members of the Committee if she is unable to give us the information during our proceedings today. Progress on those recommendations is pertinent to this group of amendments, and it should be easily within her ability to agree to write to members of the Committee to tell us about that. Can she give us an assurance on that? I am not asking her to write about a meeting that has not already happened; I simply ask for her to write to the Committee telling us what progress has been made on the report by the apprenticeships unit. She is not indicating that she wants me to give way, although she is within her rights to come back again.

[Anna Soubry]

If there is an update to give the Committee, I will give it.

[Kevin Brennan]

I am extremely grateful to the Minister for that. In my experience, it is always important to ensure that everything is on record. It does not usually require pulling teeth to make that happen, but I am extremely grateful to her for agreeing to provide that update. On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Anna Soubry]

The clause provides for information about employees, as we know, and there will flexibility in how it is implemented. We have used headcount numbers for illustrative purposes in the consultation document, as that information is already publicly available for the majority of public bodies, but we have asked in the consultation whether full-time equivalents should be used instead of headcount. We will publish the results of the consultation in the Government response, and we will set the matter out in regulations to be debated in both Houses later in the year. To add to the clause now would be to pre-empt the results of the consultation, which may be used as the headcount, but in any case there is provision in the Bill to require further information if it is needed.

On supply chains, I am told that the answer is no. It would mean that the public sector could pass on the targets to the private sector. We do not think that would be the right thing to do, as it would defeat the whole purpose of the process, which is for the public sector to provide apprenticeships. We are concerned that such a change would just shift the duty and the responsibilities away from the public sector, where we are seeking to place them.

The hon. Gentleman asked me a question about schools. I do not have an answer for him, so I apologise for that, but of course I will get an answer and provide it to him.

I hope that response satisfies the hon. Gentleman, other than the fact that I cannot give an actual answer to his question about schools, but I will provide it.

[Kevin Brennan]

I wonder whether some inspiration might arrive by the time I finish my remarks; I am just cogitating on that for a moment.

I take the Minister’s point about the consultation. Personally, I would have thought that it would be a missive from the department of the bleeding obvious that the full-time equivalent should be used rather than the headcount, because, as I pointed out in the example I gave, it would be utterly meaningless to set a target based on headcount if there was a massive difference between two identically sized councils given the number of part-time and full-time employees. I hope that I am right in saying that, and that this will become a diktat issued by the department of the bleeding obvious when the consultation is concluded.

[Anna Soubry]

As if by magic, the answer to the question on schools is that it is in the consultation document, too. So it is out to consultation.

[Kevin Brennan]

We look forward to hearing the result of the consultation, and I presume that that will also potentially be subject to further consideration by both Houses in the form of a statutory instrument at a later date.

[Anna Soubry]

indicated assent.

[Kevin Brennan]

I sense that that is the feeling, judging from the nod by the Minister.

I accept the Minister’s point about supply chains; it would be quite wrong if local authorities were somehow able to transfer their responsibility to meet their apprenticeship targets to the private sector. The valid point might be that local authorities could have a significant part to play in promoting apprenticeships in the private sector, via their supply chains and particularly via their procurement policies. Of course, local authorities these days procure a great deal of services, often from the private sector, and this is an opportunity that should not be missed.

I will not press that point further at this stage, but I hope that the Minister will consider my observation about the provision of apprenticeships in local authorities’ supply chains. It would be a positive move that could encourage the creation of apprenticeships in the private sector and encourage local authorities to use procurement and their use of private sector contracts to help to create more apprenticeships.

--- Later in debate ---

[Anna Soubry]

These are minor and clarifying amendments in keeping with the policy intent. The apprenticeship targets for public sector bodies apply in relation to their workforce in England only. The amendments clarify that when prescribed public bodies provide information about their workforce, they should do so in relation to their employees in England.

Amendment 68 agreed to.

Amendment made: 69, in clause 20, page 36, line 31, after ‘employees’ insert ‘employed in England’.—(Anna Soubry.)

This amendment ensures that the information published by a public body for which an apprenticeship target is set includes information about the number of persons who are employed by the body in England at the end of the reporting period.

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[Kevin Brennan]

Opposition Members are proud of the work that was begun and done by the previous Labour Government, who, as I mentioned earlier, rescued apprenticeships from the scrapheap and revitalised the apprenticeship programme, boosting apprenticeship starts from 65,000 in academic year 1996-97 to 279,700 in 2009-10. It was a revolution, and we are pleased that it has been carried on by subsequent Governments. It was that Labour Government who set up the dedicated National Apprenticeship Service to promote and expand the apprenticeship scheme, and who launched the first National Apprenticeship Week in 2008 and introduced the right for a qualified person to an apprenticeship, which was unfortunately removed by the coalition Government.

Of course, as the shadow Secretary of State said on Second Reading, there is little explanation from the Government as to how local government and other public bodies, which have been subject to deep budget cuts, will easily be able to expand the number of high-quality apprenticeships that they can offer at a time when they are having to reduce their staffing because of central Government policy. Even the Prime Minister’s mother would understand that point.

[Kevin Brennan]

As my right hon. Friend says from a sedentary position, his auntie would quite certainly understand, too.

The Government have had to set up the slush fund that we heard about this week to placate their own MPs, who are complaining about cuts to local government funding in their areas. The Government have set a target of 3 million apprenticeships by 2020. We want apprenticeships to continue to expand, but what we do not want—and I do not think the Government want this either—is for this to degenerate into a “never mind the quality, feel the width” philosophy. The quality of apprenticeships is of paramount importance, so I hope the Minister will give us her assurance that the Government will be vigilant on quality as numbers expand, and that she will explain how public bodies, including local authorities, are to meet the target when they are subject to such brutal financial pressures from central Government.

[Anna Soubry]

I will not respond to everything that has been said. Our local authorities are more than able to fulfil their target. On Second Reading I gave the example of my own borough council, which has gone from having three or four apprenticeships a year to an absolute target of well over 20 a year. As the council is often keen to remind me—I am delighted to see my hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Planning here from the Department for Communities and Local Government—it does not have one of the best settlements among local authorities. Notwithstanding that, it has been able to more than exceed any target in its determination to provide apprenticeships.

We were concerned that low-quality courses that did not meet the requirements of a statutory apprenticeship would dilute the apprenticeship brand. We are fully aware of that, which is why we are so keen to create an offence for a person in the course of a business to provide or offer a course or training as an apprenticeship if it is not a statutory apprenticeship. That is how seriously we take the matter, and it is one way in which we are determined to ensure that apprenticeships are all the things that people would expect them to be.

Of course, we know that one of the most important groups of people when it comes to apprenticeships is parents. As parents, we care deeply about what our children choose to do, and I will be brutally honest with the Committee that there was a real problem under the last Labour Government, when there was a rush to go into higher education and university. If someone’s child did not go to university, they were seen in some way as a failure. That was palpable nonsense, and I say that as the mother of one daughter who went to university and another who did not. It is fantastic, brilliant and wonderful to go to university—it is a fabulous time of one’s life—but if someone does not go to university, they should not be regarded in some way as a second-class citizen.

I always use the example—my hon. Friend the Member for Derby North is here, and she will know what I am about to say—that if a youngster in my constituency gets an apprenticeship at Rolls-Royce, although it does not lie within my constituency, it is seen as being as good as any university course at the finest of our excellent and outstanding universities. They are remarkable opportunities for young people and, as we know, some of those apprenticeship courses have a duration of some seven years.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kevin Brennan]

I think that is for the Minister to clarify, but it is an extremely valid point.

Turning to amendment 75, as I alluded to earlier we need to ensure that the changed apprenticeship landscape is simple to understand and clear to cross-border employers and providers, particularly as there is the potential for confusion in relation to the devolved Administrations’ apprenticeship policies. Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland will be affected by the changes in clause 21, but they will not be able to have their say. That is clearly pertinent to the apprenticeship levy, which plays into the Bill.

The comments of the devolved Ministers in The Times Educational Supplement on 4 February have resonances for the Committee. With the Committee’s indulgence, I will quote some of those comments. Julie James, the Welsh Deputy Minister for Skills and Technology said:

“We have been very clear from the outset that the Welsh government has serious concerns about the apprenticeship levy and the impact it will have on the apprenticeship system here in Wales…I welcome the opportunity to discuss our shared concerns with the UK’s other skills ministers.”

Roseanna Cunningham, the Scottish Cabinet Secretary for Fair Work, Skills and Training, said:

“It encroaches on our devolved responsibilities and is causing concern for employers. The UK government has no control over how our administrations provide apprenticeships and to imply otherwise by collecting what amounts to an employment tax is misleading for any employer with operations outside England.”

Stephen Farry, the Minister for Employment and Learning in Northern Ireland, said:

“Along with my ministerial colleagues from Scotland and Wales, I am concerned that the imposition of the apprenticeship levy could have unintended consequences for the devolved administrations.”

That underlines why we believe that there needs to be a regular process, so that the devolved nations of the United Kingdom can feel that the Government discuss things with them, rather than do things that impact upon them without considering the consequences in advance or taking reasonable steps to consult. I would very much welcome the Minister’s response on that point. That is the purpose of amendment 75.

[Anna Soubry]

The necessary clauses on the institute for apprenticeships were tabled this afternoon. Given that we are about to go into recess, Her Majesty’s Opposition will have plenty of time to consider the new clauses, but I am very hopeful that there will be an outbreak of agreement, especially given that both sides agree that it is a good thing to do. I do not think it would be appropriate for me to go into all the detail, because we are not at that stage yet. Once the Opposition have had the opportunity to look at the institute for apprenticeships, I am sure that they will welcome that wholly independent body, which will not be overly prescribed by this place so that it turns into a talking shop. It has to be an institute that delivers.

[Kevin Brennan]

Will she—

[Anna Soubry]

Not yet.

[Kevin Brennan]

On a point of order, Ms Buck. Given that the Government tabled the amendments this afternoon, should we not finish debating clause stand part? The amendments will become unstarred by the time the Committee returns after recess, which would enable us to debate them in Committee, rather than on Report.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kevin Brennan]

Thank you, Ms Buck.

Looking at my hon. Friends’ faces, I do not think that Opposition Members have been particularly impressed by the Minister’s outlining of the Government’s policy, but we eagerly await discussion of the changes tabled today, which the Government were unable to bring to us beforehand. Subject to appropriate progress on the Bill, we will have such an opportunity before the completion of the Bill Committee, which will end at 5 pm on the final day of our proceedings after the recess. Looking again my hon. Friends’ faces, I think they would welcome such an opportunity. We will try to assist the Government in the creation of a little bit of extra time during the rest of our proceedings to have at least a proper kick of the tyre of the proposal for an institute of apprenticeships. It seems not quite as comprehensive as our proposal.

[Anna Soubry]

Does the hon. Gentleman accept that we are in broad agreement? We both want this institute to be created, but the essential difference is that ours will be truly independent. Other than that, I really do not think that there is any difference between the proposals for something that we all want.

[Kevin Brennan]

I would not agree that our proposal does not seek a truly independent institute. Independence is a point of agreement, so I am surprised that the Minister is not accepting new clause 20 today. However, I accept that, generally speaking, the Opposition have their say and then the Government have their way if they can produce a majority. As Disraeli once said:

“A majority is always the best repartee.”

The Minister unfortunately does not have to prove her argument because of the nature of the Government having a majority. However, when dealing with such legislation, it is important that the Government are able to explain their proposals and are able to bring them forward so that we can properly scrutinise them, which is our job, and have the Government prove their case. We will want to have a proper look at the Government’s proposals when they are down in writing.

[Kevin Brennan]

I hope that we will get that opportunity.

The Minister asked me whether I will give way, so I am happy to do so if she still wants to intervene.

[Anna Soubry]

No, you’re all right.

[Kevin Brennan]

In which case, given that we are going to return to the subject, I will not press new clause 20.

I am unsure whether we have had a satisfactory response to all the amendments that we tabled in this group, but, for the sake of making progress, I will not pursue the Minister further at this point. If there are any outstanding questions regarding amendments 74 and 75 relating to trading standards, about which hon. Members were genuinely concerned, and the devolved issues, will the Minister agree to write to the Committee with further responses in order to save time at this point in our proceedings? I am looking to her for any indication. That might save us having to ask more questions at this stage and get her back on her feet to respond.

[Anna Soubry]

I thought I had answered everything in relation to amendments 74 and 75. If I have not, I am quite happy to write to the hon. Gentleman.

[Kevin Brennan]

I will check the record and if I have not heard her properly, I will say so. If I feel that there are any concerns, perhaps the Minister will, as she has agreed, respond to them. On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 21 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Stephen Barclay.)

Enterprise Bill [ Lords ] (Second sitting)

Debate between Anna Soubry and Kevin Brennan

Tuesday 9th February 2016 Public Bill Committees

[Anna Soubry]

I know that we do not know each other well, but the hon. Gentleman can be assured that this Minister gives absolutely her word that this matter is not going to be kicked into any long grass. In fact it is very short grass, which has only just grown, because the review will be completed by March and then recommendations will go out to public consultation. If legislation is required as a result of that consultation, I will be happy to be the Minister to take that through.

I do not wish to chide the hon. Gentleman, but he may not realise that there is a statutory adjudication scheme already in place for disputes in relation to the construction retention problem that we know is there. That system does exist. I know that small businesses often do not want to go to the adjudicator because they are fearful of complaining about a big business and souring relations—they fear that future business relations will be damaged—but it must be said that the system does exist. I wanted to put that on the record.

[Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)]

Until the Minister made that point, I think the whole Committee was with what she was saying about legislating in haste and repenting at leisure, but she then seemed to say not that she was looking forward to legislation in the next Queen’s Speech—which seemed to be the road she was going down—but that she thought what was already in place might well be adequate. Is that what she is telling the Committee?

[Anna Soubry]

No—the hon. Gentleman knows I do not mean that. Do not be silly.

[Kevin Brennan]

If not, she must clarify it on the record. That is why we are here. She does not need to look at the clock every five minutes. We need to hear it and have it on the record.

[Anna Soubry]

Some might say I was being slightly patronised there, Ms Buck, but I am sure that that was not the hon. Gentleman’s intention. There will be a review, which will report in March, from which a series of recommendations will go out for public consultation. I am very keen that we reform the retention system in the construction industry. If anyone wants me to repeat that, I will say it yet again, because I have said it not only in this Committee, but in the Westminster Hall debate last month: it needs reforming and we need to get on with it. I could make the point that some people were in government for 13 years and did not deal with the problem, but that would be churlish of me and I would not do such a thing. Nevertheless, the point I am making is that there is an adjudication system to help those companies that suffer.

I have also conceded that I am told on very good authority that, for reasons that we know and understand, the existing system is not working as we would like it to. In any event, I think it is out of date and unfair and it needs sorting out. I would be delighted to be the Minister who sorts it out once and for all, so that we have a modern, fair system that protects those who need to take care of all the snags and things that come to light after a build has been completed and, at the same time, ensures that the money is there so that they can make good any defects. There is a way to sort it out. It might not be what is proposed in the amendment—there might be a better way to do it—but those are exactly the things that the review will explore.

Amendment 38 specifically says that the new small business commissioner would consider complaints relating to access to finance, not complaints about whether or not small businesses have knowledge about the various schemes. One of my predecessor’s achievements was bring together as many of the Government’s schemes as possible through one portal: the British Business Bank. If someone wants access to finance, they can go to their bank or to their accountant and ask for advice, or they can seek the advice of the Federation of Small Businesses. Equally, they can google it, and one of the results will be the British Business Bank, which gives all the details of all the various schemes, not only those operated by the Government—start-up loans being an extremely good example—but also advice on peer-to-peer lending, the angel schemes, crowdfunding and so on. We are beginning to see a real change in the amount of information available, especially from that one-stop-shop, the British Business Bank, so that small businesses know where to go if they are looking for finance.

The amendment, though, is about small businesses’ complaints about their access to finance. With respect, the Financial Ombudsman Service already deals specifically with such complaints. Were we to extend the role of the small business commissioner, all we would be doing is duplicating an existing system that everyone seems to accept is working well. As I said earlier, we learned from the consultation that the one thing no one wants is the duplication of services.

The Financial Ombudsman Service is working well, and it has respect. Small businesses can go there to make their complaints; Members may well have referred their constituents. We already have exactly the device required. I argue strongly that expanding the remit of the small business commissioner would not be appropriate when it comes to finance, because we already have a very good system. Small businesses are within the remit of the Financial Ombudsman Service if they have a turnover of less than €2 million and fewer than 10 employees. So it is there for the microbusinesses.

The Financial Conduct Authority is currently consulting on whether even more small businesses should be given access to the FOS. The FOS analyses the complaints it receives from microbusinesses and reports on them every year. It also publishes occasional stand-alone reports, such as, in August 2015, “Micro-enterprises and financial services—a review of complaints”, which had the express purpose of highlighting areas of good practice and promoting change where it is needed. Access to finance for businesses is also regularly considered by Select Committees.

With respect, I really believe that the amendment would represent an unnecessary extension of the remit of the small business commissioner. Again, we must make it very clear that the primary function of the small business commissioner is to address the big problem that all small businesses complain about, which is late payment. That is where I want his or her focus and resources to be.

I turn to other matters. I think I have dealt with cash retentions in the construction industry, but I want to deal with the other amendment, which deals with the enterprise investment scheme and the seed enterprise investment scheme. Details are already published, with guidance and information, on gov.uk. We in BIS support and complement this work with promotional activity. Again, with respect, I really do not think the amendment is necessary, because what it wants to achieve is already being done.

I think that is it, unless there is anything else I need to add. I ask for the amendment on cash retentions to be withdrawn because I honestly think we are going to make huge progress very quickly and we are all on the same page. I respectfully suggest that the other amendment is just not needed: we do not need to extend the remit of the small business commissioner in this way, because others are doing the job very well for small businesses.

Enterprise Bill [ Lords ] (First sitting)

Debate between Anna Soubry and Kevin Brennan

Tuesday 9th February 2016 Public Bill Committees

[Anna Soubry]

I am not responding to that; the hon. Lady may be right.

I will address my comments to the amendment moved by the hon. Member for Sefton Central. I will rebut much of what has been said by establishing the history of how the small business commissioner came to be placed within the Enterprise Bill. I agree with everything he said about the value to the economy of small businesses. We are absolutely and utterly agreed on that. We understand their huge value and their importance to building a successful economy.

The idea started with the Conservative party manifesto commitment to consider setting up a conciliation service specifically on the point of late payment, which as we all know is a serious matter for concern, notably for small businesses. Having come into office, as I considered how to achieve that, it became obvious that there are already a number of ways to supply such a service. That is the sort of matter that we will undoubtedly debate in this Committee. Having learned of the great workings of the Australian small business commissioner—hon. Members will hear much about the work of Mark Brennan; I have spoken to him at length—I came to the conclusion, and I assure hon. Members that my Secretary of State absolutely agreed, that a small business commissioner should be created specifically to address the problem of late payment.

I put it on the record clearly: it would be utterly bizarre of this Government to want to positively create an office with the apparent intention of abolishing it at some later date. The idea has come from me and the Secretary of State; it is a position that we want. We would love for the position to abolish itself in time, because we would love it if there were no complaints about late payment. Unfortunately, we think that is an ideal that we will not achieve, however much we might strive.

[Kevin Brennan]

The Minister is making a reasonable point, but she knows that she cannot fetter what future Administrations of any party do. Neither can we, but we can ensure that the body cannot be abolished at the whim of a Minister rather than by going through some other due process.

[Anna Soubry]

It would not be abolished at the whim of any Minister.

--- Later in debate ---

[Anna Soubry]

I am not going to give way; otherwise, we will be full of interventions.

[Kevin Brennan]

She’ll just make a speech if you don’t.

[Anna Soubry]

I am sorry, but we need to make some progress. The appointment of the small business commissioner by the Secretary of State will not compromise his or her independence. It will be a public appointment, subject to all the usual public appointments rules and procedures. There would be little material difference to the appointment process if this were a Crown appointment.

UK Steel Industry

Debate between Anna Soubry and Kevin Brennan

Thursday 21st January 2016 Westminster Hall

[Kevin Brennan]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I listened carefully to what the Prime Minister said about market economy status in yesterday’s Prime Minister’s questions. It was clear from his tone, demeanour and words that the Government have already made up their mind that they are going to ease the path to market economy status for China, rather than putting up a real fight for the British steel industry.

[Anna Soubry]

Oh God!

[Kevin Brennan]

We all like the Minister immensely, but although she sighs and she huffs and she puffs, anybody with two eyes and two ears could see and hear what was going on at Prime Minister’s questions yesterday.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kevin Brennan]

The hon. Gentleman does not like it up him, unfortunately, but he is going to get it if he tries that tactic on me.

I shall turn to my concluding remarks so that I can leave plenty of time for the Minister to answer the many questions that have been put. As well as answering those questions, will she explain the UK Government’s position—

[Anna Soubry]

With all the time that you have left me?

[Kevin Brennan]

The Minister has 25 minutes. Will she explain the Government’s position on the blocking minority that they have been exercising in the European Union in relation to the longer-term reform of trade defence mechanisms? She has said throughout—certainly many times from a sedentary position—that all five of the asks from the—

[Anna Soubry]

No, I did not. Do not misrepresent me. I said four of the five.

[Kevin Brennan]

Oh, now it is four of the five. The Minister has said that four of the five asks have been completely delivered. I am afraid that that is not the view of UK Steel which, in its briefing for the debate, agrees that there has been some good progress—we can all agree with that—but sets out clearly five actions that must be taken: more action on anti-dumping measures; action on the market economy status issue, which has been emphasised in the debate; bringing business rates for capital-intensive firms in line with their competitors in France and Germany—

[Anna Soubry]

Quite right.

[Kevin Brennan]

The Minister says that, but we need to know when it is going to happen. The final two actions that UK Steel called for were support for much more local content in major construction projects, and direct funding for the sector on research and development and environmental improvements. We need to hear the Government’s position on that.

In order to leave enough time for the Minister, I will finish on this point—

--- Later in debate ---

[Anna Soubry]

The hon. Gentleman has put all that on record.

My hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Goole (Andrew Percy) quite rightly said that some of this should be well above party politics. It is tedious that Opposition Members do not understand that they judge everyone by their own standards; the Government are genuinely not as tribal. Opposition Members—

[Kevin Brennan]

That is a tribal remark in itself.

[Anna Soubry]

Hang on. When Opposition Members, such as the hon. Member for Scunthorpe (Nic Dakin), have said to me, “I need to talk to you about the steelworks,” I have absolutely no problem. If the hon. Member for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland (Tom Blenkinsop), who made a good speech, and the hon. Member for Redcar (Anna Turley) want to speak to me, that is no problem. If the hon. Member for Motherwell and Wishaw (Marion Fellows) wanted to speak to me immediately, it would not be a problem. My door is open to everyone, whatever their political party.

Draft Exclusivity Terms in Zero Hours Contracts (Redress) Regulations 2015

Debate between Anna Soubry and Kevin Brennan

Wednesday 18th November 2015 General Committees

[The Minister for Small Business, Industry and Enterprise (Anna Soubry)]

It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Evans. It is particularly pleasant to say that because I have not said it before, and it is a great honour and a pleasure. I am sorry I am not my hon. Friend the Minister for Skills, who is unfortunately delayed on other business in the House.

Government and independent evidence have shown that zero-hours contracts have a place in today’s labour market. However, there is also evidence that the use of exclusivity clauses in zero-hours contracts is wrong. That is why the Government have banned them in such contracts. Provisions introduced by the Small Business, Enterprise and Employment Act 2015 ensure that employers of people on zero-hours contracts cannot demand that their staff are exclusive only to them. It is right that no one should be prevented from boosting their income if they want to. The ban is simple. It means individuals can simply ignore exclusivity terms in their zero-hours contracts if their employer includes them. They do not even have to say anything to their employer. I am delighted that the inclusivity ban came into force on 26 May this year, and we are here today to discuss the next stage.

The purpose of the redress regulations is to allow individuals on a zero-hours contract whose employer still attempts to enforce an exclusivity clause to take action. They achieve that by creating a route of redress, allowing individuals to take their employer to an employment tribunal if they are dismissed or treated unfairly as a result of ignoring a ban and seeking work elsewhere. The redress regulations have been drafted as a result of a Government consultation last summer, in which 71% of respondents supported redress via an employment tribunal. The consensus view of those who responded to the consultation was that the regulations will provide an appropriate level of reassurance to affected individuals and will provide them with the confidence to take action against an employer if they are treated unfairly.

[Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)]

How practical is it for most people on zero-hours contracts, given their likely level of pay and personal circumstances, to be able to afford to use the redress that the Minister proposes?

--- Later in debate ---

[Anna Soubry]

I think the spirit of last night’s football game has led to this outbreak of friendliness and camaraderie. A new entente cordiale is breaking out between the Government and the Opposition. This is all good stuff.

I could make a partisan point about how zero-hours contracts have been around for donkey’s years and how it took the coalition Government only three years to deal with them. Unfortunately, in 13 years, the last Labour Government did diddly squat to address the problem. We did the right thing, especially on exclusivity, and the regulations are delivering on the ban. There is no better way of dealing with things than when an employer knows that if they do not do the right thing, and if they continue to do the wrong thing, the full power and threat of an employment tribunal, with compensation, could come crashing down on them. That is a good example of deterrence being the final solution to this problem. That has been underestimated.

I will not get into the debate about whether the number of people going to employment tribunals has fallen because of the rise in fees. There is a very good argument—it is not always true, but it is valid—that sometimes the threat of high costs, as in most civil actions, is a good way of concentrating all minds to reach a sensible settlement, rather than charging off into something that might cost not only a lot of money but a lot of emotion, too.

Anything that brings people together to resolve a dispute is a good thing, and I suspect, in the absence of any evidence, that one of the reasons why fewer people are going to employment tribunals is that they are looking first at how to resolve their dispute. It is undoubtedly the case that some people are not taking forward claims that would otherwise have had no substance to them. Let us wait and see what the evidence tells us.

I have a couple of other points. The number of people working part-time because they cannot find full-time work has actually fallen to its lowest level in four years—just over 80,000 according to recent statistics. A number of other points were raised. Can I be subject to the usual rules, please, Mr Evans? If a Member has raised something that I have not responded to, I will, of course, write to them.

I should say that because someone is on a zero-hours contract, that does not mean that their rights as an employee are any less than anybody else’s. It is just the term of their contract that is different—they have a zero-hours as opposed to a 20-hour or 40-hour contract or whatever it may be. Their rights as an employee are exactly the same and therefore they are entitled, like all employees on a contract, to see the terms and conditions of the contract. I think there is a bit of a misunderstanding there.

[Kevin Brennan]

Of course, the rights are not the same because those people are not entitled to any hours of work.

[Anna Soubry]

That was not the point that was made. The point was that people should be able to get a copy of their contract, and so on. People on zero-hours contracts have all that because their rights as an employee are exactly the same; it is just the terms and conditions of their employment.

There is one point that I should put on the record. The reason why we have not done the two weeks is that that is only available to agency workers in certain circumstances who find their way into an employment tribunal. The employment tribunal has a discretion to go below the minimum of two weeks. Indeed, if anybody uses this route into a tribunal, the tribunal has discretion to apply whatever compensation it sees fit. I would urge against some sort of two-week idea for compensation. I think that is a bad idea—let us let the tribunal have discretion to apply whatever compensation it sees fit in all the circumstances of the case. That is a good idea, I suggest.

I thank hon. Members for their valuable contributions to this debate and their comments during it. The regulations will allow those who are treated unfairly by their employer with regard to the ban on exclusivity clauses to seek redress and be awarded compensation if appropriate. I think that we are agreed on that. If there are points I have not answered, I will do so by way of letter, but I urge everybody to vote for these regulations because they are a real step forward.

[Kevin Brennan]

As I hinted earlier, I will not ask my hon. Friends to vote against the regulations because they represent a welcome small step forward. I disagree with what the Minister said about employees—which is a very technical, legal term in this instance—having exactly the same rights as others if they are on a zero-hours contract, but now is not the time to debate that further. I also register a point of disagreement about the two weeks’ pay and the agency workers regulations. I think a minimum level of compensation would be a genuinely positive addition to these regulations.

[Anna Soubry]

indicated dissent.

Steel Industry

Debate between Anna Soubry and Kevin Brennan

Wednesday 28th October 2015 Commons Chamber

[Kevin Brennan]

I am not going to give way, because of time.

We found out today that the Government are ordering hundreds of military vehicles and three new ships for our armed forces to be built using steel imported from Sweden. And this at the same time as Gareth Stace, of UK Steel, said that the British steel industry was “likely to die” without stronger support from the Government. He said that yesterday to the Business, Innovation and Skills Committee. We should not be surprised that the Business Secretary has until now pursued what Tata called in its briefing for this debate a laissez-faire ideology, because he has made it clear that that is what he believes in. You might not have read it, Mr Deputy Speaker, but his favourite book is “The Fountainhead”, by Ayn Rand, in which the hero blows up a poor housing estate because he does not like the design, such is his individualist approach.

[The Minister for Small Business, Industry and Enterprise (Anna Soubry)]

Shameful.

[Kevin Brennan]

The Minister may say that, but my argument is that the basic cause of the Government’s slowness to respond to the steel crisis is that the Secretary of State fundamentally believes that it is not the business of Government to get involved in markets and industry. So while he is having to be seen to be doing something by going to Brussels today, he is actually in practice—[Interruption.] Government Members can chunter away as usual all they like, but in practice he has been busy planning the dismantling of his Department’s capacity to support steel and other key strategic British industries. He has volunteered to cut his Department’s budget by 40% , and this week we read in the Financial Times how investment grants to key British sectors are being converted to loans. It turns out that the much-vaunted apprenticeship levy will become a displacement tax on business and will not compensate for the cuts to the training budget.

This approach has to stop, and it is has to be replaced with a proper industrial strategy based on the consensus built up under the last Labour Government and, in fact, the last coalition Government, but which the Business Secretary does not believe in. We need a much clearer steer from the Government that they are prepared not only to say that steel is a key strategic industry, but to act to ensure it remains a key strategic industry. I again ask Ministers what they think is the minimum capacity for steelmaking in the UK below which it is not in the country’s strategic interests to go? The Minister told the Select Committee:

“I have an absolute determination to keep steel in this country”.

In her winding-up speech, will she make it absolutely clear what she means by minimum capacity for this strategic industry? What efforts are Ministers making to calculate the cost of cleaning up sites such as Redcar when they close? In a written parliamentary answer to me last week, she could not say. How can the Government decide whether closure is the right choice when they cannot even estimate the cost of cleaning up the site?

At last week’s urgent question, I urged the Business Secretary to implement the five points raised by UK Steel at the steel summit the previous week. At that time, he could not confirm that he would. Will the Minister now confirm, albeit belatedly, that the Government will do that, and will she fully implement the energy intensive industry compensation package now, not later?

Will the Government finally press hard at the EU level on anti-dumping measures? Will the Minister even admit that dumping is going on? Will she let that phrase cross her lips in her response? Will they remove plant and machinery from business rate calculations and stop gold-plating EU regulations? Will they support the use of British steel in major projects, unlike what we hear today with the staggering news about Swedish steel being used by the Ministry of Defence? Will they listen to calls from the trade unions, including Community, for a long-term strategy rather than a hand-to-mouth approach? What are the Government going to do to support skills retention and short-time working during the current crisis, if that is needed?

This has been the first major industrial test for the Business Secretary in particular and for the Conservative Government in general since the general election As I have argued, their initial response was to revert to type and do as little as possible. They were prepared, it seemed, to let a key strategic industry die without a fight. Because of the chorus of voices from local MPs, from us as Her Majesty’s loyal Opposition, from the workforce, from employers and from the public, they have had to move, albeit far too slowly and too late for thousands who have lost their jobs The steel industry is a classic example of a case where the Government need to be prepared to roll up their sleeves immediately and intervene before breakfast, lunch, tea and dinner. This Government have been slow to act. The steelworkers whose jobs have been lost know it, the British public know it and, deep down inside, Ministers know it too—it will not be forgotten.

Redcar Steelworks

Debate between Anna Soubry and Kevin Brennan

Thursday 15th October 2015 Commons Chamber

[Anna Soubry]

That is the case. It is not good enough for Labour Members, who know the confines of the state aid rules, to shout “rubbish”. Let me put SSI’s losses on the record: 2012, £275 million; 2013, £193.5 million; 2014, £81 million. Until the end of June 2015, there were losses at Redcar of £92.5 million. That represents more than £0.5 billion of losses in little more than three years. That is indeed heartbreaking, but it is the harsh financial reality of the situation at Redcar.

[Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)]

One has to ask what moral universe Ministers inhabit if they think that it is acceptable to spin about the financial package for workers at Redcar. We have just heard an admission from the Minister that the figure is not £80 million, which is the figure that the Government have used and widely publicised. She now claims that there is £50 million of new money, but we need to look more closely at that. How much of that money is from the Work programme? How much is money that Ministers have put aside from the Government’s resources as new money to help the workers at Redcar, and how much is just recycled spin? That is what we have been getting from the Minister.

There are still questions to answer—I will not go on for too long because of what you said earlier, Mr Speaker—[Interruption.] The Minister said “Oh good”. I bet she did. She has not said anything to answer questions about the clean-up of the site, which she was asked earlier this week and today. This country needs an industrial strategy. We are losing an irreplaceable strategic national asset without a fight from our country’s Government, and that is an unforgiveable betrayal.

[Anna Soubry]

I will accept some criticisms, but to say that I have not fought for Redcar is outrageous because it is not true. I assure the hon. Gentleman that my officials and I worked—I have an email trail that proves it—until midnight last night—[Interruption.] There is no point shouting as it does not achieve anything. I was on the phone on that Friday night until 9 o’clock in the evening, and along with the Secretary of State and my officials, I was literally going around looking for sums and pots of money to help. The harsh reality is £0.5 billion of losses over five years.

On the clean-up operation, if the hon. Gentleman had taken time to find out from the taskforce and the meeting that I attended on 2 October—[Interruption.] I was there; he was not. I am trying to tell him, but he is sitting there pointing his finger and heckling. It does not get us anywhere.

[Kevin Brennan]

You’re the one who is pointing.

[Anna Soubry]

Yes, well I’m entitled to under the circumstances. I answered this question on Tuesday, but I am happy to answer it again. In truth, the Health and Safety Executive and the Environment Agency had been engaged with my officials for some considerable time leading up to 2 October because we feared that that day would come. The hon. Gentleman should know—this is my experience having gone to Redcar—that some of the people with the most responsible realistic assessments of the situation were the leaders of the unions, and particularly the Community trade union leadership. Because they were working there, they knew the awful, harsh financial reality of a plant that was losing £0.5 billion over five years.

Redcar Coke Ovens

Debate between Anna Soubry and Kevin Brennan

Tuesday 13th October 2015 Commons Chamber

[Anna Soubry]

There are many points to discuss at the summit, one of which is the reality of the steel industry across the world. Let me make it absolutely clear that the official receiver is independent and free of interference from Government, and rightly so. That should never change. I would have hoped that the hon. Gentleman understood that. We have to be absolutely clear on this. The coking ovens were losing £2 million a month. It is a tribute to—[Interruption.] Honestly, I would take another question, but heckling will not help the hon. Gentleman.

[Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)]

That’s your speciality.

[Anna Soubry]

It is, I know. That was the pot calling the kettle black, but this is a serious matter.

As the hon. Member for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland (Tom Blenkinsop) knows, the official receiver ensured that there was enough coal to put into the coking ovens. That went over and above what we all thought would happen on that Friday, when there was not even enough money to buy the sulphur to keep the power station going, as the hon. Gentleman knows. Notwithstanding his efforts, those of the hon. Member for Redcar and the meeting that I had with the group of people based locally who had expressed an interest, the harsh reality is that nobody has come forward with an offer to buy the coke ovens. Are Members honestly surprised when they were losing £2 million a month?

--- Later in debate ---

[Anna Soubry]

My hon. Friend makes a good point. However, even if we had the sort of energy prices that I would like, it would not solve the problem for our steel making industry, which is that the price of steel has almost halved because of over-production and under-consumption.

[Kevin Brennan]

I note that the Minister said that she and her colleagues understand the significance of this situation. That statement would have had more resonance with the House had the Secretary of State come along today.

I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Redcar (Anna Turley) and all my hon. Friends from Teesside, who have worked tirelessly on behalf of their constituents. In contrast, we now see the practical consequences of having a Conservative Business Secretary who is so ideologically opposed to the notion of Governments acting to protect our strategic economic assets in difficult times that he will not even use the words “economic strategy”, preferring the phrase “industrial approach”. I am afraid that “industrial indifference” would be a more accurate description of what we are seeing.

This is not just about the 2,100 jobs that will be directly affected at Redcar, although each one represents a tragedy for those families; this is about a long-term strategic vision for Britain’s economic and industrial future. I am afraid that for all the rhetoric about northern powerhouses and the march of the makers, at the first big test of whether this Government have any long-term strategic economic vision, the march of the makers has come to a stuttering halt.

Why have the Government been so passive about working to save the steel industry in this country when it is so strategically important? What options did they explore for mothballing to save the assets? Why do they believe it acceptable that the £80 million support package also contains statutory entitlements to redundancy pay? I was interested to hear that the Minister might not stop at £80 million, so perhaps she will tell the House a little more about how much she has in mind. Will she confirm how much it will cost the taxpayer to clean up the site safely?

What assessment has the Minister made of the economic impact of the closure on the local community and the supply chain? Did she raise the issue of Chinese dumping during her recent visit to China, or does the UK’s relationship with China now simply consist of kowtowing to the Chinese Government in a way that will mean that they have more financial interest in Britain’s strategic assets than our own British Government?