Oral Answers to Questions

Jo Swinson Excerpts

Thursday 24th October 2013 Commons Chamber

[Karl Turner (Kingston upon Hull East) (Lab)]

9. What assessment he has made of the effect on postal services of the privatisation of Royal Mail.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills (Jo Swinson)]

The universal postal service is protected under the Postal Services Act 2011. The service is unaffected by the sale of Royal Mail and can be changed only with the agreement of Parliament.

[Karl Turner]

Does the Minister share my concern that following the fire sale of Royal Mail, private hedge fund shareholders will no longer be prepared to fund the not-for-profit universal service obligation?

[Jo Swinson]

The hon. Gentleman should be aware that that is not an option for Royal Mail, which remains the universal service obligation provider, and it is the duty of Ofcom as regulator to ensure that it complies with that obligation. If any future changes are to be made, it is up to Parliament to agree to it, and I do not see that happening. In fact, we go beyond minimum EU requirements in having a six-day-a-week universal service delivery.

[Ian Swales (Redcar) (LD)]

Does the Minister share my regret at some of the scare stories that were put round by campaigners against privatisation, and will she confirm that the Ministry of Defence pays for Royal Mail post overseas to forces, not Royal Mail?

[Jo Swinson]

My hon. Friend is quite right to say that it is unhelpful when scare stories are put out. For example, free services for the blind are included in the universal obligation and will continue. As he rightly says, free mail for the armed forces is funded separately by the Ministry of Defence, which will continue with that. There is no need for people to be scared by those kinds of stories, which were unfortunately put out by some critics of what is happening.

[Tom Blenkinsop (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Lab)]

The Minister needs to talk to her colleague, the Minister for Skills and Enterprise, the hon. Member for West Suffolk (Matthew Hancock), as well as her hon. Friend the Member for Redcar (Ian Swales). When I raised with the Minister for Skills and Enterprise the issue of the USO being reduced from six to five days, he said at the time that that would need primary legislation on the Floor of the House. He later wrote to inform me that it would need only a statutory instrument to be passed upstairs for that to change. Would the Minister like to correct the record on behalf of her colleague?

[Jo Swinson]

The Postal Services Act 2011, which the House voted for, puts in place a universal service obligation of six days a week. It is therefore something over which Parliament has control. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman is suggesting that were there to be a Labour Government again, they would in some way threaten that universal service, but I assure the House that the Government are certain that the universal service obligation should stay as it is.

[Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con)]

What steps is the Minister taking to ensure that rural communities continue to be served well by the postal service, post privatisation?

[Jo Swinson]

The universal service is particularly valuable to rural areas, where it can be a lifeline. That is why it is important for it to be entrenched in the Postal Services Act 2011. For other postal services such as access to posting parcels and so on, the Government have promised to ensure that we maintain the network of more than 11,500 post offices. That is in stark contrast to the closure of thousands of post offices across the country by the previous Government, including in rural areas. We are ensuring that people across the country have good access to postal services.

[Jonathan Reynolds (Stalybridge and Hyde) (Lab/Co-op)]

10. What representations he has received from manufacturers on the case for continued UK membership of the EU with regard to their business and investment plans.

--- Later in debate ---

[Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab)]

11. What plans he has to publish the Government’s planned register of companies’ beneficial ownership.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills (Jo Swinson)]

The UK has committed to implement a central registry of company beneficial ownership information, accessible to law enforcement and tax authorities. We recognise the potential benefits of making the information available publicly and have consulted on that. That consultation closed in September and we are now analysing the responses. We will issue a Government response in due course.

[Emily Thornberry]

The Prime Minister has expressed his personal support for a public register and is supported in that by four former Labour Home Secretaries, the British Bankers Association and anti-corruption non-governmental organisations, but, as my mum used to say, fine words butter no parsnips. Will he take the opportunity of the open government partnership summit, which I understand will happen later this month, to confirm that the Government will have an open and public register of beneficial ownership of companies?

[Jo Swinson]

The hon. Lady is right to mention that the Prime Minister has shown a great deal of leadership on that, not least at the G8 summit in June, where he also said that he has a huge amount of sympathy with the idea of making that information fully public. I am sure she will appreciate that we are analysing around 300 responses to the consultation. I am certain that more information will be forthcoming to the House and beyond as we set out what we plan to do to introduce a register of beneficial ownership, which we have committed to do within this Parliament.

[Duncan Hames (Chippenham) (LD)]

12. What initiatives local enterprise partnerships are taking to support small businesses.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Bob Russell (Colchester) (LD)]

T2. Can the Minister give the House a progress report on how the Government are dealing with the scourge of the payday loan companies?

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills (Jo Swinson)]

I thank my hon. Friend for that question. He rightly highlights the fact that there have been significant problems in the payday lending industry; thankfully, significant action is also being taken to match that. Twenty-five payday lenders have left the market since March as a result of strong action by the Office of Fair Trading, with the Competition Commission undertaking an investigation, and earlier this month the Financial Conduct Authority published a suite of new proposed rules, which will limit roll-overs, cap the number of times that a lender can use a continuous payment authority and introduce strict new rules on advertising to ensure that people do not get ripped off.

[Mr Chuka Umunna (Streatham) (Lab)]

The Secretary of State has said that growth must be better balanced and less reliant on rising house prices, but this week he has warned of dangerous and unsustainable house prices in London and extreme problems of affordability across the country on his Government’s watch. Does he therefore not agree that it would make sense to review how the second part of his Government’s Help to Buy scheme operates now, as opposed to in a year’s time, given the attendant risks posed to more balanced growth?

--- Later in debate ---

[Steve Rotheram (Liverpool, Walton) (Lab)]

The Secretary of State will be aware of my concern about the legal requirements when a company goes into administration. Will he look at making it a mandatory requirement for administrators to prioritise the wider social consequences of the sale of a company rather than allowing asset strippers to destroy jobs and local communities?

[Jo Swinson]

The hon. Gentleman rightly outlines the devastating impact on communities that can happen when companies go into administration. Those involved in dealing with the administration of a company have a variety of different issues to prioritise. We are making sure that the problem is looked at in a range of ways. We are simplifying insolvency processes and considering some of the issues rightly raised by Members—about pre-packs, for example, with an ongoing review. We are looking at fees, too, which have sometimes meant that people cannot get as much of their money back as they should in these unfortunate circumstances. The Government are taking forward all those issues.

[Julian Smith (Skipton and Ripon) (Con)]

This week marks the 50th anniversary of the groundbreaking Robbins report. Will the Minister for Universities and Science confirm that this Conservative-led Government will continue the spirit of Robbins and ensure that higher education is open to all?

Oral Answers to Questions

Jo Swinson Excerpts

Thursday 18th July 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mary Macleod (Brentford and Isleworth) (Con)]

7. What recent progress he has made on employment law reform.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills (Jo Swinson)]

We are making good progress on our review of employment law. On Friday the Government published an update including a call for evidence on whistleblowing and outlining that the new employment tribunal rules of procedure will come into effect on 29 July. We are also making changes through the Children and Families Bill to extend the right to request flexible working to everyone and introduce a radical new system of shared parental leave.

[Mary Macleod]

In the last few weeks two Opposition Front-Bench Members have been to my constituency to talk to businesses, and I am so glad they are taking their lead from the Prime Minister, who was there in 2011 to talk to small businesses about simplifying employment legislation. Will the Minister build on the great work this Government have been doing in simplifying the process of doing business for entrepreneurs by reducing the amount of red tape and admin?

[Jo Swinson]

I commend my hon. Friend on her work championing small business in her constituency and beyond. She is absolutely right that we need to drive through the implementation of the reforms we have already outlined. She will be pleased to note that the CBI-Harvey Nash employment trends survey shows a significant improvement in employer perceptions of the burden of employment law. That is good for British business and good for job creation, too.

[Julie Hilling (Bolton West) (Lab)]

According to the OECD, the UK already has one of the most lightly regulated labour markets among developed countries; only the USA and Canada have lighter regulation. Why on earth are we trying to water down employment rights even further?

[Jo Swinson]

The first thing I would say to the hon. Lady is that our lightly regulated employment market is an asset to the British economy. It helps the economy to grow and it is one of the reasons why, despite the very challenging economic circumstances we have seen and despite the fact that unemployment is still too high, we have seen employment rates bear up rather better than in some other countries. It is important that we simplify employment law—I would have hoped that there would be cross-party agreement on that—but of course it is also important for a functioning economy that we ensure that basic protections remain in place for workers.

[Mark Pawsey (Rugby) (Con)]

rose—

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills (Jo Swinson)]

The Government’s payday lending summit provided an excellent opportunity to deliver a strong message to the payday industry to get its house in order. It focused particularly on the Financial Conduct Authority’s priorities for reducing consumer harm when it becomes the regulator in April, ahead of its consultation on its credit rulebook this September.

[Jonathan Reynolds]

I welcome the Minister’s answer and the summit, but let us be honest—the Government have consistently ducked clamping down on predatory pricing and extortionate interest charges, despite the amendment secured last year in the House of Lords that gives the regulators the ability to control costs and loan duration. Notwithstanding the spin of holding a payday lenders summit, when is the Minister going to promise to act so that families across the country can be protected from these predatory activities?

[Jo Swinson]

Significant action is being taken. The Office of Fair Trading has referred the industry to the Competition Commission because of widespread non-compliance. It is taking its own enforcement action, which has already resulted in a third of the lenders that have responded so far—the rest are due to do so this month—leaving the market altogether as a result of the tough action being taken. We have given the FCA stronger powers to enable it to ban products, impose unlimited fines and order money to be paid back to consumers who have been ripped off. That is a pretty comprehensive package of action to clamp down on this unscrupulous and irresponsible lending behaviour.

[Ann McKechin]

If other jurisdictions, such as Florida, already have effective real-time recording systems that stop borrowers accumulating unpayable debts, why cannot we have such a system here, now?

[Jo Swinson]

Such systems rely on the industry to be able to update them. The industry is looking at and working on that. We have credit reference agencies, which work well in many of the credit markets, but the real-time issue that the hon. Lady raises is a genuine one and more difficult to set up than the systems in place. We are encouraging the industry to address that, because it will help to improve affordability assessments.

[Miss Anne McIntosh (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)]

Is this issue not also about the level of household debt—households running into debt and not knowing how to manage a household budget? Much more information should be available to take people away from payday lenders.

[Jo Swinson]

My hon. Friend makes an extremely important point. We are introducing financial education in schools, which is an important development to make sure that people have the tools to make decisions, but it is also important to note that half of the people who take out a payday loan are already showing signs of financial stress. So although we need to tackle the problems of payday lending, we also need to tackle the problems that get people there in the first place, and make sure that they have good access to the free and confidential debt advice available. I encourage anyone in financial difficulty to seek help sooner rather than later.

[Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab)]

A recent report by the Office of Fair Trading accused payday lenders of causing “misery and hardship”. The Minister herself said that

“the scale of unscrupulous behaviour . . . and the impact on consumers is deeply concerning”

and that the Government

“wants to see tough action”.

Despite an amendment in the other place last year, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Jonathan Reynolds) referred, to give the regulators the ability to curb costs, the Minister is still failing to act. The public will note with interest that a major donor to the Conservative party, Adrian Beecroft, has a significant interest in this industry. Is that what is holding the hon. Lady back from stronger regulation? She is in severe danger of becoming known as the Minister for APR.

[Jo Swinson]

The short answer to the hon. Gentleman’s question is no, because the Government are taking significant action. I think he misunderstands; the OFT report shows the biggest set of problems in the industry. I know that much of the focus ends up on the APR headlines, but the surveys and the consumer organisations working with the issue day in, day out show the problems around issues such as affordability assessments, continuous payment authority abuse and abuse of the way in which roll-overs are used. The FCA has said specifically that it is looking to plug any gaps in regulation in all those areas when it takes on the role of regulator next April. We do not have to wait very long to see its draft rule book, which will be published this September.

[Neil Carmichael (Stroud) (Con)]

13. What recent assessment he has made of the value of supply chains to the UK economy.

--- Later in debate ---

[Hugh Bayley (York Central) (Lab)]

16. What outcomes his Department is seeking through its science and society budget.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills (Jo Swinson)]

Our science and society programme successfully engages people of all ages and backgrounds with science. It includes 25,000 science, technology, engineering and mathematics ambassadors providing positive role models for students to increase and widen participation in science; the biggest ever Big Bang Fair in March this year; and public dialogue supported through Sciencewise to inform public policy.

[Hugh Bayley]

The Science Museum Group, which includes the National Railway museum in York, has had its budget cut by a quarter over the last two spending reviews. It does immensely important work in encouraging young people to take an interest in science, leading to careers in science. Will the Minister meet people from the museum to consider how the science and society budget could be used to fund some of their outreach work, especially with young people?

[Jo Swinson]

As the hon. Gentleman knows, the science budget has been protected because we absolutely recognise the importance of science and research to the future economy and in encouraging people to take on science. The lead sponsor Department for the Science museum and museums generally is the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, and colleagues in DCMS will have been engaging significantly with the Science museum and others. I am sure that the relevant Minister will be very happy to meet—

[Hugh Bayley]

Will you meet them? It is your budget.

[Jo Swinson]

I will happily do so. I am answering on behalf of a colleague, but I will happily have that meeting.

[Hugh Bayley]

Thank you.

--- Later in debate ---

[Greg Mulholland (Leeds North West) (LD)]

It has now been confirmed that the chief executive of the British Beer and Pub Association, the lobbyist for the large pub companies, made two false statements to the Business, Innovation and Skills Committee and said on television that the Government had figures for pub closures, which they do not. The opponents of much needed reform are conducting a campaign of misinformation. What assurances can I get from the Minister that the claims being made, which are simply not backed up by evidence, will not be taken into consideration when the decision is made?

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills (Jo Swinson)]

My hon. Friend, who has been a strong campaigner on this issue, will know that the Government have conducted a consultation on the proposed statutory adjudicator and code for pubs, which has had more than 1,100 written responses, while we have had more than 7,000 responses to the online survey. Clearly, ploughing through and analysing all that information is taking a little time. He raises concerns about the issues with the Select Committee, but obviously Select Committees can ask further questions of witnesses, if they have concerns. I am happy to meet him, however, to discuss his concerns further.

[Mr Bob Ainsworth (Coventry North East) (Lab)]

Does the Secretary of State have any plans to look at the Insolvency Act 1986? Hedge funds appear to have the ability to acquire companies, to empty them of their assets, to appoint administrators of their choosing and to proceed without fear of being pursued vigorously. That certainly seems to be what is happening at Coventry City football club. Will he look at the situation and the framework of the law?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mark Pawsey (Rugby) (Con)]

On employment law reform, does the Secretary of State agree that there would be a significant boost to our country’s small businesses if the cost of attending employment tribunals was reduced, given that, according to his Department, the average cost of successfully responding to and defending a claim is £6,200?

[Jo Swinson]

The hon. Gentleman is right to raise that issue. It is fair to say that employment tribunals are costly in terms of time, money and stress for everybody involved, both employers and employees, so what we are trying to do through our employment law reforms is reduce the number of cases going to tribunal. We are streamlining the rules of procedure, which should also help to reduce costs, but the really important savings will come from getting more cases resolved through early conciliation, which is what the Government are pressing ahead with.

[Mark Lazarowicz (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab/Co-op)]

This morning the Globe group of parliamentarians held a seminar highlighting the risk of financial instability as a result of the overvaluation of fossil fuel reserves internationally and nationally without taking account of international climate change commitments. Will the Government contact regulators to ensure that they take into account the risks of instability and ensure that we do not see the bursting of a carbon bubble in the way we saw dotcom bubbles burst and other collapses in the markets?

Children and Families Bill

Jo Swinson Excerpts

Tuesday 11th June 2013 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills (Jo Swinson)]

I am delighted to conclude the debate on Third Reading—the Bill is a joint effort between the Department for Education and the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills. It is fair to say that the BIS measures have not had the same prominence or debate, which is perhaps a mark of the remarkable consensus on them in general.

I thank all members of the Public Bill Committee—the debate in Committee was positive—all those who contributed to the consultations and the formation of the policies in the Bill, and the Committee Chairs. It is important for those Ministers who came to the Bill part-way through its passage to recognise that our predecessors had significant roles in developing the policy. They also deserve thanks, as do officials within BIS—we have a fantastic team, particularly on shared parental leave and flexible leave, of Sarah, Andrew, Ruth, Kim, Chris, James and Chris. All those who have supported them have been wonderful. The officials who developed the children’s guide to the Bill deserve particular thanks. That is an exemplar of how we can open up law making in this country and make it understandable, and proves that age need be no barrier to that whatsoever.

The Bill will help children and families in a wide range of ways. It will modernise systems for the 21st century on adoption and fostering, special educational needs and family justice, and strengthen the Children’s Commissioner. There are also proposals to improve affordable child care. As hon. Members have said, this wide range of proposals will make a difference to people’s lives.

As a BIS Minister, I am delighted to take forward measures in the Bill on shared parental leave and flexible working. On shared parental leave, it is important that we shatter the outdated stereotypes of how parents divide their responsibilities—the assumption is that men are the breadwinners and that a woman’s role is to stay at home and look after children. Those decisions are up to individual parents, who will work out the right solution and answers for them. It is not the Government’s job to get in the way and tell them how to do it.

The flexibility of the Bill will enable more dads to play a bigger role in the early weeks and months of their child’s life. We know from research that that has a positive impact on child development and later measures. The provisions will also enable mums better to combine their work responsibilities with their parenting, which is so important given the contribution women can make to the economy, which was highlighted in the excellent Women’s Business Council report last week.

The right to request flexible working was introduced by the previous Government, and this Government rightly want to extend it to everyone. That will bring huge benefits to the economy. Employers benefit from more motivated and productive staff, and from lower recruitment and retention costs. Employees benefit because they are more in control of their time and more able to juggle their responsibilities, whether caring, volunteering or other outside interests. It is important for other groups of workers, such as older workers and people with disabilities, who can find a shorter, part-time or more flexible work pattern incredibly helpful to their ability to continue within the labour market and to contribute to the economy.

Given that wide range of measures, it is incredibly important that we are able to pass the Bill on Third Reading. It will now go to the other place, where I am sure there will be a wide range of debates. I look forward to watching with interest which issues it chooses to develop, but the consultation process in advance of the Bill has been hugely beneficial and has got it into an excellent state. The House can be proud of the scrutiny we have given the Bill and the work we have done on it. I commend the Bill to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

Oral Answers to Questions

Jo Swinson Excerpts

Thursday 21st March 2013 Commons Chamber

[Michael Connarty (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (Lab)]

4. If he will bring forward proposals to require companies to include supply chain issues in their annual narrative reporting.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills (Jo Swinson)]

The Department has no plans to require companies to report specifically on supply chains. However, responsible supply chain management is an important issue, which good businesses should understand and take seriously. From October, listed companies will be required to report on community, employee and human rights issues. Later this year, we will publish a framework for action on corporate responsibility, which will consider supply chain management.

[Michael Connarty]

I thank the Minister for that reply. We found out yesterday in a press release that businesses are being urged to sign a human trafficking charter. That came not from the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills but from the Home Office. It appears that the Minister for Immigration is taking over the responsibilities of Business, Innovation and Skills Ministers. He is proposing that businesses should sign up to a charter that seems very similar to the contents of my private Member’s Bill, the Transparency in UK Company Supply Chains (Eradication of Slavery) Bill. Surely it is up to BIS to include human trafficking in the narrative reporting of companies in its proposed statutory instrument. If the Minister for Immigration wants that requirement on human trafficking, surely BIS Ministers do too.

[Mr Speaker]

Order. We are grateful. We have got the point.

[Jo Swinson]

I commend the hon. Gentleman for campaigning against this vile and abhorrent crime. He rightly points out the action that the Government are taking on human trafficking. That is being done in conjunction with BIS, but the Home Office is obviously the lead Department on human trafficking. The Minister for Immigration has rightly been taking the matter forward. Both he and I spoke at a conference this week about human trafficking and the risks to the hospitality sector in particular. We will continue to work with business to raise the awareness of this issue and to clamp down on problems in the supply chain. It is a reputational risk for businesses and we must ensure that there is proper enforcement through the Home Office procedures.

[Alison McGovern (Wirral South) (Lab)]

5. What assessment he has made of access to apprenticeships for young women.

--- Later in debate ---

[Angela Smith (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Lab)]

15. What progress his Department has made on improving the export performance of UK manufacturers; and if he will make a statement.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills (Jo Swinson)]

As part of the Government’s industrial strategy, the Department has focused its efforts on helping British manufacturers access global supply chains through schemes such as the advanced manufacturing supply chain initiative and the manufacturing advisory service. We are concentrating in particular on 20 of the world’s highest growth markets. One sign of progress is that, for the first time since the 1970s, the UK is a net exporter of cars.

[Angela Smith]

The Chancellor’s economic plan was predicated to a large degree on boosting exports. It was reported at the end of January, however, that new export orders had fallen for the 13th month in a row. What advice is the Department giving to the Chancellor on how to move from plan A to plan B and give our manufacturers the support they really need?

[Jo Swinson]

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills outlined in response to an earlier question the significant progress we are making, particularly in non-EU economies, which are seeing much better growth than the EU. The Government have a range of different programmes, with the industrial strategy, the advanced manufacturing supply chain initiative and UK Trade & Investment providing help for businesses to export. In fact, in the past year they have supported firms in creating and securing more than 100,000 jobs for the UK economy.

[Andy Sawford (Corby) (Lab/Co-op)]

The Geddington road in my constituency links Corby not only to north-east Lincolnshire but to export markets all around the world. Will the Minister prevail on Northamptonshire county council to reopen the road to goods vehicles, which is important to ensuring that goods can get to markets from my constituency?

[Jo Swinson]

The hon. Gentleman ingeniously uses the question to highlight a local issue. It is obviously up to local authorities to make their own decisions, but he uses this opportunity to put his views firmly on the record. No doubt his colleagues on the council will look closely at his comments.

[Jonathan Reynolds (Stalybridge and Hyde) (Lab/Co-op)]

16. What progress he made on the adoption of an industrial strategy for the UK.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Williamson]

A recent report by the respected consumer group Which? highlighted the extent of irresponsible lending in the high-cost credit market. Do Ministers think that the Office of Fair Trading’s recent threat to revoke the licences of 50 payday lenders goes far enough to stamp out bad practice in the sector?

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills (Jo Swinson)]

The hon. Gentleman is quite right to highlight some of the unscrupulous and unacceptable behaviour in the payday lending industry. The OFT’s action, telling the industry it has 12 weeks to shape up or lose its licences, is welcome, but that is not all that is happening. The OFT also intends to refer the industry to the Competition Commission, and we have given it extra powers to suspend licences immediately. The Financial Conduct Authority will be able to take much more action, with the sweeping powers we have given it to ban products, impose unlimited fines and order redress to consumers. The Government take this issue extremely seriously and are acting on it.

[Mr Speaker]

Good of the hon. Member for Colchester (Sir Bob Russell) to drop in.

--- Later in debate ---

[Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent) (Lab)]

T5. May I press the Minister on payday lenders? Will the Government really get those companies to make it much easier for consumers to understand the cost of those awful payday loans?

[Jo Swinson]

The short answer is yes. The hon. Gentleman is quite right to say that consumer awareness is vital. Some of the people who take out such loans would be much better off with an entirely different financial product. That is why advertising is such an important element in tackling the issue. The Government are working with the Advertising Standards Authority and we will also work with the Financial Conduct Authority, which will take over those powers from next year, to ensure that we clamp down on advertising that misleads people and lures them into taking out products that are not right for them.

[Mark Menzies (Fylde) (Con)]

T8. The north-west is at the heart of Britain’s aerospace industry, and I welcome this week’s announcement of the £2 billion aerospace technology institute. May I urge the Minister to consider the Warton enterprise zone in my constituency as a potential location for it?

--- Later in debate ---

[Julie Elliott (Sunderland Central) (Lab)]

The proportion of workplaces that have some employees on zero-hours contracts has increased massively in recent years with some 23% of companies having more than 100 employees using them. What are the Government going to do to regulate those contracts, which confer fewer employment rights and cause considerable financial uncertainty for workers?

[Jo Swinson]

The UK employment and labour market is flexible, which can be helpful. For some employees, zero-hours contracts can be helpful. Clearly, where there is abuse happening, it should be clamped down on. That is certainly what the Government will make sure is done.

[Neil Parish (Tiverton and Honiton) (Con)]

Recently, Axminster Carpets, a great local company, went into administration. Its bankers were less than sympathetic. The Government have capital funds in place for banks to lend; can the Secretary of State do much more to make sure banks properly lend to business?

--- Later in debate ---

[Jo Swinson]

This was the subject of a lively debate in the Committee corridor earlier this week. As I made clear at that point, this is a minimum consultation period; where it is helpful to continue the consultation, benefiting the business and jobs, of course that can and should continue. The quality of the consultation is being improved through ACAS, which will help to make sure that business benefits but also that more jobs can be saved as a result of that improved process. There is no benefit in just prolonging the uncertainty when it is very clear that a business needs to restructure to make sure that the remaining jobs can be secured.

[George Freeman (Mid Norfolk) (Con)]

On the day of Lord Heseltine’s birthday, I have no idea what presents he might have been expecting, but I am sure that the Government’s acceptance of his report’s recommendations will have been a strong gift. I invite the Secretary of State, on behalf of the House, to pay tribute to Lord Heseltine’s tireless work for British business over a long career and to encourage the Government to implement his reforms with the radicalism and speed demanded.

--- Later in debate ---

[Roger Williams (Brecon and Radnorshire) (LD)]

Will the Secretary of State comment on the progress that has been made in Europe on the introduction of transparency to the extractive industries?

[Jo Swinson]

I strongly welcome the support that has been received from both industry and non-governmental organisations for the pursuit of increased transparency in those industries. Talks have been continuing in the European Union this week. We want to make strong EU rules that match the tough United States requirements. There should be no exemptions: listed extractive companies should publish information about all payments that they make to all Governments in all their countries of operation.

Children and Families Bill

Jo Swinson Excerpts

Monday 25th February 2013 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills (Jo Swinson)]

I am delighted to respond to this debate and, alongside the Under-Secretary of State for Education, my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mr Timpson), to be introducing legislation on issues about which I am so passionate. It is a pleasure to have heard all the contributions by hon. Members from across the House, and I welcome the general warmth and support for the Bill. Its measures are diverse, but they are united by the guiding principle of bringing about real, radical and positive change for children and families.

In the time available, I will respond to some of the specific points raised but, as, wonderfully, we have heard from 34 Members, I will not be able to address every point. We may perhaps hear further from some Members in Committee, including my hon. Friend the Member for South Northamptonshire (Andrea Leadsom), who was so concise in her remarks. Clearly, the House contains a lot of expertise on these issues and we will have interesting discussions in Committee.

Many hon. Members spoke about the reforms to special educational needs, and I, too, wish to pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Brent Central (Sarah Teather) for the work she did to start this reform process, which has of course been continued by the Under-Secretary of State for Education. I also thank all those who got involved in pre-legislative scrutiny, particularly the Education Committee, as that process was a good example of how the House can improve legislation before it becomes a full Bill. I welcome the broad consensus on many of our SEN measures, particularly the support for a statutory framework that works for children and young people from birth to 25. We, of course, look forward to further discussions in Committee, but I wish to say that if any hon. Member was in any doubt about the intention of the Bill, they should look at clause 19 for the key founding principles on which the SEN provision will be based.

The Chair of the Education Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Beverley and Holderness (Mr Stuart), made specific mention of the local offer and the Under-Secretary’s use of the term “common framework”. The regulations will provide the common framework for local offers, setting out all the things they should contain. That will bring consistency and will enable provision in local areas to be compared, and I am sure that will be welcomed. As my ministerial colleague has mentioned, we will be providing indicative regulations for the Committee, so that we can have a fuller discussion at that time.

On the issues of family justice, we heard from the Chair of the Justice Committee, my right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Sir Alan Beith), and from the former Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough (Mr Blunkett), who brought us his personal experience, memorably talking about the nightmare of the family courts. It is important that we hear that direct experience. I also note the comments by the former children’s Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton), who eloquently put the case that the needs and welfare of the child remain of paramount importance. I know that some hon. Members expressed concern that the paramountcy principle will be undermined, but I wish to reassure the House that the relevant clause has been drafted with the express intention of not diluting that principle, which is so important, as has been said.

The hon. Member for Stockport (Ann Coffey) raised the horrific example of the experience of a young child victim of abuse giving evidence and the traumatic way in which that took place. We take this issue very seriously, and we will certainly bring that to the attention of Ministry of Justice Ministers in order to raise the point she makes. Such issues have been discussed recently; the Under-Secretary has been holding round table meetings on tackling child sexual exploitation. So we are aware of those issues and she is right to raise them.

The hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Stephen Twigg) asked for reassurances about the details of our plans for childminder agencies. We will be setting out more detail, including some draft regulations, in Committee. Introducing agencies is about increasing choice for parents; no childminder will be forced to join an agency and parents will vote with their feet, choosing the childminders or other child care offering the best quality and value for money. Let me just set out the context. In the past two decades the number of childminders has almost halved. That is a real problem on the provision we need to secure for parents. Agencies will help us to increase that provision, which is much needed, and, especially, to give the greater flexibility that many parents increasingly need for out-of-hours child care provision, too.

The hon. Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Meg Hillier) raised the issue of the sufficiency duty, and I wish to clarify the position in case there has been any misunderstanding. Our proposal is to repeal the requirement for local authorities to conduct an assessment of the sufficiency of child care in their area in very specific terms. However, the duty to secure sufficient child care remains—it is in section 6 of the Childcare Act 2006—and to meet that duty, authorities will need to collect data on supply and demand. We are repealing the bureaucratic requirement to create a specific document and publish it.

The issue of staff-child ratios in child care is not dealt with in the Bill, but as it was raised by more than one Member today, let me say that our focus is on quality rather than quantity. We are consulting on the proposal, and in particular on what levels of qualification would unlock higher ratios. I encourage the hon. Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch, and any others who are particularly interested in the subject, to contribute to the consultation.

While welcoming the Government’s plans to extend the right to request flexible working, the hon. Member for Manchester Central (Lucy Powell) expressed concern about the move to guidance. Let me reassure her, and other Members, that we want to make the process simpler and less bureaucratic for employers and employees alike. I was rather horrified when, having arrived in the Department and asked what the procedure was, I was shown a flow chart featuring eight separate steps with periods of 28 or 14 days elapsing between them, the total amounting to 84 days. Far too much bureaucracy was involved in what should be a straightforward and simple set of discussions between employers and employees. We are replacing that with two pages of common-sense, straightforward guidance, so that everyone will know where they stand. I think that that move should be welcomed.

These reforms are long overdue. They address systems that are old-fashioned and out of step with the needs of children and the wishes of modern parents. The needs of children will be put where they rightly belong, at the heart of the services that support them. In the Children’s Commissioner, children and young people will have a strong and independent champion. Children for whom adoption is the right option will be settled more quickly in a safe and loving home. Unnecessary and damaging delays will be driven from the family court system. The most radical reforms of the special educational needs system in 30 years will raise aspirations and put children, young people and their parents at the centre of decisions. Child care will be more widely available and of better quality, helping parents to juggle their work and family lives.

Perhaps because there has been general agreement on the subject, we have not heard a great deal today about the shared parental leave plans, but they constitute a radical reform. Mums and dads will have freedom to choose how they share time off after having a baby or adopting. As every parent knows, having children brings both joy and plenty of challenges. Our changes will let families get on with sharing the care responsibilities in whatever way works for them, replacing rigid rules based on an outdated stereotype that assumes that men are the breadwinners and the role of women is to stay at home and look after children.

By extending the right to request flexible working to all employees, we will help families in the widest sense, while also removing some of the workplace resentment about the different rights that exist for parents and those without children. We will also help the economy to benefit from a more flexible, committed and productive work force. Changing the culture of United Kingdom workplaces to embrace flexibility is good for employers and good for workers.

At the heart of the Bill are two simple changes. We are giving families real choice and flexibility in relation to the decisions that affect them, and we are ensuring that services focus consistently on the best interests of the children who need them. This is a Bill that will make real, long-lasting changes, and I commend it to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Children and Families Bill (Programme)

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83A(7)),

That the following provisions shall apply to the Children and Families Bill:

Committal

1. The Bill shall be committed to a Public Bill Committee.

Proceedingsin Public Bill Committee

2. Proceedings in the Public Bill Committee shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion on Tuesday 23 April 2013.

3. The Public Bill Committee shall have leave to sit twice on the first day on which it meets.

Consideration and Third Reading

4. Proceedings on Consideration shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour before the moment of interruption on the day on which those proceedings are commenced.

5. Proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the moment of interruption on that day.

6. Standing Order No. 83B (Programming committees) shall not apply to proceedings on Consideration and Third Reading.—(Nicky Morgan.)

Question agreed to.

Children and Families Bill (Money)

Queen’s recommendation signified.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 52(1)(a)),

That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Children and Families Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of—

(1) any expenditure incurred by a Minister of the Crown or a government department by virtue of the Act, and

(2) any increase attributable to the Act in the sums payable under any other Act out of money so provided.—(Nicky Morgan.)

Question agreed to.

Children and Families Bill (Ways and Means)

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 52(1)(a)),

That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Children and Families Bill, it is expedient to authorise—

(1) provision in connection with residence and contact orders being replaced by child arrangements orders; and

(2) the payment into the Consolidated Fund of any increase attributable to the Act in the sums payable into that Fund under any other Act.—(Nicky Morgan.)

Question agreed to.

Oral Answers to Questions

Jo Swinson Excerpts

Thursday 7th February 2013 Commons Chamber

[Ann McKechin (Glasgow North) (Lab)]

11. What assessment he has made of the effect on consumer behaviour of Government advice on debt.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills (Jo Swinson)]

The Government established the Money Advice Service in July 2011 to co-ordinate and monitor free debt advice. We also support advice through the National Debtline and Citizens Advice. Nevertheless, the evidence suggests that many people are still unaware that there is free debt advice and so fall prey to high up-front fees and profit-driven advisers. Today, I am therefore announcing a new debt management protocol that will protect consumers and ensure they know where to go for free debt management advice.

[Ann McKechin]

Last week, I listened to a pointless radio advert from the Money Advice Service that advised people how to get a mortgage. Surely debt advice from the Government should focus on priorities such as vulnerable families who are finding it difficult to afford basic food or their rent, far less the luxury of obtaining a mortgage.

[Jo Swinson]

I understand the frustration that the hon. Lady feels. Of course, the Money Advice Service is there to provide not only debt advice, but information on a wide range of financial issues and there is place for that. She highlights the huge importance of raising the awareness of the free debt advice that is available. The new protocol that has been published today should help to do that, because debt management providers who charge for their services will have to make people aware that free options are available before they sign up. That will help people to get the advice that they need.

[Andy Sawford (Corby) (Lab/Co-op)]

Last week, I met representatives of Corby citizens advice bureau, which does an excellent job in my local community. Given the appalling human cost of the cumulative impact of the Government’s measures, such as the cuts in council tax benefit and housing benefit, and the crisis that we expect to see in April when universal credit is implemented, does the Minister regret scrapping the financial inclusion fund, with the loss of 500 citizens advice advisers at a time when their help is most needed?

[Jo Swinson]

It is a little rich of Labour Members to talk about the difficult situation that people are in as if they had nothing whatever to do with it. They forget that they left this country in a perilous economic situation. The hon. Gentleman is right to recognise that people are finding it very difficult. That is why the Government are helping by cutting income tax for 20 million people and taking more than 2 million of the lowest-paid people out of paying income tax altogether.

[Jeremy Lefroy (Stafford) (Con)]

13. What steps he has taken to raise awareness of export support services among small and medium-sized enterprises.

--- Later in debate ---

[John Cryer (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab)]

Does the Secretary of State imagine that the counterfeiters, the smugglers and the others will welcome the introduction of plain packaging for the tobacco industry?

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills (Jo Swinson)]

I know that there have been strong views on this issue in all parts of the House, and the Department of Health has undertaken a consultation on it. We await the results of that consultation, which will be analysed carefully. I am sure that the interesting counterfeiting issues that the hon. Gentleman raises will need to be considered alongside the health issues.

[Sir Bob Russell (Colchester) (LD)]

With Chinese new year celebrations and firework displays this weekend, will the Minister urgently receive a delegation of MPs and immediately suspend new regulations—which have just been implemented five years early—that will lead to the collapse of the British fireworks industry?

[Jo Swinson]

I know that my hon. Friend is speaking up for the industry on this issue. I met him at the end of last year. BIS policy officials have had two meetings with the industry. Lawyers have also had meetings, and a further meeting is due next week to try to resolve the issue he raises. Yesterday I received a letter from him and the hon. Members for Bracknell (Dr Lee), for Sherwood (Mr Spencer) and for Huntingdon (Mr Djanogly). I will be happy to meet them next week as a matter of urgency to discuss this.

[Jonathan Reynolds (Stalybridge and Hyde) (Lab/Co-op)]

There are concerns that the UK is lagging behind its competitors in the registration of graphene patents. The USA has more than 1,100; we have just 46. Does the Minister agree that this is an example of why the Government need to provide more strategic direction and to support important technology sectors for the future?

[Miss Anne McIntosh (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)]

I congratulate the Under-Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, my hon. Friend the Member for East Dunbartonshire (Jo Swinson) on taking the Groceries Code Adjudicator Bill through Parliament, and on allowing the adjudicator to impose fines. Will she look favourably on the adjudicator taking their own initiative in investigations from day one?

[Jo Swinson]

I thank the Chair of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee for her question and, indeed, MPs from all parties who have campaigned for the adjudicator. Christine Tacon was announced as the adjudicator-designate a few weeks ago and we are looking forward to the pre-appointment scrutiny by the Business, Innovation and Skills Committee. We want to make sure that the adjudicator will be able to undertake investigations where there is any suggestion or suspicion that the code is not being complied with.

[Jessica Morden (Newport East) (Lab)]

Last week, at a time of great uncertainty on the high street, the Co-op, working with the Farepak victims committee, announced that it would be the first major retailer to protect and guarantee customers’ Christmas savings in the future. Will the Minister welcome that move? May I also thank her and the Secretary of State for their work with Farepak victims? Long may it continue for consumer protection in the future.

[Jo Swinson]

The hon. Lady is right to highlight the excellent scheme that the Co-op has just announced. It should be celebrated and I hope that other companies will be encouraged to follow suit, because I know that giving this kind of protection to customers will be very welcome indeed. I will continue to work with her and other hon. Members on the issue.

[Stephen Metcalfe (South Basildon and East Thurrock) (Con)]

Although I welcome the fact that university applications are up and that a higher proportion of them are from people from poorer backgrounds, will the Minister for Universities and Science join me in reminding my young constituents that, whatever the fees they are charged, they will only start paying them back once they earn more than £21,000?

Oral Answers to Questions

Jo Swinson Excerpts

Thursday 20th December 2012 Commons Chamber

[Ann McKechin (Glasgow North) (Lab)]

1. What assessment he has made of the effect of payday lenders in areas of social deprivation.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills (Jo Swinson)]

The Government are not aware of any robust research that quantifies the effect of payday loans on areas of social deprivation, but I expect that there are links. We are very concerned about the findings of the interim report from the Office of Fair Trading’s payday compliance review and strongly support any enforcement action that the OFT takes. Payday lending can work for some people in some circumstances, but it is not a solution to long-term financial difficulty.

[Ann McKechin]

Scotcash, which represents many vulnerable families in Glasgow, has brought to my attention a payday loan agreement in which the APR is a staggering 7,200,000%. Given that Which? has indicated that more than 48% of those who take out payday loans believe that they will not be able to repay them, is it not now time for the Minister to commit to firm statutory regulation in 2013 rather than relying on wishy-washy voluntary codes?

[Jo Swinson]

The hon. Lady raises two specific issues in her question. Although there is concern about high interest rates, just as when someone hires a car for three days they do not look at the annual cost of doing so, with short-term credit the APR is not necessarily the most relevant statistic. The hon. Lady’s second point was on affordability assessments and the detrimental effect of people being lent money they should not be lent when debt advice would be much more appropriate. That is a significant concern. The Government are considering the OFT’s review and the OFT is already taking action—it has opened formal investigations into several payday lenders. We expect the final report early in the new year and the Government are committed to ensuring that we take action on this issue.

[Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)]

2. What recent discussions he has had with the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change on investment in green manufacturing jobs.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr John Baron (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)]

3. What plans the Government have to make it a requirement that more than 50% of the eligible membership must approve strike action for it to take place.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills (Jo Swinson)]

We have no such plans.

[Mr Baron]

With tube strikes planned for this Christmas, I suggest that it is not right that a minority of employees, particularly in the public services, can hold employers and the public to ransom. May I urge the Government to revisit this one?

[Jo Swinson]

I hear what my hon. Friend says. Obviously, we are pleased that the CrossCountry and ScotRail strikes have been called off. Dialogue is always the best way to resolve these issues. Strike action is a sign of failure on both sides, so resolving the issues is always the best solution. On the subject of a minimum turnout and vote, I gently point out to my hon. Friend that his Conservative colleague, Nick Alston, is the new police and crime commissioner for Essex and was elected with the support of 6.6% of the electorate.

[Natascha Engel (North East Derbyshire) (Lab)]

The right to withhold one’s labour is a mark of a country’s democracy. Does the Minister agree that any move to restrict that right is a move in an anti-democratic direction?

[Jo Swinson]

The hon. Lady makes an important point. It is also worth noting that strikes and industrial action at present are at historically low levels. That is a sign of positive industrial relations and is to be welcomed. Trade unions play a very important role, and although the headlines generally focus on industrial action and strikes, the excellent work that they do on training and resolving workplace disputes often does not hit the headlines and should be commended. We always keep issues under review, but it is fair to say that the industrial action laws and situations are generally working well.

[Mark Pawsey (Rugby) (Con)]

4. What steps he is taking to increase the number of small and medium-sized enterprises which export to international markets.

--- Later in debate ---

[John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)]

I recently met Phil Downer, who runs a recruitment business, and he took me through the 14 pages of the new agency workers regulations that he has to fill in every time he recruits somebody for a few weeks. Will the Minister explain whether the red tape challenge is addressing this unnecessary regulation, which is a massive burden on a small business man who is trying to get on in my constituency?

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills (Jo Swinson)]

The hon. Gentleman is a strong supporter of businesses in his constituency. The red tape challenge is looking at a wide range of issues and he is right to highlight that. We need to ensure that there is proper paperwork when it is necessary, but we will review whether the current burden is appropriate and proportionate.

[Seema Malhotra (Feltham and Heston) (Lab/Co-op)]

T2. Since the Davies report, we have seen an increase in the number of women in non-executive roles. However, the gender balance for executive roles has remained at approximately 5%. What plans does the Minister have to increase the proportion of women in non-executive and executive roles in 2013?

[Jo Swinson]

The hon. Lady is right to highlight the issue of executive roles, which is more difficult to address than non-executive roles in the boardroom. The Government are taking action. The Women’s Business Council is looking at what specific steps can be taken and we expect its report in May. More than 60 companies have already signed up to the Government’s Think, Act, Report initiative, looking in detail at how they recruit, promote, retain and pay their women executives so that we can ensure that women are reaching the boardroom not just in non-executive roles but in executive roles.

[Mel Stride (Central Devon) (Con)]

T5. The UK has among the most generous maternity leave provisions in the world, which mean that some employers have to provide time off for employees for up to a year. This is particularly onerous for very small businesses. Will my hon. Friend look at the possibility of reducing the level of maternity benefits for micro- businesses that employ 10 people or fewer?

[Jo Swinson]

At this time of year, when we remember the Christmas story, we can be thankful that in the past 2,000 years not only has maternity care improved somewhat, but so has the recognition in society of the positive role that women, and mothers in particular, can play in the workplace. I recognise that it can be difficult for employers when an excellent employee is away for a year. That is why I hope that, as a strong champion for small business and as a father, my hon. Friend will welcome the Government’s plans to introduce shared parental leave, which will let mums and dads choose how they care for their children. Of course, that will mean that many mums will return to work in under a year, which will help to deal with the problem he outlines, as well as help dads to spend more time with their child in the early weeks of their child’s life.

On the specific issue, approximately 1.5 million people become parents every year, and we would not want that talent pool to be dissuaded from applying to work for small businesses.

[Mr Speaker]

I think on the strength of that answer there is plenty of scope for an Adjournment debate in which, no doubt, we will hear about the Nordic nostrums and views about neanderthals from the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr Sheerman), who was scarcely able to contain himself a moment ago.

[Jo Swinson]

The Government are certainly looking very closely at debt management. The National Audit Office has looked at the Office of Fair Trading. It found that it has a positive role to play in enforcement action, and has been active in this area. We are trying to agree with industry a protocol to improve debt management and advice. We will continue to look at this carefully because, as the hon. Gentleman rightly says, this is important to many people.

[Peter Aldous (Waveney) (Con)]

T7. The Under- Secretary of State for Skills, my hon. Friend the Member for West Suffolk (Matthew Hancock), is due to visit Lowestoft college in the new year. I would be grateful if he confirmed that the additional funding for capital investment in further education colleges, further details of which he announced this morning, is available for refurbishment projects such as the one that the college has worked up and which will enable it to build on its excellent work in providing people with the skills needed in the energy sector?

Oral Answers to Questions

Jo Swinson Excerpts

Thursday 8th November 2012 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills (Jo Swinson)]

The Secretary of State has written to the industry asking for evidence on how the self-regulatory approach announced last November is working. We will make our decisions after considering its response.

[Mr Russell Brown]

I thank the Minister for that answer, but a broad coalition of organisations as diverse as the Campaign for Real Ale, the Federation of Small Businesses, the Business, Innovation and Skills Committee, which has a majority of coalition members, the all-party save the pub group, Unite and the GMB—the list goes on—all think that the relationship between pubcos and their licensees is unfair. Is the Minister able to name any serious organisation that thinks that self-regulation will work in this sector?

[Jo Swinson]

I understand that a wide range of organisations have expressed concerns, which is exactly why we have written to the industry to ask for its views on how this is working. We want to proceed on an evidence-based approach and once we receive the evidence we will report back to the House.

[Lisa Nandy]

In Wigan, we are proud of our small breweries, AllGates and Prospect, whose beer will be in this place very soon. An independent inquiry would allow us to consider the impact of restrictions on their trade and, in particular, the impact on our local economy, given the breweries’ importance to Wigan. A commitment today from the Minister to establish such an inquiry would go a long way to restoring confidence in the industry. Will she make that commitment?

[Jo Swinson]

I thank the hon. Lady for her question. She does a wonderful job in championing her local breweries and the BIS Committee was very positive about the relationship that family brewers have with tenants. I may have to disappoint her by not giving her the commitment that she asks for today, but the Government are open-minded. As I have said, when we receive the industry’s response, which we have asked for by 23 November, we will consider the matter further.

[Andrew Gwynne]

On 12 January, this House supported unanimously a motion stating that the Government should commission a review of the self-regulation of the pub industry, to be conducted by an independent body, by the autumn of this year. It is now November and there has been no action. Why does the Minister hold the decision of the House of Commons in such contempt?

[Jo Swinson]

I do not think that that is an accurate representation of my view. I came into the post just a couple of months ago and I am looking at the issue very seriously. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has written to the industry and it is appropriate to proceed on an evidence base. Once we receive the written responses, discussions will be required with the industry and, as I have said, we will return to the House with further information on what has been presented to us.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

Will the Minister outline how she, as the Government’s representative, might help independent freehold houses generate business and, in particular, line up with independent mini-breweries?

[Jo Swinson]

I thank my hon. Friend for that question. It is certainly interesting that three quarters of the new pubs that have opened in the last year and a bit have been freehold. That says a lot about how people who are looking to set up pubs feel about the business models. The Minister of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, my right hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Michael Fallon) outlined some of the initiatives of global entrepreneurship week. The Government have a raft of measures to support small businesses. I know that Members from all parts of the House want to support small community businesses in their constituencies, including small breweries.

[Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)]

The Minister says that she wants to hear from the industry. If she has looked into this matter, she will know that the entire industry was united in thinking that the Government’s response last November was too weak. The Secretary of State said in June 2010 that he would support the commitments made by the previous Government, and this House set out its clear view in January 2012. Now, years after all the Select Committee reviews, we have yet another consultation. Why does the Minister not listen to the view of this House, listen to the view of the industry and set up an independent review of whether self-regulation is working? Let us start saving some jobs and pubs before it is too late.

[Jo Swinson]

I am listening; that is the purpose of asking the industry how the current approach is working. There are positive signs, such as the setting up of the Pubs Advisory Service and the Pubs Independent Conciliation and Arbitration Service. PICAS has started to hear cases and two have been found in favour of the tenants. There has been positive action and we need to assess whether that is sufficient. That is what the gathering of evidence is designed to do.

[Glyn Davies (Montgomeryshire) (Con)]

8. What assessment he has made of the effect on jobs of the extra costs of energy arising from subsidising wind farm development.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Bob Russell (Colchester) (LD)]

14. If he will bring forward legislative proposals to prevent owners of businesses which have failed with debts outstanding from starting new businesses of an identical or similar nature.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills (Jo Swinson)]

The Government have no current plans to bring forward legislation. We recognise that some businesses will fail, but we do not want to prevent entrepreneurs from learning from an initial business failure. I understand, however, the significant concerns that are expressed about so-called phoenix companies. I know my hon. Friend has worked tirelessly on behalf of his constituents on this issue, and I will keep it under close review.

[Sir Bob Russell]

Cavendish Conversions Ltd and, in my constituency, Number Nine Restaurant Ltd, have risen phoenix-like to start again in new guises thanks to dodgy financial gymnastics by their owners, leaving innocent citizens and businesses with serious financial losses. I urge the Government to take action against those people. It is unfair that they can rack up losses and start again.

[Jo Swinson]

I thank my hon. Friend for his question. He highlights the distress that is caused to his constituents—I know from my correspondence that this also applies to constituents across the country—when companies undertake the activities he describes. I look forward to meeting him to discuss this specific issue in a couple of weeks’ time. He has already introduced an Adjournment debate to go into his case in detail. I reiterate that we need to get the balance right between encouraging enterprise and protecting consumers and business, but I look forward to discussing the matter with him further.

[Derek Twigg (Halton) (Lab)]

I agree with the hon. Member for Colchester (Sir Bob Russell). What happens is that perfectly good businesses get left with bad debts because a contract has not been paid. They then have a cash flow problem and the banks often will not support them. The Minister should look again at this and at the role of the banks in this situation.

[Jo Swinson]

The hon. Gentleman makes a very good point, because what often happens is that one business goes under and its creditors get into difficulty as a result. We want to make sure that the system works to prevent such situations and provide support to businesses. We need to be wary of unintended consequences, because we also do not want a regime under which people who have had a failure in business cannot start up again, but we need to look at the disqualification regime and check that we have got the balance right.

[Mark Pawsey (Rugby) (Con)]

16. What recent steps he has taken to encourage business start-ups; and if he will make a statement.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sarah Newton (Truro and Falmouth) (Con)]

17. What progress has been made on the EU Commission proposal to impose quotas for women on boards.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills (Jo Swinson)]

The European Commission is considering what proposals to make to increase the number of women on boards. I expect an announcement shortly, perhaps as early as next week. It is an important issue. I want to see more women on boards on merit. As the House will know, the UK’s voluntary business-led approach is working well, with significant increases in women on boards in FTSE 100 companies.

[Sarah Newton]

I thank my hon. Friend for her answer, but does she agree that it is also important that we focus on the pipeline of talented women? Does she welcome the pilot initiative by the Mentoring Foundation which offers women at the junior end of senior management mentoring support from senior women executives who themselves have been mentored by FTSE chief executives?

[Jo Swinson]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right about the pipeline issue. It is vital that we encourage businesses and organisations to develop talented individuals. If an organisation is viewed as a pyramid, there are good numbers of men and women at the base of the pyramid, but higher up the number of women falls away, and mentoring schemes are an excellent way to address that. The Women’s Business Council is also looking at this issue, and the Government’s initiative “Think, Act, Report” encourages companies to put in place schemes to ensure that they develop the talent within their organisations and address the pipeline issue.

[Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)]

18. What recent estimate he has made of the number of jobs that will be created by the regional growth fund.

Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Bill

Jo Swinson Excerpts

Wednesday 17th October 2012 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills (Jo Swinson)]

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

[Mr Speaker]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

New clause 1—Removal of requirement for protected disclosures to be made in good faith—

‘The Employment Rights Act 1996 is amended as follows:

‘(1) Omit “in good faith”—

(a) in section 43C (Disclosures qualifying for protection), in subsection (1),

(b) in section 43E (Disclosure to Minister of the Crown), in paragraph (b), and

(c) in section 43F (Disclosure to prescribed person), in subsection (1)(a).

(2) Omit “makes the disclosure in good faith,

(b) he”—

(a) in section 43G (Disclosure in other cases), in subsection (1), and

(b) in section 43H (Disclosure of exceptionally serious failure), in subsection (1).’.

New clause 2—Duty on employers to prevent detriment caused by others to workers who have made protected disclosures—

‘(1) The Secretary of State shall make regulations requiring an employer, where a worker has made a protected disclosure under section 43A of the Employment Rights Act 1996, to take reasonable steps to ensure that the worker is not subjected to any detriment by any act, or any deliberate failure to act, by a person other than his employer done on the ground that worker has made the disclosure.

(2) Regulations under this section—

(a) are to be made by statutory instrument, and

(b) are not to be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament.’.

Amendment 80, in clause 7, page 4, line 13, at end insert—

‘(1) Prior to the commencement of this section, the Secretary of State shall carry out an impact assessment into the effect of the introduction of proposed fees for the employment tribunal system and the impact this will have on the effectiveness of ACAS conciliation proceedings.’.

Government amendments 6 and 7.

Amendment 51, page 5, line 43, at end insert—

‘(e) preventing an employer or ex-employer of a prospective Claimant from applying for costs against the prospective Claimant under the Employment Tribunal Rules or other measures to provide an incentive to employers or ex-employers to take part in the conciliation process.’.

Amendment 52, in clause 11, page 7, line 27, after (2) insert

‘With the consent of the parties but not otherwise.’.

Amendment 53, page 7, leave out lines 29 to 38.

Amendment 54, page 8, leave out lines 1 to 10.

Amendment 81, leave out clause 12.

Government amendments 8 to 10.

Amendment 82, leave out clause 13.

Government amendments 11 to 13.

Amendment 70, in clause 13, page 9, leave out line 15.

Government amendment 14.

Amendment 71, page 9, line 32, leave out

‘in whatever way the Secretary of State thinks fit’

and insert

‘by the Secretary of State following consultation with the TUC and CBI’.

Government amendment 15.

Amendment 58, leave out clause 14.

Amendment 59, in clause 14, page 10, line 11, at end insert—

‘(c) and where the employer employs in excess of 10 employees at the time of the claim first being submitted to ACAS as per section 18A of this Act,’.

Amendment 92, page 10, line 14, at end insert—

‘(1A) The Secretary of State shall by regulations provide for an employer to pay a penalty to the Secretary of State for each period of time (as specified in those regulations) that passes during which an award of compensation under Part X of the Employment Rights Act 1996 has not yet been paid by the employer.’.

Amendment 72, page 10, line 17, leave out from ‘£5,000’ until end of line 4 on page 11.

Amendment 83, page 10, leave out lines 20 to 25.

Amendment 73, page 11, line 47, after ‘Fund’, insert

‘to be spent with the objective of promoting awareness of employment rights and promoting training for employment.’.

Amendment 94, in clause 15, page 12, line 4, leave out from ‘(protection),’ to end of line 5, and insert ‘after subsection (2), insert—

‘(2A) The disclosure of information relating to a private contractual matter to which the person making the disclosure is party is not a qualifying disclosure unless the worker making the disclosure reasonably believes it to be made in the public interest.”.’.

Government amendments 16, 17 and 31.

Amendment 57, in schedule 2, page 65, line 22, leave out ‘one month’ and insert ‘six months’.

[Jo Swinson]

New clause 8 will introduce sensible changes to the employment tribunal rules of procedure recommended by Mr Justice Underhill. I shall say more about the effect of those changes shortly. A number of other new clauses and amendments have been tabled both by the Government and by other Members, and I shall attempt to address them—as well as new clause 8—as comprehensively but as succinctly as possible. As Members will know, part 2 was subjected to thorough scrutiny by the hon. Member for Edinburgh South (Ian Murray) and his Committee colleagues, and all the clauses were accepted unamended.

Contrary to some of the views expressed in Committee, these measures do nothing to affect an individual’s employment rights. Instead, they deliver on the Government’s commitment to giving businesses more confidence to take on new staff and grow. We know that employment tribunals are a continuing cause of concern for businesses and, indeed, employees, and I should be surprised if Opposition Front-Benchers tried to argue that all is working swimmingly at present. The measures in part 2 are designed to alleviate the fears and problems by encouraging the earliest possible resolution of disputes, facilitating settlement agreements to help businesses to manage their staff more effectively, and ensuring that the tribunal system itself operates efficiently for all users.

[Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)]

Will the Minister give way?

[Jo Swinson]

I will in due course, but I want to make a bit of progress first.

I welcome this opportunity to set out the changes that we have proposed and respond to those made by others, continuing the work of my predecessor to bring reform to the employment tribunal system. Let me begin by explaining the amendments that we are making through new clause 8, which will amend existing provisions in the Employment Tribunals Act 1996.

Following his fundamental review of the rules of procedure for employment tribunals, Mr Justice Underhill made a number of recommendations about how the rules might be improved. In some instances, he felt that the primary legislation would need to be amended before desirable changes in the procedural rules could be made. These changes will help to achieve more effective and targeted case management which will benefit all tribunal users.

The first change involves deposit orders. Tribunals can currently require a party to pay a deposit of up to £1,000 as a condition of continuing to proceed with a weak claim. However, a judge cannot currently use a deposit order to weed out the weak elements of a particular claim, and must instead attach a deposit order to the entire claim as a condition of proceeding. That lack of flexibility does not aid effective case management. Enabling judges to make better-targeted deposit orders will give both parties a clear sense of where they should focus their efforts, encouraging a more realistic approach to settlement, and I believe that it will also lead to greater use of such orders.

The second change relates to the recoverability of witness expenses for people who choose to represent themselves at tribunals and seek a preparation time order in respect of their work on the case. An oddity in the current costs regime places people who represent themselves at tribunals at a disadvantage, as a tribunal cannot make a costs order for witness expenses and a preparation time order in respect of the same party. We are amending the Employment Tribunals Act 1996 to remove that unnecessary restriction.

The final change deals with the recoverability of lay representatives’ costs. Mr Justice Underhill considered that those who chose to be represented by a non-lawyer, and who had paid for that service and advice, should not be put at a disadvantage when a tribunal concluded that the other party’s conduct meant that a costs order was warranted. I agree that those who choose to engage lay representatives rather than lawyers should not be disadvantaged when it comes to the award of costs, and I intend to use the existing powers in section 13 of the Employment Tribunals Act to change the rules of procedure in order to allow for such costs orders. The new clause helps to clarify the scope of section 13 by introducing a definition of the word “representative”.

Let me now deal with new clauses 1 and 2, tabled by the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Katy Clark), which amend clause 15. Along with the organisation Public Concern at Work, she has been a powerful advocate on this subject, and we discussed it recently during a Westminster Hall debate that she had initiated.

I think we can all agree that, in an ideal world, legislation for whistleblowing would not be needed at all. In such a world, all employers would be open and receptive when an issue was raised, and would not seek to silence or drive out a person who brought important matters to their attention. However, as we know, such enlightened approaches to whistleblowing are not universal, so legal protection is required. We are equally keen to ensure that the protection offered by the public interest disclosure legislation is not abused by those who seek to rely on it for purely self-interested reasons. Clause 15, which has already been debated in Committee, will ensure that the whistleblowing provisions cannot be used to advance purely personal interests.

New clause 1 addresses a different aspect of the public interest disclosure legislation. It proposes the removal of the good faith test, which has been in place since the legislation was introduced. That would mean that individual whistleblowers would retain the benefit of employment protection even if their reasons for blowing the whistle were malicious, if they deliberately set out to cause commercial damage, or if they acted out of a desire for personal revenge.

There is clearly a balance to be struck. We are conscious of the recommendations of Dame Janet Smith’s inquiry into the tragic circumstances of the Shipman case. She suggested that the good faith test be removed to encourage more whistleblowers to come forward. We also recognise that the motivations of whistleblowers are not always clear-cut. Personal feelings, particularly when a relationship has broken down, sometimes make it difficult to understand the intentions of the person who is making a disclosure. Having said that, I should add that, as we have already made clear, we believe that the legislation is working well overall, and that the good faith test serves an important purpose.

We are also keen to avoid making a change that could allow individuals access to an uncapped award when their motives for blowing the whistle were malicious, and I therefore do not believe that there is a clear-cut case for removing the good faith test. However, I recognise that the hon. Lady has raised an important issue relating to this specific element of the public interest disclosure regime, and we will continue to look closely at the policy aims of the test to ensure that they are still being achieved.

[Julian Smith (Skipton and Ripon) (Con)]

Does the Minister agree that there is much more scope for whistleblowing in this country, given the number of whistleblowers in America and the incentives that they are given to come forward? Does she agree that there may be more work for the Government to do in future months?

[Jo Swinson]

I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. It is a positive thing that we have an environment where people, rightly, feel able to come forward and blow the whistle. The legislation that was enacted was important and is generally working well. We are proposing small changes to it in this Bill, but it is absolutely important. For the reasons that I outlined, that legal protection is necessary and we should be proud of the fact that we have such legislation.

--- Later in debate ---

[Julian Smith]

I am heartened by these amendments, because one of my concerns in Committee was that this process with ACAS could become far too formal. It is really important that as this early conciliation develops we make it as informal as possible.

[Jo Swinson]

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. He rightly says that we want that process to be a success, and enabling the technology of the telephone to be used in it is a helpful, albeit minor, amendment.

Opposition Members have tabled a number of amendments on the early conciliation process. Amendment 80 seeks to require the Secretary of State to consult on, and undertake an assessment of, the impact of the introduction of fee charging in employment tribunals on the effectiveness of early conciliation before commencing these provisions. Hon. Members will know that the power to charge fees in tribunals is one that already existed; we announced our intention to introduce fees in employment tribunals in January 2011, and subsequently consulted on the appropriate charging points and fee levels in December 2011.

We recognise that the introduction of fees to bring an employment tribunal claim may affect the behaviours of both claimants and respondents, and that there may therefore be an impact on how parties elect to engage with early conciliation. We considered the possible impact as part of the assessment that accompanied the announcement in November 2011 of our intention to introduce early conciliation—copies are in the Library of the House. As part of the implementation planning, we will publish further impact assessments. The proposed amendment would simply require us to replicate work that we have already done and will continue to do, so I am unable to support it. The amendment is unnecessary, but I can give the assurance that we are, of course, continuing to take into account the impact that our approach will have.

[Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab)]

I wonder how the Minister would deal with an issue that has been raised by the chair of ACAS, Ed Sweeney. He said that the introduction of the fee structure could have an impact on the effectiveness of conciliation at ACAS.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jo Swinson]

As the hon. Gentleman will find if he checks Hansard, I have just said that we recognise that our approach could have an impact; it may affect the behaviours of both claimants and respondents. We have already published an impact assessment, but we will keep this matter under review. Of course, if at a future point a further change is necessary as a result, we will come back with it. The Bill does not need to provide for that consultation process, given that it is already ongoing.

[John Cryer (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab)]

We also need to address the question of ACAS’s capacity to deal with the extra cases—no matter how the process is run, their number will increase. Is there not an implication in terms of extra resources, for ACAS to deal with what could be an extra 100,000 cases a year?

[Jo Swinson]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, which highlights the crucial role of ACAS in this area. My predecessor gave reassurances in Committee, but I say again that ACAS will be adequately resourced. It is absolutely essential that that is the case in order to deliver early conciliation. Indeed, I remind hon. Members that in his evidence to the Committee, the chair of ACAS, Ed Sweeney, said that he was confident that the Government would make sure that ACAS will be adequately resourced. I am glad to be able to give that reassurance to the House.

Amendment 51 would add a power to make regulations which would prevent an employer from seeking costs against an employee at tribunal, or to take any other measures that would incentivise employers to take part in the conciliation process. Amendment 57 would have the effect of providing those individuals bringing claims under a particular Act, whose limitation period would otherwise expire during the period of early conciliation or within one month of the conciliation process ending, with an additional six months in which to lodge their claim with the tribunal.

I recognise the intent behind the amendments tabled by Opposition Members; they clearly share our belief that resolving disputes is best done between the parties, rather than at an employment tribunal—as, I believe, do those involved in the process. There has been broad support for the introduction of early conciliation, both in the House and from employers and employees, who recognise the benefits that it offers. It is the benefits—savings in time and cost, and in the considerable stress of the tribunal process—that will encourage parties to engage in conciliation, rather than a change in the rules to prevent respondents from seeking a costs order.

The rules on costs orders are clear: costs may be ordered by a tribunal where a party has acted vexatiously, abusively, disruptively or otherwise unreasonably in bringing or conducting proceedings. However, it is rare that parties act in such a manner; the vast majority of cases are where there is a genuine disagreement between the parties, which is why only 1,311 of these awards were made in 2011-12.

[Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (PC)]

Do the Government recognise that the reason behind the amendments is the concern that many hon. Members have that the Government’s plans will reduce access to justice?

--- Later in debate ---

[Jo Swinson]

I do recognise that there is genuine concern, particularly in respect of the new fee regime. It is important that a remission regime is in place as well; it is important to point that out. However, the amendments would provide protection for people who are behaving in a vexatious and abusive manner. No matter which side of the dispute that occurs on, we should not be encouraging it. Where a claimant is behaving unreasonably—this is at the discretion of the tribunal—it would be inappropriate for employers to be prevented from seeking a costs order if the tribunal considers that the claimant’s behaviour justifies such an order.

[Mr Chuka Umunna (Streatham) (Lab)]

If the Minister accepts that there are serious concerns about the introduction of fees and its impact on access to justice, why does she not look at the case management powers in the interlocutory stage of case proceedings and perhaps expand deposit powers to act as a disincentive for vexatious claimants? That would not have an impact on access to justice as her Government’s proposals are having.

[Jo Swinson]

A range of measures in the Bill will help to improve access to justice. Of course, the most important thing is to make sure that fewer people end up going to employment tribunals in the first place. [Interruption.] I have just discussed the measures on early conciliation, which is a much better way of resolving disputes. We also have measures on rapid resolution, which I will come on to deal with and which have been discussed in Committee. Those are the ways of ensuring that people are able to get the best resolution to their disputes. Obviously there will still be a role for employment tribunals and there will be cases that, for whatever reason, cannot be managed through those other, better options for resolving them. In imposing a fee, there will still be access to justice through the remission regime for those who are otherwise unable to afford it.

[John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)]

My amendment 51 seeks to prevent employers from applying for costs and using the provisions as an incentive to take part in conciliation. Is the Minister saying that such a power already exists in law and that she does not feel it should be codified? Or is she simply opposed to codifying it?

[Jo Swinson]

As far as I am aware—I am sure that inspiration will reach me if this is not the case—tribunals already have the power to impose costs, but the amendment would seek to limit the circumstances. Where proceedings have been brought or conducted in a vexatious, abusive, disruptive or otherwise unreasonable manner, it is important that the tribunal route retains the discretion to award costs. That happens in a tiny number of cases, because even when a case reaches tribunal most people engage with it in a spirit of genuine concern and with a genuine problem, but there will be some cases in which a relationship is vexatious or in which someone seeks to settle scores. If that is the case, it is appropriate for costs to be ordered in such a way.

Let me turn now to amendment 57, the proposal to amend the period for lodging a claim from one to six months for those whose limitation period would otherwise expire during the early conciliation period or within one month of the early conciliation process ending. The amendment would affect only a small number of individuals: those whose claim was brought under the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 and who had sent their claim to ACAS towards the very end of the limitation period.

We want all claimants to have the confidence to engage meaningfully in early conciliation without the fear of running out of time to bring a claim. That is why we have provided for all claimants to have a minimum of a month following the end of the early conciliation period in which to lodge a claim, regardless of its nature. It is difficult to see why individuals should require longer than a month to prepare and submit the necessary form to the tribunal, bearing in mind that they will already have gone through the early conciliation process and have been considering the matter for some time, and it is even more difficult to see why such a lengthy extension should apply to such a narrow range of claims. We want all people to be able to engage in early conciliation and to have the confidence to do so and, if it does not work, to pursue other options. I am therefore unable to support amendments 80, 51 and 57.

Opposition Members have proposed three amendments to clause 11, amendments 52, 53 and 54, which relate to the composition of the Employment Appeal Tribunal. As my predecessor, my hon. Friend the Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb), explained in Committee when a similar amendment was voted down, we believe it is right that when the issue under consideration is related solely to a point of law the matter should ordinarily be heard by a judge sitting alone. That is always the case in the EAT, of course. However, when the judge considers that there is merit in sitting with a panel, they will be able to do that, and the Lord Chancellor can also order it for specific proceedings. I am therefore unable to support the proposed amendments.

Government amendments 8, 9 and 10, to clause 12, provide for confidentiality of negotiations before the termination of employment. Since the introduction of the clause in Committee, my Department has sought and received feedback from a number of key stakeholders. Some, including the Employment Lawyers Association and some business representative groups, told us that the original wording of subsection (1), which stated that employment tribunals should not take account of offers of settlement in their deliberations, could be open to misconception and misunderstanding. Although the Government believe that the original drafting of the clause would have the desired effect—namely putting an offer of settlement outside the deliberations of the employment tribunal in unfair dismissal cases—we wish to allay those fears and are amending the drafting of subsection (1) for the purposes of clarity and the avoidance of doubt. Subsection (5) is rendered unnecessary by that redrafting, so amendment 10 is a consequential amendment to remove it. In the proposed amended clause, just as in the original, employment tribunals will remain able to consider an offer of settlement in claims being brought on other grounds.

Amendment 9 does nothing more than reflect the difference in terminology between tribunals in Scotland, where the term “expenses” is used in employment tribunal proceedings, and those in England and Wales, where the term “costs” is used. Clause 12 was debated at some length in Committee—I have no doubt that Opposition Members have fond memories of that—and none of the amendments changes the purpose or effect of the clause, which were accepted then.

Opposition amendment 81 would remove clause 12 in its entirety. It is worth going back to consider the original aim of the clause. It is aimed at helping employers and employees come to a consensual end to employment relationships that are just not working out by facilitating the use of settlement agreements. A settlement agreement offers potential benefits to employers and employees, including a much quicker resolution than that offered by the tribunal, where the average time taken to resolve a claim is 24 weeks. Employers have the security that they will not face a tribunal case that would distract them and other workers from their business activities, and employees end up with the certainty of a cash payment, avoid the time and stress of tribunal, and leave with their head held high and possibly a reference. We want to encourage more businesses and individuals to consider the use of settlement agreements as a viable and potentially preferable means of parting ways than an emotionally draining performance management or misconduct route or a costly and stressful employment tribunal.

--- Later in debate ---

[Julian Smith]

I am heartened that the Minister is not seeking to make any changes to the clause. Is she surprised that the Opposition are so unenthusiastic about helping the 4.5 million small businesses that will benefit from the clause?

[Jo Swinson]

It is intriguing, given the experience of Opposition Front Benchers as employment lawyers. It is worth bearing in mind that compromise agreements already exist and existed for 13 years under the previous Government. They have a lot of merit, but tend to be used by large firms in particular—large firms, which can afford to employ expensive employment lawyers. Small and medium-sized companies often feel very afraid of taking on such conversations and that is what we are seeking to address.

I recognise that there are concerns about how the clause might work in practice and what safeguards there may be for individuals, many of which my colleague, my hon. Friend the Member for North Norfolk, addressed in some detail in Committee. I strongly believe that in clause 12 we have found the right balance between protecting individuals and giving employers the flexibility and confidence they need to manage their businesses effectively. It is about balance. The settlement agreements measure provides a mutually beneficial solution for employers and employees as regards ending the employment relationship. Let us be clear that this is not, as some have suggested—and as Opposition Members have been suggesting from a sedentary position—the first step to no-fault dismissal or Beecroft-lite. We have made it abundantly clear that we will not go down that path.

[John Cryer]

Will the Minister give way?

[Jo Swinson]

I will give way shortly.

We believe our approach to settlement agreements is a more effective way of dealing with workplace problems, as it offers a positive outcome for all parties. Settlement agreements are by definition voluntary and consensual. Individuals will still need to get independent legal advice before signing an agreement and can decline it if they want to do so. That approach has the benefit that an agreed settlement gives an employer surety that they will not face a tribunal case on any grounds covered by the settlement agreement, which a no-fault dismissal regime would not provide. Employees are at liberty to reject an offer when it is not right for them and our approach does not remove an employer’s obligations not to discriminate or prevent an individual from bringing other evidence to support a case of unfair dismissal.

[Ian Murray]

rose—

[Jo Swinson]

I shall give way first to the hon. Member for Leyton and Wanstead (John Cryer).

[John Cryer]

Earlier, the Minister mentioned the possibility of no-fault dismissal. That is exactly what the Opposition are suggesting. It will be illegal to quote protected conversations later, so no-fault dismissal by the back door will be introduced. What mechanism will she use to monitor the workings of this clause so that that does not happen?

[Jo Swinson]

I cannot make it clear enough that this is not no-fault dismissal. The proposals in the Beecroft report would have removed at a stroke the employment rights of 30 million individuals, whereas what we propose is a voluntary and mutually beneficial process that will end the employment relationship only if the employee agrees to it. That is entirely different. The suggestions that are being made are not founded in fact. The hon. Gentleman says that we should consider how things proceed, and compromise agreements have been on the statute book for some time.

[Debbie Abrahams]

Will the Minister give way?

[Jo Swinson]

I will finish answering this intervention and take the intervention from the hon. Member for Edinburgh South, and then I will be happy to take an intervention from the hon. Lady.

Over the past year—at least over several months—the Government have considered how the process could be improved and have come forward with our proposals. The consultation on exactly how the agreements should take place is running and is open until 23 November. The hon. Member for Leyton and Wanstead is free to input his views and I encourage him to do so. Just as we have considered the current scheme, I am sure that if the scheme is found not to work in future years, any Government would be happy to reconsider it.

[Ian Murray]

The Minister is being incredibly generous in taking our interventions. Does she not accept that settlement agreements, while they can be used where there is no dispute, are likely to create dispute?

[Jo Swinson]

I do not think so. Clearly it is important that the conversation is conducted in a mature and respectful way, and the guidance, on which we are consulting and which will include things such as guideline letters and templates, is expressly designed to make that easier for employers. The problem the hon. Gentleman raises is precisely the opposite of what the proposals will address, because now, where protected conversations can happen if there is a dispute, that creates a perverse incentive to employers to try to manufacture a dispute. Hopefully, the proposed measures will make it much easier for people to have that conversation without having to pretend that there is a dispute where none exists.

[Debbie Abrahams]

I am grateful to the Minister for giving way—eventually. I fear that this is another example of poor legislation from this Government. As I understand it, the provisions regarding protected conversations will not apply in certain conditions, including where an employer is deemed to have behaved in an improper way, yet there is no definition of “improper” in legislation. Will the hon. Lady comment on that?

While I have the chance, I will make the intervention I wanted to make earlier. We know from the OECD that the UK is one of the most lightly regulated countries in the world, next to the United States and Canada. Exactly what evidence does the Minister have to draw on that the measures will improve growth?

[Jo Swinson]

The hon. Lady is being slightly uncharitable in saying that I gave way “eventually”. I took her intervention immediately on finishing my response to her hon. Friends. My approach is to take interventions because the function of Report stage is to ensure that amendments receive proper scrutiny, and I am determined to make sure that hon. Members can have those discussions and receive reassurances where there are concerns.

On the question about settlement agreements and the protections that remain, obviously the agreements should not be used in a way that results in an employee feeling under pressure or that they have to take the agreement. If there is any bullying behaviour or suggestion of discrimination, of course there would be no protection for that conversation. The hon. Lady asks about the definition of “improper”. The consultation on that is under way, and I encourage her to make her views known to it. In general terms, our aim is to reflect, without prejudice, unambiguous impropriety, which would include cases of discrimination and bullying, where there would be no protection for the employer.

[Catherine McKinnell (Newcastle upon Tyne North) (Lab)]

The Minister is being very generous. Does she accept that, under the proposed arrangement, the conversation could come out of the blue for employees, with no warning that their performance may not be up to the standard or that they may not be performing in the manner that the employer requires; and that that will itself generate massive insecurity among the UK work force, which will serve to undermine growth, not aid it? No one will feel confident in buying a car or even a fridge if they think that the next day, out of the blue, they might have a conversation about their performance and be offered a settlement agreement which they feel they have no choice but to accept.

[Jo Swinson]

I recognise that the hon. Lady is genuine in raising her concern, but I think it is misplaced. Employees will not be forced to accept a settlement agreement; it is purely voluntary. She says the conversation will come out of the blue, but clearly we want employers to behave responsibly, with good employment relations and good human resource management. As I mentioned, we are taking steps to produce guidance to make it easier for employers to act in a proper way. The risk that an employee will go into work and their manager will say that they have issues with some aspect of the employee’s performance exists now. Employers and employees having confidence that they can have these conversations at an early point is better than their fearing the conversations, which allows problems to fester and grow.

[Catherine McKinnell]

The Minister talks about encouraging good and positive behaviour, but I am concerned that the measure encourages precisely the opposite sort of behaviour—that it will encourage an employer to approach an employee for the very first time about their performance with an offer to terminate their employment, rather than help them to improve it. There can be no doubt that there is inequality of arms in that conversation for a vulnerable individual who may be facing unemployment. Has the Minister properly considered that?

[Jo Swinson]

It has properly been considered. It is important to repeat that the protection is for conversations relating to a settlement agreement. A settlement agreement, by definition, is a negotiation, so it is unlikely to be a case of take it or leave it. The measure is about starting that conversation and enabling people to say, “We think this is an issue. Is this working out?” I think that enabling employers and employees to have those conversations without the fear described by many within the business community will improve management and not lead to the consequences the hon. Lady fears.

[Stewart Hosie (Dundee East) (SNP)]

I understand what the Minister is saying but I think a little honesty here would be helpful. If an employee behaves badly, they can be sacked. If a business is in trouble, an employee can be made redundant. It is no-fault dismissal by the back door when the conversation and what she describes as a negotiation, with such an imbalance of arms, means that contractual terms of redundancy can be diminished by an offered settlement to go with no fault. That is what this is really about.

[Jo Swinson]

I do not appreciate the hon. Gentleman’s implication. The provision is about making sure that those conversations can take place. Legal advice will have to be sought and given to the employee at that point, before any agreement is reached. Guidance will be given—as I said, we are consulting on that. We are building on and improving the existing procedure for compromise agreements, which have worked well in many cases. We are taking a provision that has been in employment law for many years and improving it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

Thank you. I am grateful.

[Jo Swinson]

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I think it is fair of my hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon (Julian Smith) to point out that many business owners are genuinely concerned about how employment law currently works.

[Mr Umunna]

The Minister has indeed been incredibly generous about giving way. For the record, Mr Speaker, I think it is of assistance to have a range of experience in this House. We have lawyers and many business owners in the shadow BIS team and we speak with the benefit of professional experience.

Does the Minister not acknowledge that employers can have these conversations with employees, as long as they follow fair procedures? That is all we are asking for.

[Jo Swinson]

The procedures are far more likely to be used by large companies, and many business people, particularly those in small and medium-sized enterprises, fear to take them up. That was borne out by much of our consultation, both formal and informal. I do not know whether Opposition Members genuinely believe that there is no concern among business about tribunals and employment law—

[Mr Umunna]

indicated dissent.

[Jo Swinson]

Well, people watching this debate or reading it in Hansard will see that that concern among businesses exists and is not being taken seriously by the Opposition, but I shall be happy to be corrected.

[Mr Umunna]

The Minister knows full well that, for example, we welcomed the setting up of the Underhill review, because we acknowledge that there are issues, but it is really a question of degree. Of course we have to take into account the concerns of business, but our job as politicians is to take into account the concerns of society as a whole and to balance the different interests, and that is what she has got wrong.

[Jo Swinson]

I agree that the job of politicians is to balance those interests, but I disagree with the hon. Gentleman that we do not have the right balance. As hon. Members have pointed out, very different proposals emerged from some quarters, but the Government have said firmly that we will not go ahead with the no-fault dismissal plans that were put forward. That shows that we are taking a balanced approach.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jo Swinson]

I encourage the hon. Lady to speak to employers in her constituency about the issue, which is raised frequently. As to evidence of employers’ fears of employment tribunals, let us look at the previous Government’s record in office. The fear of employment tribunals can put people off employing staff. If people are more likely to employ staff, they are more likely to grow their businesses and create wealth for this country. But let us look at the record of the Opposition. In 1998 there were 90,000 claims going to employment tribunals. By 2010, despite the measures that the Labour Government apparently took to try to improve that situation, the figure was 236,000—a huge jump in the number of tribunals, which of course has created a concern for businesses.

[Catherine McKinnell]

I would be interested to hear the Minister’s analysis of how many of those employment tribunal cases were equal pay claims that were rightly going through the tribunal system. On the evidence, or the apparent lack of evidence, about the genuine fear of employment tribunals, I wonder whether the hon. Lady is in fact making a case for better business support, rather than legislating to make it easier to sack people, which seems a little counter-productive to growth.

[Jo Swinson]

This is not about making it easier to sack people. This is about making it easier for people to come to a mutual agreement, which is, by definition, not sacking.

[Richard Fuller (Bedford) (Con)]

May I offer my hon. Friend some reassurance that she is charting a middle course? She has heard the concerns of the lawyers on the Opposition Benches who, instead of recognising that our business leaders are going out every day to do the best they can for their employees, assume that they need to be corralled and controlled. There are Members of the House who would like to see the Minister go further in her measures in the Bill to make it easier for business leaders to hire more people so that the current recession becomes a job-filled rather than a jobless recession.

[Jo Swinson]

I think I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. The fact that there is criticism from both sides shows that a balanced approach is being taken. I shall make progress as I know that other Members want to speak.

[Ian Murray]

I am grateful to the Minister for allowing me to intervene. Let us nail once and for all the myth about employment tribunal claims. The Government used this as the supposed evidence for changing a range of workers’ rights. The massive increase in employment tribunal claims arises from multiple claims, which have risen substantially, but the individual number of multiple claims has stayed exactly the same for the past three or four years. Indeed, employment tribunal claims are dropping.

[Jo Swinson]

The fact remains that there is a massive backlog of employment tribunal claims, there are massive problems with the way the system is working, and there is significant concern in the business community, which has been expressed in the House and in Committee. I shall move on to the other amendments before allowing other Members to have their say.

Government amendments 11 to 15 to clause 13 will ensure that the power in the Bill to amend the unfair dismissal cap cannot be used to introduce a cap based on an individual’s pay without there also being a specified upper limit. My hon. Friend the Member for North West Leicestershire (Andrew Bridgen) raised a concern in Committee that, as it stands, the power in clause 13 could be used to introduce a pay-based cap with no upper limit. Clearly, such a step would increase potential compensation for the very highly paid and could thereby increase risks and uncertainty for employers. As my hon. Friend the Member for North Norfolk who is now the Minister of State, Department of Health, made clear at the time, this is not the Government’s intention. On the contrary, we are seeking to give employers greater confidence in dealing with disputes and to ensure greater realism about the level of awards in order to encourage settlement.

We launched a consultation on proposals to change the cap on compensation for unfair dismissal on 14 September, alongside our consultation on settlement agreements. The consultation includes looking at the overall level of the cap and also the option of introducing a pay-based cap alongside a specified upper limit. We therefore seek to make these amendments to ensure that the power in clause 13 reflects the Government’s policy intentions.

Opposition Members have proposed three amendments to this clause, the first of which, amendment 82, would delete the clause in its entirety. It has been a matter of common agreement for many years that the compensatory award should be subject to an upper limit. What that limit should be is the issue in question. This clause recognises the agreement that exists about the need for an upper limit, but provides a power for the Secretary of State to vary that limit subject to specific considerations. As I have said, we are consulting on what the appropriate limit should be. I am therefore unable to accept the amendment.

Amendment 70, tabled by the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell), seeks to remove the upper limit of three times median salary. The effect of this would be to allow the cap to be set at any amount. This would clearly run counter to the objectives that I set out a moment ago of greater confidence for business and greater realism for claimants. The hon. Gentleman tabled a further amendment to the clause, amendment 71, which would require the Secretary of State to consult the TUC and the CBI before deciding on a figure for median annual earnings where the figure published by the Statistics Board is more than two years old. I cannot envisage a situation in which such information would not be produced by the ONS in any two-year period but, should such an eventuality ever arise, the Secretary of State will be under a duty to act reasonably and rely upon relevant information. The Secretary of State and other Ministers meet the TUC and CBI regularly to discuss a range of matters, so there is little to be gained from placing a requirement to consult the TUC and the CBI on the face of the Bill. I am therefore unable to support either of the hon. Gentleman’s amendments.

I turn now to the amendments to clause 14 tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Bedford (Richard Fuller). Amendment 58 would delete clause 14 in its entirety. Amendment 59 seeks to restrict the imposition of a financial penalty to those businesses employing more than 10 people—that is, to exempt micro-businesses. I want to make it clear, as did my predecessor in Committee, that the introduction of this discretionary power for tribunals is not intended to penalise employers indiscriminately. It will be used only when an employer has breached an individual’s employment rights, and when that breach has been accompanied by aggravating features—for example, where there has been a deliberate decision to act in a way that breaches the employee’s rights, or where the same employer repeatedly acts in an unlawful manner.

When we first proposed the introduction of financial penalties, we had thought to make the imposition of the penalty automatic when there was a finding in favour of the claimant, but we listened to the concerns expressed by business during the resolving workplace disputes consultation last year and revised our proposals to give the tribunal discretion to decide when a penalty was appropriate. Good employers—those who try to do right by their employees—have nothing to fear, regardless of their size. A genuine mistake will not be grounds for the imposition of a penalty. However, those businesses which the tribunal considers have acted deliberately or maliciously will rightly, I believe, face the prospect of a financial penalty. They will no longer be able to gain a competitive advantage over businesses that abide by their obligations.

I cannot stand here and defend bad employers. I recognise the good work that my hon. Friend the Member for Bedford has done to support the interests of small businesses, and I am sure he does not want to defend bad employers either. I hope he will not press his amendments, as the Government are unable to support them.

[Richard Fuller]

Of course I do not wish to defend bad employers but as the Minister knows, almost all employers are good employers who do the right thing. Will she address the general principle, which is not so much about the points that she mentioned? Why are the Government trying to get in on the financial action? This is about money that will go to the Government. It is nothing to do with the relationship between the employer and the employee. The money will not go to the employee. Why is it so important that the Government get their take?

[Jo Swinson]

My hon. Friend is right to point out that the majority of employers are good employers. I am sure hon. Members in all parts of the House find that to be so when they visit local businesses in their constituencies. Even in the case of good employers, a mistake will occasionally be made and they will end up at a tribunal. That is why, in response to the consultation, we removed the automatic imposition of a penalty. Any penalty will be based on the circumstances of the case and will be imposed by the people who have heard all the facts—the tribunal. It will be imposed only on employers who have deliberately flouted the law or done so in a malicious or aggravated way.

On the point about financial penalties, this is not some kind of revenue-raising scheme; it is about ensuring that the right incentive structure is in place by creating a further penalty for businesses that deliberately flout the law. That will incentivise the right kind of behaviour. For the reasons I have just outlined, that will be fairer on the vast majority of businesses that are good employers and that should not lose out to those employers that gain some kind of advantage by treating their employees badly.

[Richard Fuller]

The Minister again mentions an additional penalty for those employers. Is she aware that the Law Society has stated:

“Uplifts on compensation of up to 25% are already available in cases of unreasonable breach of the Acas Code on Disciplinary and Grievance Procedures”?

Is that not a sufficient additional penalty?

[Jo Swinson]

I do not believe that what we have at present is sufficient. Although they make up a small portion, there are clearly too many employers who do not comply properly with their obligations. I think that it is quite right that we send a clear signal and make it clear that those employers can expect to face a bigger consequence at a tribunal than those well-intentioned employers who try to do the right thing but fall foul of the law because of an error—after all, we are all human.

Opposition Members also seek to amend clause 14. Amendment 92 seeks to address the issue of non-payment of employment tribunal awards by proposing that an employer should pay a penalty for each period that an award made in an unfair dismissal case goes unpaid. I recognise, and indeed sympathise with, the amendment’s aims, but I am afraid that it would not have the intended effect. When I took over this brief, I was genuinely shocked by the level of employment tribunal awards that are unpaid. The figures for 2009 show that six months after an employment tribunal makes an award as many as 40% of claimants had not received the money they were rightly due, which is clearly unacceptable.

Whatever people’s views on the rights and wrongs of the employment tribunal process and how it could be improved, when an employment tribunal grants an award and the case has been heard properly, the claimant should be able to get their money. Like my predecessor, I am very concerned at the figures for non-payment. When a tribunal finds in favour of a claimant, it cannot be right that they are unable to get the money they are owed.

We are consulting on two changes that I believe might have some effect on the number of awards paid promptly. They include proposals to put a date on a tribunal’s judgment specifying when payment should be made and to charge interest from the date of judgment where an award is unpaid after 14 days. These charges will apply to all cases, not just to unfair dismissal cases. Importantly, in that scenario the interest will be added to the award and paid to the claimant. That consultation closes on 23 November and I encourage the hon. Members who have tabled amendments to take part and feed in their views.

I want to consider what more we can do on this issue. I have already discussed it with my colleague and fellow Minister for Equalities, the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Mrs Grant). We are both clear that action is necessary, but we cannot take action without first understanding the underlying problem properly. The previous Government attempted to resolve the problem by introducing a fast-track enforcement process, but it still persists. The process had some success, but not enough people have been accessing it and, even for those who have, it has not been successful in all cases.

I have therefore commissioned research from the Department on the reasons why so many awards go unpaid. Once we have that information, which I anticipate will be early next year, we will be able to take whatever steps we can to ensure that claimants receive the award they are entitled to. Therefore, I ask my hon. Friend not to press the amendment and I commit to taking the proposal away and considering it further to see what we could do in the light of the research findings.

[Tom Greatrex (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Lab/Co-op)]

I raised with the Minister’s predecessor the case of a constituent who found herself in that situation. She was, in effect, dismissed for being pregnant and was awarded £24,000 by a tribunal but to this day has still not received any of it. In the issues the Minister is considering, in the consultation and in the wider concern she has expressed about how we can best address this, will she also seek to work with colleagues across the Government to look at companies that change their status in order to avoid paying out awards when cases are brought against them?

[Jo Swinson]

I do not know the details of the case the hon. Gentleman describes, but I am more than happy to look into it. Given that he was in contact with my predecessor, I am sure that the information will be available in the Department. I think that we need to look at the whole range of issues. There is clearly a range of reasons why an award would not be paid, and they might all require different solutions. If a company has become insolvent, for example, there is a different set of problems than if companies are simply choosing not to pay. Trying to understand where exactly the problem lies is the first step towards ensuring that we can tackle it properly, because I agree that cases such as the one he outlines are unacceptable.

--- Later in debate ---

[Debbie Abrahams]

Will the Minister tell us what the evidence is for those caps?

[Jo Swinson]

As I have said, this is a new measure and these are the figures we have put in place. I do not know what figures the hon. Lady thinks should be set. It is important that there is some certainty for businesses and so, after progressing with this measure and putting it in place, we can then review it and see how it works. By ensuring that the specific amount is not set in primary legislation, we will have the ability to amend it through secondary legislation, which will give the required flexibility. Amendments 72 and 83 would undermine the objectives of the financial penalty regime and so I am unable to accept them.

The final amendment to clause 14, amendment 73, tabled by the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington, seeks to specify the purpose for which any moneys accruing to the Exchequer from the imposition of financial penalties should be used. Hon. Members will know that the Government already fund the activities to which the amendment refers through ACAS, with an annual grant in aid allocation of about £45 million a year. As my predecessor made clear in Committee, the purpose of the financial penalty is not to raise revenue for the Exchequer. It would not be appropriate to expect ACAS to function with some element of its annual funding being dependent on what is ultimately a discretionary decision by a tribunal. The existing mechanism for funding ACAS is the right one, so I am unable to accept the amendment.

Amendment 94 seeks to address a point we covered in Committee. I understand that its aim is to prevent a disclosure relating to a breach of a private contract from being a qualifying disclosure for the purposes of a whistleblowing claim, unless it is clearly in the public interest. My predecessor, my hon. Friend the Member for North Norfolk, explained in Committee our reasons for not wanting to take that route. We believe that such an approach would have the potential for unintended consequences and would not in itself address the concerns raised by the Parkins v. Sodexho decision. For example, the issue in that case could have been reframed as a health and safety issue, with similar issues then arising in relation to the disclosures of minor breaches of health and safety legislation, which are of no interest to the wider public. Not only are we closing the loophole identified in the Parkins v. Sodexho case, but by introducing the public interest test we are removing the potential for the opportunistic use of the protection. That will prevent any cases similar to the Parkins v. Sodexho case in the areas that would otherwise be uncovered by the amendment.

[Ian Murray]

I am grateful to the Minister, who is being incredibly generous in giving way. What would she say to the Law Society, which says that the clause will not do what the Government intend it to do?

[Jo Swinson]

I think that it will do what the Government intend it to do—basically what it says on the tin. It is about making sure that the public interest disclosure regime has to have a public interest test. That is what was meant when the legislation was initially framed and formed. The case law that has come up since then has showed that there was a loophole, and I think, to be fair, that the Opposition have accepted that it needs to be closed.

Following my discussions with the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran, the House may wish to be aware of the steps that the Government are taking in the NHS to encourage whistleblowers. As I said during the recent debate on the issue, the Government fully support the rights of NHS staff to raise concerns in the public interest. That right has been enshrined in the NHS constitution and further strengthened through changes made to the constitution and the handbook in March this year. The Department of Health is continuing to build on the rights set out in the Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998 further to highlight the statutory protections available for those who raise concerns. I want to stress that the Government fully support genuine whistleblowers and want to encourage individuals to bring issues to light, but we need to ensure that the balance of protection for employers and individuals is correct. We believe that the current clause achieves this, and I am therefore unable to support the hon. Lady’s amendment. However, I welcome the constructive work that she, among others, has been doing on the issue.

The hon. Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams) asked about the level of £5,000 and penalties. The provision is intended to mirror the national minimum wage compliance regime, so there is method behind it, but it will be possible to amend it if necessary.

I turn now to our amendments 16, 17 and 31 to clause 17. Members who followed the progress of the Bill through Committee will recall that the original clause, then clause 16, was accepted into the Bill without debate. The purpose of the clause then, as now, was to amend specified primary legislation to replace all references to “compromise agreements”, “compromise contracts” and “compromises”, where they occur in an employment context, with the terms “settlement agreement” or “settlement”. By renaming compromise agreements, we are addressing any conscious or sub-conscious reluctance by a party to use these agreements arising from the perception that they are conceding or “giving in” on some or all of their arguments. The original drafting of the clause—with the agreement of the Under-Secretary of State for Skills, the hon. Member for West Suffolk (Matthew Hancock)—extended the change of name to Northern Ireland in so far as it related to the National Minimum Wage Act 1998. Having since considered matters further, my Northern Ireland colleagues have concluded that such a change should not be made in isolation and should form part of the wider review of employment law that they have recently launched. As a consequence, it is necessary make minor amendments to restrict the effect of the name change to England, Scotland and Wales in only that Act.

I commend the Government amendments to the House and hope that I have fully explained why we are unable to support the other amendments in the group.

[Mr Speaker]

Before I call Mr Murray to speak to the new clause from the Opposition Front Bench, I have a short statement to make. Nominations for the Chair of the Procedure Committee closed yesterday, and an election was held by secret ballot earlier today. The following candidate was elected: Mr Charles Walker. The full breakdown of voting is set out in a paper which will be available from the Vote Office. I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his election.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jo Swinson]

I thank hon. Members who have taken part in this debate. I note the point made by the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) that I spoke at length at the beginning of the debate. I wanted to ensure that I covered all the issues raised and to be fair to Members in taking all interventions offered, which is the spirit in which I have approached the debate. That obviously meant that my remarks were rather lengthy.

I want to respond to the points raised in the debate, because hon. Members are keen to get to the next business. The hon. Member for Edinburgh South (Ian Murray)—the shadow Minister—queried clause 13 and said that it would hit middle earners, but I fear that his analysis of the situation reinforces unrealistic expectations. The average award at an employment tribunal is less than £5,000. In reality, only 0.3% of unfair dismissal claimants are awarded more than the annual salary. The purpose of the measure is to provide additional certainty and to help challenge those unrealistic expectations, but he has not characterised it entirely fairly.

[Gregg McClymont]

Will the Minister give way?

[Jo Swinson]

I will give way to the hon. Gentleman, but I remind him that Labour Members are also keen to get to the next business.

[Gregg McClymont]

If the average award is around £5,000, why is there a rush to get rid of the system?

--- Later in debate ---

[Jo Swinson]

As I was saying, the measure provides additional certainty and encourages both employers and employees to recognise that high awards are unlikely. Because of the current cap, some people can be misled into believing that high awards are likely, and end up pursuing that route when they could be better served by early conciliation and the other approaches outlined in the Bill.

I welcome the shadow Minister’s offer to work constructively on solving the problem of unpaid tribunal awards.

[Tom Greatrex]

Will the Minister give way?

[Jo Swinson]

I will give way, but I encourage hon. Members not to intervene to raise points that have already been debated—we have gone over a lot of the ground already. This will hopefully be something new.

[Tom Greatrex]

I was unable to make a speech because of the length of the Minister’s contribution, but I would like to raise a specific point on unpaid awards. I have raised a case from my constituency previously but did not get to give the full details. Will the Minister meet me and my constituent to go through some of the circumstances? The problem cuts across the Government, and involves not just the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills. Sometimes companies avoid paying the awards they should be paying, which challenges some of the points made by Government Members about who has confidence in the system.

[Jo Swinson]

I would be happy to meet the hon. Gentleman and his constituent, who, I am sure, is very grateful for the work he has done on this case. It is important to constituents to have the support of their MPs on such issues.

In response to my hon. Friend the Member for Bedford (Richard Fuller), I point out that representations from business suggested we should not proceed with financial penalties, but the ability of a tribunal to impose a penalty when it believes an employer has acted wholly inappropriately is right. I reinforce the point that good employers have nothing to fear, and I welcome the fact that he will not press the amendments to a Division.

I took a lot of interventions on clause 12, but I want to respond to some of the specific points made in the debate. The issue of jobseeker’s allowance was raised. The rules and decisions that currently apply to the regime of compromise agreements will apply to settlement agreements. When assessing claims, jobcentre staff could take into account the facts of the case, how the agreement was instigated and what the reasons for it were. We are also in discussions with the Department for Work and Pensions to ensure that those rules are applied appropriately. Obviously, because it is a voluntary agreement, it will not be a sacking if the employee does not wish it to be, but equally it could be negotiated in such an agreement that the reason for leaving could be deemed to be dismissal. That could help individuals by providing them with additional clarity around jobseeker’s allowance and insurance protection, although I add the caveat, of course, that people would need to look at their specific insurance policies and that those policies would vary from case to case. As I said, however, the wording in the final agreement could assist in such cases.

The shadow Minister suggested that there would be a problem with tribunals grinding to a halt when trying to define the word “improper”. That is not expected to be the case. Tribunals already play a valuable role in interpreting legislation. At the moment, they interpret what “reasonable” means in unfair dismissal cases, and we expect them to consider the meaning of “unambiguous impropriety”, as already happens in the civil courts and case law, in their deliberations on this test. He gave the example of a scenario in which an employer offers a settlement agreement but says that the amount will reduce each day until it is accepted. As my predecessor said in Committee, we would consider that the type of improper behaviour to which the protection would not apply. As I said, however, that consultation is ongoing.

On clause 12, the shadow Minister gave the analogy of somebody in a relationship suddenly saying, “I don’t love you anymore.” That is not a fair analogy. The appropriate analogy would be: “We need to talk.” When something is not working out, encouraging early dialogue is a good thing. That is the spirit behind all these changes, whether on early conciliation, rapid resolution or streamlining and improving the employment tribunal system. Ultimately, our aim is to have fewer tribunals taking place. That would be good for employees and employers, and I commend the Government amendments and new clause to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

New clause 8 accordingly read a Second time, and added to the Bill.



Clause 7

Conciliation before institution of proceedings

Amendments made: 6, page 4, line 18, leave out ‘send’ and insert ‘provide’.

Amendment 7, page 5, line 33, leave out ‘sending’ and insert ‘providing’.—(Jo Swinson.)

Clause 12

Confidentiality of negotiations before termination of employment

Amendment proposed: 81, page 8, line 19, leave out Clause 12.—(Ian Murray.)

Question put, That the amendment be made.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jo Swinson]

Directors’ pay has been very much in the news recently, for reasons that the hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr Wright) has outlined. Between 1998 and 2000, the average total remuneration of FTSE 100 chief executive officers increased fourfold, which was much faster than the increase in prices or in average remuneration levels across other employers. It was also much faster than the increase in the FTSE 100 itself. There was clearly an issue to be addressed, and the Government opened up the debate on directors’ pay a year ago. We drew attention to the fact that top pay in large public companies had grown rapidly without any clear connection to performance, and we asked what could be done about it. We encouraged business and investors to face up to this difficult issue.

In January, the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State committed to taking action, and in June we introduced bold measures into this Bill. I know that the Bill Committee enjoyed a thorough and engaging debate on this issue before the summer break, and I am pleased that our reforms have received such wide support inside and outside Parliament. Investors agree that this comprehensive package of reforms will help them to tackle excessive pay and to restore a clearer link between pay and long-term performance.

We have tabled six minor and technical amendments to the clauses on directors’ remuneration, which I will outline before I speak briefly in response to the other amendments that have been tabled. The technical amendments will tighten up the legislation and ensure that it is as robust and clear as possible. Business and investors support those amendments. Amendments 25 and 30 correct a technical drafting oversight. They clarify that, for the purpose of identifying when companies will be affected by the new provisions, the relevant financial year is the one beginning on or after the day on which the provisions come into force. That is to ensure that companies whose year starts on 1 October are subject to the provisions.

Amendments 26 and 29 make it clear that the definition of “quoted company” shall be the same as that which already appears in the Companies Act 2006. Amendment 27 broadens the definition of what is meant by a remuneration payment so that remuneration paid to a director in his or her capacity as an executive manager of the company or its subsidiary is also captured. Importantly, that will mean that companies cannot circumvent the new restrictions by paying someone a small fee for being a director and a large salary for being a manager.

Amendment 28 tightens up the provisions relating to payments made to former directors. This will ensure that, where former directors are allowed to benefit from long-term pay schemes that mature after they have left, the payments must be consistent with the company’s remuneration policy—and if not, approved by a separate shareholder resolution. I am sure the House will agree that these minor and technical amendments will strengthen and improve the legislation, and I hope all Members will join me in supporting them.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jo Swinson]

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

We have spent the past two days carefully scrutinising this Bill. Right hon. and hon. Members have clearly invested a lot of time examining the detail, and rightly so. We used all of our time on the first day debating the proposed new measures, and I thank the Opposition for ensuring that they received thorough scrutiny.

[Thomas Docherty (Dunfermline and West Fife) (Lab)]

rose—

[Jo Swinson]

I give way to my Scottish colleague.

[Thomas Docherty]

It is my understanding that it is custom and practice for the Secretary of State to move Third Reading. Where is he today?

[Jo Swinson]

I am sure that my colleague the Secretary of State has a very busy diary, but he may well be making an appearance—

[Chris Ruane (Vale of Clwyd) (Lab)]

Parliament is not important enough—

--- Later in debate ---

[Jo Swinson]

Parliament is certainly important enough. I hope not to disappoint the hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife (Thomas Docherty) in my speaking on Third Reading. As he will know, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State spoke on Second Reading and has been very involved in this Bill, so I am sure that I will be able to deal with the issues raised.

[Mr William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

In view of the fact that the sunset provisions have not been discussed because of the programme motion—[Interruption.] They may have been discussed in the past, but amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Bedford (Richard Fuller) were not reached. That is the position. In that context, will the Minister be good enough to explain how it will be possible to bypass European legislation under these arrangements?

[Jo Swinson]

I am sorry to disappoint my hon. Friend by correcting him, but these issues were discussed—

[Mr Cash]

Not this afternoon.

[Jo Swinson]

Yes, they were. In fact, the hon. Member for Bedford (Richard Fuller) intervened on my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Skills when that discussion was taking place—[Interruption.] I suggest to the hon. Member for Stone (Mr Cash) that had he wanted to raise those points, he could have been present for the debate on Report.

I thank the Opposition for ensuring that the measures that we have added to the Bill have received thorough scrutiny. That detailed consideration follows earlier scrutiny in the Public Bill Committee and I extend particular thanks to its members, led for the Opposition by the hon. Members for Hartlepool (Mr Wright), for Edinburgh South (Ian Murray) and for Newcastle upon Tyne Central (Chi Onwurah).

[Mr John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)]

When does the Minister think the first loans will be made by the green investment bank under this legislation?

[Jo Swinson]

As my right hon. Friend will know, the Government have made £3 billion available through the green investment bank, which has already started to allocate that money. Some £200 million has been allocated and the first money has been not just allocated but spent. We know that that institution will certainly be a great success.

At the end of our proceedings in Committee, the hon. Member for Hartlepool observed:

“The Committee has been serious about the need to scrutinise an important Bill and about the manner of its deliberations and questioning”.––[Official Report, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Public Bill Committee, 17 July 2012; c. 728.]

The Bill is important. It is also part of a wider Government strategy to promote growth, support business and create jobs. Legislation alone cannot guarantee and generate economic activity, but it can help to provide the right conditions for growth and that is what this Bill does. It contains a suite of measures that will lift unnecessary burdens from business and ensure that markets are fair and dynamic to inspire the confidence of business and consumers alike.

The move to a low-carbon economy is a big challenge and, indeed, a big opportunity for this country. Some analysis suggests a demand for more than £200 billion of investment in the next decade to develop the necessary innovative technologies. The challenge is even greater given how new those markets are and the long-term nature of returns on green infrastructure investment, which may deter private sector investors. The coalition Government are meeting that challenge squarely by establishing the world’s first green investment bank and we have made significant progress.

As we were able to announce earlier this afternoon, we have today made an important step forward in the UK’s transition to a green economy with confirmation of the state aid approval that will allow the bank to make commercial investments. That is a significant achievement and means that the bank is firmly on track to be fully operational in the next few weeks.

The Government are deeply aware of the need to do all we can to support business expansion and job creation. The Public Bill Committee heard from business representatives that reform of the employment tribunal system remains a top priority for their members and that the measures in the Bill will increase the confidence of business to recruit. Our reforms will encourage parties to work together to resolve their disputes outside the adversarial, stressful and often costly tribunal system, which will mean that employers will have the confidence to take on and manage staff.

Good leadership and governance of companies is crucial and there should be no reward for failure. Our reforms to directors’ pay, which are supported by both business and investors, will mean greater transparency and more power for shareholders to hold companies to account while allowing genuine success to be rewarded. A free and open market place is key to a growing economy. Pressure from competitive markets helps businesses to boost productivity and that benefits consumers. The Government are helping by setting up the new competition and markets authority to provide a single, strong voice in this area. It will have a duty to promote competition for the benefit of consumers.

The Bill will also strengthen powers to tackle cartels. Cartels damage the interests of business and consumers alike and I am very grateful to the Public Bill Committee—again, I thank its members—for its considered debate on the issue. As a result of the amendments tabled in Committee by Opposition Members, the then Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb), made it clear that we would reflect on the points made with a view to improving the provisions. As a result, we have refined how we propose to tackle the problem of cartels, but in a way that still delivers the key objective of ensuring that we have effective powers against them.

Unnecessary regulation stifles growth and strangles innovation. In our red tape challenge, we are examining swathes of regulation and scrapping those that are no longer needed. The Bill supports that work by ensuring that any new secondary legislation can be time-limited. The CBI hailed that step as the "big prize for business". We are making specific reforms, including removing the right to claim compensation from employers for breach of most statutory health and safety duties unless employers have been negligent. We are also streamlining the duties of the Equality and Human Rights Commission. Let me state again for the record that we greatly value the work that the commission does and that the streamlining will in no way reduce its impact. The Government are committed to tackling the barriers to equal opportunity and to promoting economic growth. Unnecessary and complicated regulation restricts our ability to achieve that aim. The repeals in the Bill play a part in tackling the red tape and bureaucracy that holds businesses back.

Ensuring that our copyright laws are fit for the modern age is critical to the growth of the UK's creative industries—one of our most successful export sectors. It is also important for those industries that can make use of materials that may be in digital or other form. We have worked closely with stakeholders on those provisions and will continue to do so. The Bill will help to ensure that we strike the right balance on rewards for creative endeavour, sanctions for unlawful use and greater freedoms when an originator cannot be identified.

[Mr Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)]

I congratulate Ministers on their painstaking work to identify barriers to growth and enterprise. Is the Minister as disappointed as I am that the Front-Bench spokesmen for the Labour party, whose policies contributed so much to our present position, have learned nothing and still oppose sensible, practical measures to get the economy going, add jobs and ensure that we get people out of the despair of unemployment and into the sunlit uplands of well-paid jobs?

[Jo Swinson]

In the spirit of consensus, I will say that, on some issues, Opposition Front Benchers have said that they will work with the Government, but I am disappointed that, on others, they have not done so or recognised what we are doing in the Bill. The Bill is good for business and good for consumers, and therefore good for the UK economy. I commend it to the House.

Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Bill

Jo Swinson Excerpts

Tuesday 16th October 2012 Commons Chamber

Brought up, and read the First time.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills (Jo Swinson)]

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

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Government new schedule 2—‘Adjudicators: bankruptcy applications by debtors and bankruptcy orders.

Government new schedule 3—‘Adjudicators: minor and consequential amendments.

Government amendments 37, 41 and 44

[Jo Swinson]

As well as moving the new clause, I shall speak to new schedules 2 and 3, along with Government amendments 37, 41 and 44, the latter of which are consequential amendments on territorial extent and commencement.

These amendments will reform the process by which an individual may apply for his or her own bankruptcy. They will remove the existing requirement for the indebted individual to present a bankruptcy petition to court and replace it with a new administrative process. Currently, a person with unmanageable levels of debt who wishes to make him or herself bankrupt must petition the court—the local court—for a bankruptcy order. There is no dispute that requires a court to make a judgment on competing interests in these scenarios. The vast majority of such applications—last year there were more than 30,000—are accepted by the courts with very little scrutiny.

The amending provisions mean that instead of petitioning the court, applicants would submit their bankruptcy application to a new adjudicator. This proposal was consulted on by the previous Administration and was broadly supported by interested parties. I should say that the Government consulted on removing the court from a wider range of cases, but as significant concerns were raised, this amendment concerns only debtors’ own petitions.

The adjudicator will hold a new statutory office, which we intend to be located in the Insolvency Service. The adjudicator will consider each application, and will decide on an objective basis whether the criteria for the making of a bankruptcy order have been met. If they have been met, the adjudicator will make the order. The administrative process is similar to the way in which individuals enter bankruptcy in Scotland, and in some other jurisdictions throughout the globe.

Applicants for bankruptcy will no longer need to attend court. Applications will be electronic, which will deliver significant savings, and applicants will be able to pay the fees in instalments. Bankruptcy will none the less remain a serious step. It may be the right solution for some debtors, as it allows debts to be written off and a fresh start to be made; but, quite rightly, those advantages are tempered by the serious implications of a bankruptcy order. Bankrupts are subject to restrictions, their assets can be sold for the benefit of creditors, and a portion of their incomes can be used to help repay their debts. For many, other debt remedies will continue to be more appropriate. We will therefore encourage debtors to take independent debt advice before making their bankruptcy applications. We will work with the Money Advice Service and providers in the debt advice sector to ensure that all debtors have the information that they need in order to make an informed decision.

There will be no change in the process that takes place after the making of a bankruptcy order. When an order is made by an adjudicator, the present post-bankruptcy order procedures will continue to operate, and the serious consequences that apply to an individual who is made bankrupt will remain.

[Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab)]

It is good to reach the Bill’s report stage following a mammoth session in Committee before the summer recess, and it is interesting to note that the Opposition made such a strong and determined case in Committee that no Ministers from the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills are left on the Front Bench.

The new clause amends the Insolvency Act 1986 and introduces an administrative procedure for debtor petition bankruptcies. It is extremely worrying that the number of people who find themselves caught in a spiral of debt is increasing, and that many are forced to declare themselves bankrupt as a result. The figures are stark. Citizens Advice has dealt with more than 2.2 million problems involving debt, and has received 131,000 inquiries about bankruptcy and 142,000 about debt relief orders. The issue is not just about financing and debt; it is about relationships and, in some cases, lives. Bankruptcy is all too often a stigmatising experience, and evidence shows that that applies particularly to men.

Although the number of people declaring themselves bankrupt has fallen, the number of those becoming insolvent has risen sharply, according to official Government figures. As the Minister said, there were more than 30,000 personal insolvencies in just one quarter this year. That is a staggering figure, which shows how many households need help with debt problems. Insolvency is a very difficult condition to have to face, and it usually comes at the end of a long struggle to deal with debt and other money problems. The leading debt charity Clarifi, formerly known as the Consumer Credit Counselling Service, has said that it expects the number of personal insolvencies to increase over the next year, and has warned that more than 6 million households are still living on the edge. It is therefore vital for those who are struggling to pay their debts, or even just worried about their debts, to seek free advice and support. Opposition Members believe that it is hugely important for the process of insolvency to be as swift as possible, and we welcome the initiatives that will speed up that process.

As the Minister will know, key stakeholders have broadly welcomed the proposals, but they have raised several issues that I hope the Minister will deal with. First, there is the issue of the establishment of the location and how the new administrative process will deal with bankruptcy tourism. Secondly, there is the issue of the qualifications of adjudicators, which has prompted concerns similar to those relating to the Government’s proposals in respect of the role of legal officers in the employment tribunal system, and has been raised on a number of occasions. It is important for adjudicators to be in a position to make crucial judgments not just about bankruptcies, but about referrals to court. They need both knowledge of insolvency law and experience of the court system. Given that the Secretary of State has the power to appoint adjudicators, may I ask what experience-related criteria they will have to meet?

Thirdly, there is the issue of fees. People who are struggling with debt often cannot afford the £700 that it costs to go bankrupt, even when bankruptcy would otherwise be the best way out of their problems. That leaves them in a financial black hole. The number of people using debt relief orders, one of the cheaper remedies, has risen sharply again. It seems slightly perverse that someone who is struggling with debts should have to find more money in order to petition for bankruptcy.

The Bill empowers the Lord Chancellor to be flexible in fixing fees. Given that the new streamlined system has the potential to be electronic, and to be simpler and cheaper, I wonder whether the Government will consider some remedies for the problem of fees, such as allowing people who are seeking bankruptcy to pay in instalments.

The Minister mentioned advice for debtors. There is a view that taking the bankruptcy system out of the formal courts process and making it more administrative will reduce the gravity of the situation in which people find themselves. It is important for bankruptcy to be seen as a last resort, but all possible advice and guidance should be given to those who seek to go down that route.

Finally, may I press the Minister on one of her great loves, the Post Office? It has been said that the new administrative task of filling out the bankruptcy forms in the prescribed manner could be performed through the Post Office by means of a passport-style “check and send” arrangement. That would also allow the Post Office to divert people to other forms of debt advice, including free advice.

We support the change to a more administrative bankruptcy system because it is one of the critical remedies for debt, but we should be grateful if the Minister could provide some comfort on the issues that have been raised.

--- Later in debate ---

[Neil Parish (Tiverton and Honiton) (Con)]

I merely seek reassurance from the Minister. I can understand the need to simplify the bankruptcy procedure for those who, through no fault of their own, seek it because of their debts, and that is absolutely right. I am slightly concerned, however, that some companies shift money around and go bankrupt because it suits them to do so, taking other companies down with them. I want the Minister to reassure me that the adjudicator, or whatever he or she will be called, will have the powers to look into such cases so that it is not easy to go bankrupt when one should not. Such companies bring other good companies down with them.

[Jo Swinson]

I have appreciated the good but brief debate on this issue, on which there is clearly a degree of support on both sides of the House. That is always welcome and I particularly welcome the support for these measures from the hon. Member for Edinburgh South (Ian Murray) and the official Opposition.

I share the concern about the fact that too many people sadly need seriously to consider bankruptcy. We all know from our experience in our constituency surgeries the distress and heartbreak that can cause to the people who are contemplating such a measure. The impact of that decision on individuals is why it is absolutely right to do what we can to improve the process, to make it swift and efficient and, where possible, to prevent people from having to appear in court, which adds to the stigma that has been mentioned and is a distressing and difficult experience.

Bankruptcy should be considered as a last resort. A wide range of different measures are promoted and encouraged through people who give debt advice such as individual voluntary agreements, of which there are about 49,000 a year; debt management plans, of which 150,000 people take advantage each year; and the new debt relief orders for specific categories of very vulnerable and poor debtors, 29,000 of whom take them up every year. In that context, the 38,000 bankruptcy orders show that bankruptcy is not used by all the people who face such difficulties. Of course, the general advice to individuals in difficult financial circumstances is to seek advice early. The earlier the problems can be confronted, the more possible it is to avoid the worst consequences.

I am happy to address the specific issues raised by Members. The hon. Members for Edinburgh South and for Foyle (Mark Durkan) mentioned bankruptcy tourism, which is a practice whereby a debtor opts to access insolvency proceedings in a particular member state by relocating to that member state. That potentially enables them to seek a better outcome than might have been possible in their previous country. That is allowed for under the EU insolvency regulation provided that the relocation is genuine. For many individuals in such circumstances, the relocation might not be straightforward so it is perhaps unsurprising that the number of individuals from other EU countries who relocate to the UK for this purpose is very small. There is no evidence of widespread abuse, but the official receiver or a creditor can apply to court to annul the bankruptcy order if abuse takes place.

On the question about the adjudicator, the Insolvency Service is already looking at this for the debt relief orders that it administers and it will be able to do exactly the same in relation to the way in which adjudicators conduct their business.

On the qualifications of adjudicators, they will be making an objective decision by reference to prescribed criteria and there will be a right of appeal for an applicant if the adjudicator refuses to make an order. Obviously, they will need appropriate qualifications and experience to function effectively, and the Secretary of State will make sure that people appointed to that role are appropriately qualified. They will be based within the Insolvency Service which, as the House knows, is an executive agency of BIS, and will already have extensive experience of administering an electronic administrative process similar to the debt relief order regime. It is important to point out that adjudicators will not be able to be official receivers as well, as that would be deemed to be a conflict of interests so those roles will be kept separate.

I appreciate that for individuals seeking bankruptcy, the levying of fees on that is not straightforward. The administration fee will remain unchanged at £525, which is a significant sum for people in that situation. In the context of overall bankruptcy, where they will be expecting debt relief of at least £15,000, it is not as huge as could be imagined in the comparison.

What is important about the way in which the new system will operate is that it will take the courts away from a process in which they do not need to be involved. Where there is no dispute, where somebody wants to declare themselves bankrupt and nobody has a problem with that, there will be no requirement for that costly court process. That will generate significant savings so the application fee for the process is expected to be about £70, instead of the current court fee of £175. That will be helpful and of benefit to people applying for this option. It is estimated that overall debtors will save about £1.5 million. There is a saving for the Court Service as well, as this will be a more efficient process handled through the adjudicator, and individuals personally affected by bankruptcy will benefit. The suggestion from the hon. Member for Edinburgh South about paying in instalments is one that the Government have taken on board. It is part of the process and offers real advantages, compared with the current situation.

I was delighted that the hon. Gentleman mentioned the Post Office, which I, as the Minister responsible, am passionate about, as I know are Members in all parts of the House, who support their local community post offices. The Government are committed to ensuring that the Post Office can be an effective delivery mechanism for more front-office Government services. There is good news—last year, for the first time in a decade, the income stream that the Post Office received from Government services increased, so there is a positive story to tell.

The Post Office is looking at a wide range of ways in which it can increase its services and its revenue. Playing a wider role in identity checks, as was mentioned, is one of those. It is important to bear in mind that the Post Office will bid for such contracts on the basis of being able to provide an effective and efficient mechanism for doing so. It is a very good organisation that is able to provide such services and win those contracts on the merits of the bid that it submits.

On the issues relating to advice, there are examples of more credit union facilities and a wider range of financial services being able to be accessed through post offices. Access to financial services from that excellent network of 12,000 branches is of particular help to people in communities that do not have a local bank branch, perhaps because they are very rural communities. Now that 95% of bank accounts are accessible at post offices, the recent announcement from HSBC was welcome. The hon. Gentleman certainly raises an important point.

On the points made by the hon. Member for Foyle and my hon. Friends the Members for North Swindon (Justin Tomlinson) and for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish), it is important to point out that the amendments relate to personal insolvency, not company insolvency, and were I to detain the House on company insolvency, Mr Deputy Speaker may have concerns. I hear Members’ concerns and I know from Members’ correspondence that people are worried about the procedures when companies become insolvent. The change of termination clauses in insolvency would have implications for the suppliers, so many demands need to be balanced, but I recognise the concerns and we are looking more widely at issues facing companies in insolvency. My officials have been engaging with interested parties and stakeholders and will continue to do so.

I think I have dealt with the various points made by hon. Members, so I commend the new clause and the amendments to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

New clause 16 accordingly read a Second time, and added to the Bill.



New Schedule 2

‘Adjudicators: bankruptcy applications by debtors and bankruptcy orders

‘Adjudicators: bankruptcy applications by debtors and bankruptcy orders

“Chapter A1

Adjudicators: bankruptcy applications by debtors and bankruptcy orders

263H Bankruptcy applications to the adjudicator

(1) An individual may make an application to an adjudicator in accordance with this Chapter for a bankruptcy order to be made against him or her.

(2) An individual may make a bankruptcy application only on the ground that the individual is unable to pay his or her debts.

263I Debtors against whom an adjudicator may make a bankruptcy order

(1) An adjudicator has jurisdiction to determine a bankruptcy application only if—

(a) the centre of the debtor’s main interests is in England and Wales, or

(b) the centre of the debtor’s main interests is not in a member state of the European Union which has adopted the EC Regulation, but the test in subsection (2) is met.

(2) The test is that—

(a) the debtor is domiciled in England and Wales, or

(b) at any time in the period of three years ending with the day on which the application is made to the adjudicator, the debtor—

(i) has been ordinarily resident, or has had a place of residence, in England and Wales, or

(ii) has carried on business in England and Wales.

(3) The reference in subsection (2) to the debtor carrying on business includes—

(a) the carrying on of business by a firm or partnership of which the debtor is a member, and

(b) the carrying on of business by an agent or manager for the debtor or for such a firm or partnership.

(4) In this section, references to the centre of the debtor’s main interests have the same meaning as in Article 3 of the EC Regulation.

263J Conditions applying to bankruptcy application

(1) A bankruptcy application must include—

(a) such particulars of the debtor’s creditors, debts and other liabilities, and assets, as may be prescribed, and

(b) such other information as may be prescribed.

(2) A bankruptcy application is not to be regarded as having been made unless any fee or deposit required in connection with the application by an order under section 415 has been paid to such person, and within such period, as may be prescribed.

(3) A bankruptcy application may not be withdrawn.

(4) A debtor must notify the adjudicator if, at any time before a bankruptcy order is made against the debtor or the adjudicator refuses to make such an order—

(a) the debtor becomes able to pay his or her debts, or

(b) a bankruptcy petition has been presented to the court in relation to the debtor.

263K Determination of bankruptcy application

(1) After receiving a bankruptcy application, an adjudicator must determine whether the following requirements are met—

(a) the adjudicator had jurisdiction under section 263I to determine the application on the date the application was made,

(b) the debtor is unable to pay his or her debts at the date of the determination,

(c) no bankruptcy petition is pending in relation to the debtor at the date of the determination, and

(d) no bankruptcy order has been made in respect of any of the debts which are the subject of the application at the date of the determination.

(2) If the adjudicator is satisfied that each of the requirements in subsection (1) are met, the adjudicator must make a bankruptcy order against the debtor.

(3) If the adjudicator is not so satisfied, the adjudicator must refuse to make a bankruptcy order against the debtor.

(4) The adjudicator must make a bankruptcy order against the debtor or refuse to make such an order before the end of the prescribed period (“the determination period”).

263L Adjudicator’s requests for further information

(1) An adjudicator may at any time during the determination period request from the debtor information that the adjudicator considers necessary for the purpose of determining whether a bankruptcy order must be made.

(2) The adjudicator may specify a date before which information requested under subsection (1) must be provided; but that date must not be after the end of the determination period.

(3) If the rules so prescribe, a request under subsection (1) may include a request for information to be given orally.

(4) The rules may make provision enabling or requiring an adjudicator to request information from persons of a prescribed description in prescribed circumstances.

263M Making of bankruptcy order

(1) This section applies where an adjudicator makes a bankruptcy order as a result of a bankruptcy application.

(2) The order must be made in the prescribed form.

(3) The adjudicator must—

(a) give a copy of the order to the debtor, and

(b) give notice of the order to persons of such description as may be prescribed.

263N Refusal to make a bankruptcy order: review and appeal etc.

(1) Where an adjudicator refuses to make a bankruptcy order on a bankruptcy application, the adjudicator must give notice to the debtor—

(a) giving the reasons for the refusal, and

(b) explaining the effect of subsections (2) to (5).

(2) If requested by the debtor before the end of the prescribed period, the adjudicator must review the information which was available to the adjudicator when the determination that resulted in the refusal was made.

(3) Following a review under subsection (2) the adjudicator must—

(a) confirm the refusal to make a bankruptcy order, or

(b) make a bankruptcy order against the debtor.

(4) Where the adjudicator confirms a refusal under subsection (3), the adjudicator must give notice to the debtor—

(a) giving the reasons for the confirmation, and

(b) explaining the effect of subsection (5).

(5) If the refusal is confirmed under subsection (3), the debtor may appeal against the refusal to the court before the end of the prescribed period.

263O False representations and omissions

(1) It is an offence knowingly or recklessly to make any false representation or omission in—

(a) making a bankruptcy application to an adjudicator, or

(b) providing any information to an adjudicator in connection with a bankruptcy application.

(2) It is an offence knowingly or recklessly to fail to notify an adjudicator of a matter in accordance with a requirement imposed by or under this Part.

(3) It is immaterial for the purposes of an offence under this section whether or not a bankruptcy order is made as a result of the application.

(4) It is not a defence in proceedings for an offence under this section that anything relied on, in whole or in part, as constituting the offence was done outside England and Wales.

(5) Proceedings for an offence under this section may only be instituted—

(a) by the Secretary of State, or

(b) by or with the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions.” ’.—(Jo Swinson.)

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



New Schedule 3

‘Adjudicators: minor and consequential amendments

‘Adjudicators: minor and consequential amendments

1 The Insolvency Act 1986 is amended in accordance with this Schedule.

2 In section 253 (application for interim order), omit subsection (5).

3 In section 255 (cases in which interim order can be made), in subsection (1)(b) for “petition for his own bankruptcy” substitute “make a bankruptcy application”.

4 (1) Section 256A (debtor’s proposal and nominee’s report) is amended as follows.

(2) In subsection (1) omit the words from “unless” to the end.

(3) In subsection (3) for “petition for his own bankruptcy” substitute “make a bankruptcy application”.

5 For the heading to Chapter 1 of Part 9 substitute “The court: bankruptcy petitions and bankruptcy orders”.

6 In section 264 (who may present a bankruptcy petition), in subsection (1) omit paragraph (b).

7 For section 265 (conditions to be satisfied in respect of debtor) substitute—

“265 Creditor’s petition: debtors against whom the court may make a bankruptcy order

(1) A bankruptcy petition may be presented to the court under section 264(1)(a) only if—

(a) the centre of the debtor’s main interests is in England and Wales, or

(b) the centre of the debtor’s main interests is not in a member state of the European Union which has adopted the EC Regulation, but the test in subsection (2) is met.

(2) The test is that—

(a) the debtor is domiciled in England and Wales, or

(b) at any time in the period of three years ending with the day on which the petition is presented, the debtor—

(i) has been ordinarily resident, or has had a place of residence, in England and Wales, or

(ii) has carried on business in England and Wales.

(3) The reference in subsection (2) to the debtor carrying on business includes—

(a) the carrying on of business by a firm or partnership of which the debtor is a member, and

(b) the carrying on of business by an agent or manager for the debtor or for such a firm or partnership.

(4) In this section, references to the centre of the debtor’s main interests have the same meaning as in Article 3 of the EC Regulation.”

8 In section 266 (bankruptcy petitions: other preliminary conditions), in subsection (4) omit “, (b)”.

9 (1) Sections 272 to 274A (and the cross-heading immediately preceding those sections) (debtor’s petition) are repealed.

(2) In consequence of the repeal of section 274A by paragraph (1), omit paragraph 3 of Schedule 20 to Tribunals Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 (debt relief Orders: consequential amendments).

10 For the cross-heading immediately before section 278 substitute—A

Chapter 1A

Commencement and duration of bankruptcy”.

11 In section 278 (commencement and continuance), in paragraph (b) (discharge of bankruptcy order) omit “the following provisions of”.

12 In section 279 (duration of bankruptcy), in subsection (6) for “adjudged” substitute “made”.

13 In section 282 (court’s power to annul bankruptcy order), in subsection (2)—

(a) omit “, (b)”,

(b) after “section 264(1)” insert “or on a bankruptcy application”, and

(c) in paragraph (a) after “pending” insert “or the application was ongoing”.

14 In section 283 (definition of bankrupt’s estate), in subsection (5)(a) for “adjudged” substitute “made”.

15 (1) Section 284 (restrictions on dispositions of property) is amended as follows.

(2) In subsection (1) for “adjudged” substitute “made”.

(3) In subsection (3) for “presentation of the petition for the bankruptcy order” substitute “making of the bankruptcy application or (as the case may be) the presentation of the bankruptcy petition”.

(4) In subsection (4), in paragraph (a) before “petition” insert “bankruptcy application had been made or (as the case may be) that the bankruptcy”.

16 (1) Section 285 (restriction on proceedings and remedies) is amended as follows.

(2) In subsection (1)—

(a) after “when” insert “proceedings on a bankruptcy application are ongoing or”, and

(b) for “adjudged” substitute “made”.

(3) In subsection (2) after “proof that” insert “a bankruptcy application has been made or”.

17 (1) Section 286 is amended as follows.

(2) Omit subsection (2).

(3) In subsection (8), for “adjudged” substitute “made”.

18 In section 288 (statement of affairs), in subsection (1) for “debtor’s petition” substitute “bankruptcy application”.

19 In section 290 (public examination of bankrupt), in subsection (4)(a) for “adjudged” substitute “made”.

20 (1) Section 297 (appointment of trustee of bankrupt’s estate: special cases) is amended as follows.

(2) Omit subsection (4).

(3) In subsection (6) omit “(4) or”.

21 (1) Section 320 (court order vesting disclaimed property) is amended as follows.

(2) In subsection (2)(c) before “bankruptcy” insert “bankruptcy application was made or (as the case may be) the”.

(3) In subsection (3)(c) before “bankruptcy” insert “bankruptcy application was made or (as the case may be) the”.

22 In section 321 (orders under section 320 in respect of leaseholds), in subsection (1)(a) before “bankruptcy” insert “bankruptcy application was made or (as the case may be) the”.

23 In section 323 (mutual credit and set-off), in subsection (3) before “a bankruptcy” insert “proceedings on a bankruptcy application relating to the bankrupt were ongoing or that”.

24 In section 334 (stay of distribution in case of second bankruptcy), in subsection (2) before “presentation of the petition” insert “making of the application or (as the case may be) the”.

25 (1) Section 336 (rights of occupation etc of bankrupt’s spouse or civil partner) is amended as follows.

(2) In subsection (1) for “presentation of the petition for the bankruptcy order” substitute “making of the bankruptcy application or (as the case may be) the presentation of the bankruptcy petition”.

(3) In subsection (2) for “adjudged” substitute “made”.

26 In section 337 (rights of occupation of bankrupt), in subsection (1)—

(a) in paragraph (a) for “adjudged” substitute “made”, and

(b) in paragraph (b) before “bankruptcy petition” insert “bankruptcy application was made or (as the case may be) the”.

27 In section 339 (transactions at an undervalue), in subsection (1) for “adjudged” substitute “made”.

28 In section 340 (preferences), in subsection (1) for “adjudged” substitute “made”.

29 In section 341 (meaning of “relevant time” under sections 339 and 340), in subsection (1)(a) for “presentation of the bankruptcy petition on which the individual is adjudged” substitute “making of the bankruptcy application as a result of which, or (as the case may be) the presentation of the bankruptcy petition on which, the individual is made”.

30 (1) Section 342 (orders under sections 339 and 340) is amended as follows.

(2) In subsection (1) for “adjudged” substitute “made”.

(3) In subsection (5)—

(a) for paragraph (a) substitute—

“(a) of the fact that the bankruptcy application as a result of which, or (as the case may be) the bankruptcy petition on which, the individual in question is made bankrupt has been made or presented; or”, and

(b) in paragraph (b) for “adjudged” substitute “made”.

31 In section 342A (recovery of excessive pension contributions), in subsection (1) for “adjudged” substitute “made”.

32 In section 343 (extortionate credit transactions), in subsection (1) for “adjudged” substitute “made”.

33 (1) Section 344 (avoidance of general assignment of book debts) is amended as follows.

(2) In subsection (1) for “adjudged” substitute “made”.

(3) In subsection (2) before “presentation” insert “making of the bankruptcy application or (as the case may be) the”.

34 In section 345 (contracts to which bankrupt is a party), in subsection (1) for “adjudged” substitute “made”.

35 (1) Section 346 (enforcement procedures) is amended as follows.

(2) In subsections (1) and (2) for “adjudged” substitute “made”.

(3) In subsection (3)—

(a) in paragraph (b) before “bankruptcy” insert “bankruptcy application has been made or a”, and

(b) in paragraph (c) before “on that petition” insert “as a result of that application or”.

(4) In subsection (4)(a) after “while” insert “proceedings on a bankruptcy application are ongoing or (as the case may be)”.

36 (1) Section 347 (distress, etc) is amended as follows.

(2) In subsection (2)—

(a) after “individual to whom” insert “a bankruptcy application or”, and

(b) before “on that petition” insert “as a result of that application or”.

(3) In subsection (3) for “adjudged” substitute “made”.

37 In section 348 (apprenticeships, etc), in subsection (1)(a) for “petition on which the order was made” substitute “application for the order was made or (as the case may be) the petition for the order”.

38 In section 350 (application of Chapter 6 of Part 9: bankruptcy offences), in subsection (1) after “applies” insert “—

(a) where an adjudicator has made a bankruptcy order as a result of a bankruptcy application, or

(b) ”.

39 (1) Section 351 (definitions for the purposes of Chapter 6 of Part 9) is amended as follows.

(2) In paragraph (b) before “presentation” insert “making of the bankruptcy application or (as the case may be) the”.

(3) Omit paragraph (c), and the preceding “and”.

40 (1) Section 354 (concealment of property) is amended as follows.

(2) In subsection (1)(c) before “petition” insert “the making of the bankruptcy application or (as the case may be) the presentation of the bankruptcy”.

(3) In subsection (3)(a) before “petition” insert “the making of the bankruptcy application or (as the case may be) the presentation of the bankruptcy”.

41 (1) Section 355 (concealment of books and papers; falsification) is amended as follows.

(2) In subsection (2)(d) before “petition” insert “the making of the bankruptcy application or (as the case may be) the presentation of the bankruptcy”.

(3) In subsection (3)(b) before “petition” insert “the making of the bankruptcy application or (as the case may be) the presentation of the bankruptcy”.

42 In section 356 (false statements), in subsection (2)(c) before “petition” insert “the making of the bankruptcy application or (as the case may be) the presentation of the bankruptcy”.

43 In section 358 (absconding), in paragraph (b) before “petition” insert “the making of the bankruptcy application or (as the case may be) the presentation of the bankruptcy”.

44 (1) Section 359 (fraudulent dealing with property obtained on credit) is amended as follows.

(2) In subsection (1) before “petition” insert “the making of the bankruptcy application or (as the case may be) the presentation of the bankruptcy”.

(3) In subsection (2) before “petition” insert “the making of the bankruptcy application or (as the case may be) the presentation of the bankruptcy”.

45 In section 360 (obtaining credit and engaging in business), in subsection (1)(b) for “adjudged” substitute “made”.

46 (1) Section 364 (power of arrest) is amended as follows.

(2) In subsection (1)(a) after “to whom a” insert “bankruptcy application or a”.

(3) In subsection (2) before “presentation” insert “making of the bankruptcy application or the”.

47 In section 376 (time limits), after “anything” insert “(including anything in relation to a bankruptcy application)”.

48 (1) Section 381 (definition of “bankrupt” and associated terminology) is amended as follows.

(2) In subsection (1) for “adjudged” (in both places where it occurs) substitute “made”.

(3) After subsection (1) insert—

“(1A) “Bankruptcy application” means an application to an adjudicator for a bankruptcy order.”

(4) In subsection (2) for “adjudging” substitute “making”.

49 In section 383 (definition of “creditor” etc.), in subsection (1)(b)—

(a) after “to whom a” insert “bankruptcy application or”, and

(b) after “that” insert “application or”.

50 In section 384 (definitions of “prescribed” and “the rules”), in subsection (1) omit “section 273;”.

51 In section 385 (miscellaneous definitions), in subsection (1)—

(a) before the definition of “the court” insert—

““adjudicator” means a person appointed by the Secretary of State under section 398A;”,

(b) in the definition of “the debtor”, in paragraph (b)—

(i) before “bankruptcy petition” insert “bankruptcy application or a”, and

(ii) after “to whom the” insert “application or”,

(c) omit the definition of “debtor’s petition”, and

(d) before the definition of “dwelling house” insert—

“determination period” has the meaning given in section 263K(4);”.

52 In section 387 (meaning of “the relevant date”), in subsection (6)(a) after “after” insert “the making of the bankruptcy application or (as the case may be)”.

53 In section 389A (authorisation of nominees and supervisors), in subsection (3)(a) for “adjudged” substitute “made”.

54 In section 390 (persons not qualified to act as insolvency practitioners), in subsection (4)(a) for “adjudged” substitute “made”.

55 In section 415 (fees orders), after subsection (1) insert—

“(1A) An order under subsection (1) may make different provision for different purposes, including by reference to the manner or form in which proceedings are commenced.”

56 In section 421A (insolvent estates: joint tenancies), in subsection (9) in the definition of “value lost to the estate”, for “adjudged” substitute “made”.

57 In section 424 (who may apply for an order under section 423 in respect of transactions entered into at an undervalue), in subsection (1)(a) for “adjudged” substitute “made”.

58 In Schedule 4ZA (conditions for making a debt relief order), for paragraph 3 substitute—

3 A bankruptcy application under Part 9—

(a) has not been made before the determination date; or

(b) has been so made, but proceedings on the application have been finally disposed of before that date.”

59 (1) In Schedule 4A (bankruptcy restrictions orders), paragraph 2 is amended as follows.

(2) In sub-paragraph (2)—

(a) in paragraph (a), for the words from “petition” to the end substitute “the making of the bankruptcy application or (as the case may be) the presentation of the bankruptcy petition and ending with the date of the application for the bankruptcy restrictions order”, and

(b) in paragraph (j), for “presentation of the petition” substitute “the making of the bankruptcy application or (as the case may be) the presentation of the bankruptcy petition”.

(3) In sub-paragraph (4) omit the definition of “before petition”.

60 In Schedule 6 (categories of preferential debts), in paragraph 14(1) for “adjudged” substitute “made”.

61 (1) Schedule 9 (provisions capable of inclusion in individual insolvency rules) is amended as follows.

(2) After paragraph 4 insert—

“Adjudicators

4A Provision for regulating the practice and procedure of adjudicators.

4B Provision about the form and content of a bankruptcy application (including an application for a review of an adjudicator’s determination).”

(3) After paragraph 4B (as inserted by sub-paragraph (2)) insert—

“Appeals against determinations by adjudicators

4C Provision about the making and determining of appeals to the court against a determination by an adjudicator, including provision—

(a) enabling the court to make a bankruptcy order on such an appeal, and

(b) about where such appeals lie.”

(4) After paragraph 24 insert—

24A Provision requiring official receivers—

(a) to keep files and other records relating to bankruptcy applications, and

(b) to make those files and records available for inspection by persons of a prescribed description.”

62 (1) In the Table in Schedule 10 (punishment of offences), insert the following entry after the entry relating to section 262A(1)—

[Jo Swinson]

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

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Government new clause 13—Equality Act 2010: obtaining information for proceedings.

Government new clause 17—Power to provide for equal pay audits.

Amendment 56, page 43, line 27, leave out clause 52.

Government amendments 35, 36, 45 and 47.

[Jo Swinson]

We come now to equality measures and various technical and consequential amendments relating to territorial nature and commencement. The new clauses relate to Great Britain’s legal framework on equality and human rights. New clauses 12 and 13 repeal provisions in the Equality Act 2010 that expressly place liability on employers for repeated harassment of their customers, and provisions related to obtaining information. New clause 17 enables Ministers to require employment tribunals to order equal pay audits where an employer is found to have broken equal pay and/or sex discrimination laws. Opposition amendment 56 seeks to remove from the Bill measures to improve the focus and effectiveness of the Equality and Human Rights Commission.

The Government’s amendments and clause 52 are necessary to clarify our legal framework on equality and human rights, and in doing so make it more effective. But they are also about laying the foundations for a sustainable economic recovery. In the current economic circumstances we simply cannot afford not to maximise the full potential of our work force. All hon. Members support making it easier for people to play an active role in our economy, and it is for that reason that I hope we can agree on the provisions. A vague legal framework, full of aspiration but lacking clarity, helps no one, and, worst of all, can hold people back.

The shadow Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills has described these measures as a sign of the Government rowing back on equalities. They are anything but. Rather they are a clear indication of the Government’s commitment to making a real difference on the ground. This is reflected not only in the legislative measures that we are debating today, but in what the Government have achieved since taking office in 2010. [Interruption.] The shadow Secretary of State asks what we have done for equalities. I will tell him.

We have established the first ever inter-ministerial group on equality and published the first ever cross-government strategy; legislated to allow civil partnerships on religious premises; published the first ever transgender action plan; introduced support for disabled people seeking elected office; launched “Think, Act, Report” to have gender equality reporting; established the Women’s Business Council, which is doing vital work to help identify the barriers holding women back in the work place; provided support for women to set up and grow their own businesses with more than 5,000 women mentors; and championed equality on company boards, with the number of FTSE 100 all-male boards halving and new appointments to boards rising from 13% women in the last year of the Labour Government to 34% under this Government. We have published the first ever sports charter aimed at combating homophobia and transphobia; all premiership and championship football teams are now signed up against homophobia and transphobia. We are of course consulting on equal civil marriage, something the previous Government did not do. We have also legislated to end age discrimination in the provision of goods and services.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stewart Hosie]

The Minister is describing an onerous list of questions, so perhaps she can tell the House how few need to be answered in order for the information to be provided so that someone can get proper redress.

[Jo Swinson]

This is a procedure about obtaining information. There are clearly differences between different cases. However, it is also clear from the consultation that this is being used as a sort of fishing expedition whereby additional questions are asked in order to produce an undue burden on business and perhaps sometimes to encourage the idea that the process might be seen to be far too burdensome and that a settlement should therefore be reached instead, even where there may not have been a breach by the employer.

[John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)]

Can the Minister say what percentage of responding organisations supported her position, because I believe that 83% were opposed to it?

[Jo Swinson]

It is certainly true that a wide range of views were put forward to the consultation. Among business groups, there was a very strong view that this costs a lot of money, and I will explain why. Based on the sample, the five to six hours spent on each form at a cost of £160 equates to a cost to employers of £1.4 million a year, and it could be considerably higher because many employers may use more expensive legal advice.

[Mr Chuka Umunna (Streatham) (Lab)]

If the Minister’s complaint is about the quantity of questions, then why not limit the number that can be asked? We are all limited in the number of questions that we can submit at the Table Office, so why not apply similar principles to this procedure?

[Jo Swinson]

I have already outlined various circumstances in which there is a range of questions with many sub-sections. We are saying that it is helpful for business and employees to discuss these issues and to be able to provide information. However, this provision is placing requirements and fears on businesses, and the disproportionate costs that they are facing in complying with it represents a total cost to business of nearly £1.5 million a year. That is a significant cost that we should not take lightly.

Individuals can seek information from an employer about an alleged breach of the 2010 Act without relying on this provision; they can request that information verbally or in writing. Of course, it is in businesses’ interests to respond to reasonable requests of this kind, because the courts would still be free to draw inferences from any employer or service provider’s refusal to answer questions or from answers that seem evasive.

[Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)]

I am sure the Minister would accept that in many businesses there is an imbalance of power between an individual employee, who might be in a non-unionised workplace—a small business—and the employer, who, after all, is paying that employee. The employee may therefore be reluctant to upset their employer, and the statutory questionnaire procedure at least means that the employee can look to a formal external process to try to elicit information.

What assessment, if any, has the Minister made of the costs and savings in court time? Notably, many of the 83% of respondents in favour of the existing procedure were members of the judiciary, presumably because it makes for a simpler court process when cases do go to tribunal.

[Jo Swinson]

I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention. Some of the previous Government’s reforms were introduced, ostensibly, to try to reduce the number of cases coming to tribunal, but they have not that effect at all. We have seen a mushrooming in the number of cases at tribunal, which has resulted in a huge backlog. That is no good for employers or for employees, as the stress of waiting for a tribunal preys heavily on people’s minds. The other measures in the Bill are taking firm and important steps to encourage conciliation at an earlier stage to try to reduce the number of tribunals, and to consult on ways in which we can have a rapid resolution so that fewer cases come to tribunal. Those things will do what she suggests is helpful; we all agree that we want to reduce the number of tribunals, but those are the right ways in which to address the concerns, rather than having lengthy and cumbersome questionnaires for businesses. We have therefore concluded that this obtaining information procedure is disproportionate, and our amendment would repeal it.

[Stewart Hosie]

The Minister has said that this onerous, form-filling, information-gathering exercise costs £1.4 million, but she went on to say that the information can still be requested, verbally or in writing. Presumably a great deal of time will still be required by the employer to provide the information. So what net saving across the whole of business does she envisage? Is it a third of that figure—is it just over half a million pounds? What is the quantum in this?

[Jo Swinson]

As the hon. Gentleman says, there will clearly be some taking into account of and familiarisation with the new procedures, which will have a cost attached. The impact assessment therefore suggests that £800,000 is what business will save on an annual basis, and that is still a significant sum.

New clause 17 relates to cases where an employer has been found to have broken equal pay law or to have discriminated between women and men in non-contractual pay. It introduces a power to make regulations to require employment tribunals to order such an employer to carry out an equal pay audit. The pay gap between men and women stubbornly persists. In 2011, it was still more than 20%, having fallen only five percentage points in the previous eight years. That is why we are acting under the coalition commitment to promote equal pay. We have followed the lead of the previous Government in introducing a voluntary initiative, “Think, Act, Report”, to encourage employers to have more transparency about pay and other issues. More than 50 of Britain’s leading employers, covering hundreds of thousands of employees, are now supporting this initiative. They include Tesco, which publishes details of its gender pay gap, and household names such as BT, IBM, Fujitsu, Morgan Stanley and Unilever, which are all taking steps towards greater transparency. For those companies, which are doing the right thing, a voluntary approach is appropriate. I would argue that it is also often more likely to be successful, because of the genuine buy-in from senior management.

At the same time as we pursue that voluntary, positive action, we still think that it is right to introduce stronger legislative sanctions for cases where employers have been found to have broken the law. We know that many businesses agree with this approach. For example, in response to the “Modern Workplaces” consultation, a large organisation told us that equal pay audits could be an effective way to increase transparency where the law was seen to be breached. Representatives of one small and medium-sized enterprise said:

“For the sake of all those employers who do make huge efforts to have a fair pay system, if others can ‘get away’ with discrimination and generally provide women with lower pay, this is anti-competitive and a burden on ‘good’ employers. So a compulsory audit is entirely appropriate”.

Any regulations made under this power would affect only employers who are found to have broken the relevant laws. These regulations will: set out the content of an equal pay audit; outline the procedures for verifying that an equal pay audit meets an agreed standard; set out to whom and how an equal pay audit should be published; and specify the non-criminal sanctions that should apply where an employer fails to comply with an equal pay audit order.

I remind the House that the regulations will not be applied to micro and start-up businesses during the moratorium on new rules, which will apply until 2014. I assure the House that we will consult further on the practical detail before any regulations are introduced, and that they will be subject to an affirmative resolution of both Houses of Parliament.

--- Later in debate ---

[Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)]

What message does the Minister think this gives when one in two young black men, compared with one in four of their white counterparts, are unemployed? How can she justify this downgrading of the EHRC in such conditions?

[Jo Swinson]

I accept the hon. Lady’s genuine concern about the issue she has raised: there is far too much of an equality gap in our society and between young white and black men. Of course, the Government are committed to tackling that. However, I question whether she really believes that section 3 of the 2006 Act will do that. The message that this sends is that this Government are committed to equality but focused on really making a difference. [Interruption.] I hear the shadow Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Streatham (Mr Umunna), murmuring various things from a sedentary position, but if he really thinks that the EHRC, which was bequeathed to us by the previous Government, was functioning well and was effective, I do not know what planet he is living on. We should consider what has been said about the organisation’s effectiveness. Its accounts were not being signed off and it was wasting money; £866,000 was spent on a website that was never launched. It was not functioning well. It is important that we focus it on its specific duties, and that is what our amendments will do.

[Jack Dromey (Birmingham, Erdington) (Lab)]

The hon. Lady has referred to the previous Government’s record. As deputy general secretary of Unite, I work very closely with the EHRC. May I give one example of effectiveness and ask her to comment on it? The commission conducted a ground-breaking analysis of the two-tier labour market in the supermarket supply chain, which causes division in the workplace and damages social cohesion. As a result, the supermarkets were brought to the table and told that enforcement powers would be used unless they changed the way in which they procured. Major changes were made as a consequence, so that all workers enjoyed equal treatment in the supply chain. Does the hon. Lady challenge that excellent example of the effectiveness of the EHRC?

[Jo Swinson]

I am not saying for a second that the EHRC did nothing right. We are committed to keeping it and refocusing it to make it more effective.

The general counsel said that

“other parts of the legislation provide sufficient clarity on what our job really is.”––[Official Report, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Public Bill Committee, 19 June 2012; c. 79, Q177.]

A raft of stakeholders has criticised how the EHRC was being run. Although it has done some good things, it was not being run in the efficient way that is required of an organisation with such an essential duty and such an essential role to play in the equalities and human rights make-up of our country.

[Julie Hilling]

I am very confused about the Minister’s statement that she will make the EHRC more efficient, when what she will actually do is to continue to cut its budget hugely. How can it be more efficient with a tiny percentage of the staff that it had? It will be unable to do the representative work that it used to do and a vast amount of the other work that it used to do. How will that make it more efficient?

[Jo Swinson]

The EHRC was not particularly efficient in some of the work that it was doing. For example, it cost its helpline far more to deal with cases relating to working rights than other Government and external providers. We are ensuring that the money is spent better. Opposition Members seem to forget that the financial situation left to this Government was an appalling mess. It does no good for equalities in this country not to have the effective use of public money. We should all want to see that. [Interruption.] I am answering the hon. Lady. We should all want to see the effective use of public money. It is wrong to suggest that there are no ways in which the EHRC could have been improved.

[Mr Umunna]

Have we said that?

[Jo Swinson]

We have heard from various Opposition Members that the EHRC was functioning fantastically.

There are many ways in which the EHRC could improve. We are making a variety of changes to it, but we remain committed to this organisation and to improving it. Just this morning, we had the pre-appointment scrutiny hearing for the new chair, Baroness Onora O’Neill, which is a positive step. I am optimistic about how the organisation will move forward and improve its governance, which is badly needed.

[Kate Green]

The Minister is right that improvements were needed in the governance and management of the EHRC. Opposition Members have not disputed that. However, to confuse that with changing its legislatively provided remit is simply not being clear, as that is a very different point of principle. Nobody is saying that the organisation could not be run better. What Opposition Members are querying is the need to cut away the ground from under its feet by changing its very purpose.

[Jo Swinson]

I appreciate that Opposition Members are exercised about this issue, but it is not something that the organisation itself is exercised about, as is evidenced by the quotations from the general counsel in the Committee hearing.

A range of organisations responded to the consultation and gave their views on the change in the general duty. The Association of Chief Police Officers said that the general duty is

“broad in nature, open to wide interpretation and is more in the nature of a vision statement”.

The CBI said that it is

“too vague and creates unrealistic expectations”.

The Gender Identity Research and Education Society said:

“There is no essential specific legal function”.

I particularly like the way in which we managed to unite two organisations that are not usually in agreement—Stonewall and the Evangelical Alliance. The Evangelical Alliance said:

“It’s impossible to achieve and could lead to all kinds of unsatisfactory political interpretations”.

Stonewall said:

“We are not clear that the Commission has made a sufficient case for the retention of Section 3.”

I accept that many Opposition Members think that this change means that the sky is falling in, but the EHRC and its stakeholders do not concur with that viewpoint.

We are reducing the frequency with which the commission is required to publish reports.

[Stewart Hosie]

Will the Minister give way?

[Jo Swinson]

I am sorry, but I want to make some progress. I have taken many interventions.

[Stewart Hosie]

rose—

[Jo Swinson]

As a fellow Scot and in this week’s spirit of compromise and co-operation, I will give way.

[Stewart Hosie]

I am not sure about compromise and co-operation. The Minister spoke about the repeal of section 3, but it is also the repeal of section 10 of the Equality Act 2006. Although it makes sense to make the EHRC more efficient and cost-effective, I am curious to know how removing the specific duty to promote good relations between different groups makes any sense, given her declaration that she wants the organisation still to function and do the good things it was doing.

[Jo Swinson]

The hon. Gentleman does not need to worry about that because under existing duties in sections 8 and 9 of the 2006 Act, the EHRC still has all the requirements and focus it needs. In the consultation, a range of stakeholders spoke about the repeal of the good relations duty in section 10, and whether it was the Association of Chief Police Officers stating that a greater emphasis on its responsibilities in regulating the new public sector duty is broadly supported, or Stonewall saying that the need for the good relations function has not been sufficiently demonstrated, a wide range of stakeholders did not seem to think that there was a problem.

We are reducing the frequency with which the commission is required to publish a report on progress from every three years to every five years, and by allowing a longer time scale between reports, we believe the commission will be able to capture more meaningful change over time. We accept, however, that seismic societal changes or developments do not always happen conveniently every five years, and there is no reason why the commission cannot report more frequently if it wishes.

I know that many Opposition Members have concerns about the repeal of the good relations duty in section 10 of the 2006 Act, but we are clear that a separate mandate is not necessary. The commission’s most valuable work in this area—for example its inquiry into disability-related harassment—can be carried out under its core equality and human rights functions, which we are not amending. That view is supported by the evidence I have outlined that was provided to the Public Bill Committee by the EHRC’s general counsel and other stakeholders.

We are repealing the power associated with the good relations duty in section 19 of the 2006 Act because other organisations gather the information that that legislation permits the commission to monitor. For example, since 2011, police forces in England and Wales have been required to collect data on suspected hate crime relating to race, religion or belief, disability, sexual orientation and gender reassignment. The commission will retain the ability to review and use those data under its existing equality and human rights duties which—I repeat—we are not amending. In Scotland, where the EHRC’s human rights remit is limited, the Scottish Human Rights Commission will be able to use its powers accordingly.

On the power to make arrangements for the provision of conciliation in non-workplace discrimination disputes, as set out in section 27 of the 2006 Act, unfortunately the commission has consistently failed to deliver a well-targeted, cost-effective service. The free conciliation service funded until March 2012 by the EHRC offered poor value for taxpayers’ money. Average costs were more than £4,000 per case, compared with £600 to £850 when going through the Ministry of Justice website, “Find a civil mediation provider”.

A good and effective conciliation service should—of course—be available to those who need it, to help people resolve disputes without recourse to the courts. Good quality, accessible and effective mediation is readily available at reasonable cost throughout England, Wales and Scotland through the MOJ’s website that provides access to a full range of civil mediation council-accredited mediators at set fees, and in Scotland through the Scottish Mediation Network’s “find a mediator” website. For that reason, we are repealing the commission’s power to make provision for conciliation. The new Equality Advisory and Support Service, launched at the beginning of this month, will signpost individuals with discrimination disputes to those alternative, more cost-effective, mediation services. In evidence in Committee, the general counsel of the commission agreed that it is not

“particularly important for us to provide the service for conciliation.”––[Official Report, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Public Bill Committee, 19 June 2012; c. 79, Q175.]

Contrary to accusations from the Opposition, these legislative measures do not represent an attack on equalities or undermine the commission’s important role. On the contrary, we believe that they will help the commission to become more effective in delivering its core functions of promoting equality of opportunity and human rights, and creating a fair environment for jobs and growth. I am therefore unable to support amendment 56, and I commend the Government amendments to the House.

[Mr Umunna]

I will speak first to amendment 56, which is my name and those of my right hon. and hon. Friends. We propose to remove clause 52 in its entirety. I shall then speak to Government new clauses 12, 13 and 17 and related measures on third-party harassment, discrimination questionnaires and equal pay orders.

--- Later in debate ---

When my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green) questioned the Secretary of State on the Government’s intentions on Second Reading, he assured the House that he had no intention of implementing that Beecroft proposal, yet that is precisely—

[Jo Swinson]

indicated dissent.

[Mr Umunna]

It is absolutely true. The Minister should check Hansard.

With this latest new clause, the Government are doing precisely what they said they would not, and we oppose it, as do more than 70% of those who responded to the Government’s consultation.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kate Green]

Absolutely. That is also true in the public sector. In my constituency, a major public sector institution is even now working with the Equality and Human Rights Commission to marry up its human resources practices and its service delivery. That demonstrates exactly the kind of strong institutional body that we want and that we ought to be protecting and promoting today.

My hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington mentioned the concerns that Opposition Members have about the framework agreement that covers the operation of the commission, its relationship with Government and, crucially, its independence. There are worries that the combination of the changes to the framework agreement and the fact that it will report only every five years, as opposed to every three years, as now, will seriously weaken its independence and the balance between the independent commission and the Government Equalities Office, which I think is still within the Home Office, although I am happy to be corrected by the Minister if it has moved.

[Jo Swinson]

indicated assent.

[Kate Green]

The Minister is indicating that it has moved. We are concerned that the balance of power and influence in determining strategy has shifted from an independent commission to an internal Government body. In the context of the international A-grade status, that is a cause of concern.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kate Green]

That is absolutely right. It is also important to recognise that in an employer-employee relationship, there is an imbalance of power, even in many of the smallest businesses. One thing that the statutory questionnaire procedure helps to do is redress that power imbalance—that has been specifically noted in European directives as one of the purposes of such procedures. It is a regret that Ministers have decided that that protection for employees should be removed.

The statutory questionnaire procedure promotes efficiency in the workplace—cases can be abandoned or issues clarified early—but the fact that the judiciary has come out in the Government’s consultation largely in favour of it suggests that it also leads to efficiencies in the courtroom and the tribunal, because the issues will have been well analysed and distilled. Given the many pressures being brought to bear on employment tribunals, I would have thought that the Government would want to give serious consideration to the cost-effectiveness of the statutory questionnaire procedure in respect of tribunals.

These highly regrettable measures have been thrown into the legislation at the eleventh hour. It appears that they are more a sop to the prejudices of a small number of business organisations rather than a recognition of any business hostility to legislative provisions that have existed for many years.

Finally, I should mention what is happening to the general landscape of places where people can go for redress and advice. My hon. Friends have mentioned the ending of the commission’s grants programme to the voluntary sector; changes to its helpline provision; and the ending of its ability to offer conciliation services in non-employment matters. As the Minister well knows, that is happening against a backdrop of swingeing cuts to legal aid funding and to local authority funding for advice organisations. Those who have suffered discrimination or injustice now have real difficulty even to get to the means of presenting and taking their case. I would understand it if the Minister argued that that is not exactly the EHRC’s core function if it were not for the fact that all other provision of such advice and information is being dismantled. It is extremely difficulty for the Minister to argue that there is no need for the EHRC to provide such a service when the same service is being removed from every possible place where people in need might look for it.

The Opposition are distressed and saddened by the proposals in the Government’s new clauses and amendments. We are concerned that they speak either to Government Members’ intrinsic hostility to the concept of equalities and the landscape to protect them, or to a casual dismantling of provisions that work extremely well. We are concerned that the signal sent to wider society is a negative one—the suggestion is either that equality is a job done, which it plainly is not, or that it is no longer important, even though there is agreement across the House that it is very important.

I hope the Minister takes the opportunity to think again this afternoon about some of the Government’s proposals, but I can absolutely assure her that if that does not happen, the subject will be a matter of live debate in the House of Lords. Their lordships take a great interest in equality and social justice and will be very concerned about provisions that appear to weaken the institutional infrastructure to protect and promote equality. I look forward to many more robust arguments. I hope that, in the end, the provisions will be seen as damaging and that they will be withdrawn, so that we will be able to move forward as an exemplar country in our commitment to equality and our determination to make continuing progress.

[Jo Swinson]

Although this debate has not been as consensual as the previous one on insolvency measures, I recognise none the less that Members have raised genuine concerns, on which I hope to reassure them.

Various Members referred to the Second Reading debate and, in particular, the question that the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green) posed to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, who said that there were no proposals, at that point, to bring forward the measures in the amendments today. Of course, in June, when Second Reading was undertaken, a consultation was under way, so we did not have firm proposals at that point. My right hon. Friend said, though, that there was nothing to stop people proposing amendments, and since then, of course, the consultation has ended. In answer to the hon. Lady’s specific question about the consultation, I can say that the Government published their response on 10 October. She is right that the Government Equalities Office has moved, following the reshuffle, and is now housed in the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, where the Minister for Women and Equalities is also Secretary of State.

I can provide a range of clarifications. The shadow Secretary of State asked about the scope of equal pay audits, in particular, and whether they would apply only to private organisations. I can confirm that they will also apply to public sector organisations, so it will be the case for all employers, although we must bear in mind the moratorium on additional burdens on micro-businesses until 2014. It is certainly not our intention, however, to limit its scope to the private sector.

The hon. Member for Vale of Clwyd (Chris Ruane) made a helpful intervention pointing out the unfortunate increase in disability hate crime. It was helpful because it reminded us of the issue. I share his concern, and he should not be under the impression that such concern is limited to the Opposition.

[Chris Ruane]

I hope that the Minister noticed that I did not say “the Liberal Democrats”. I said “the Tories”.

[Jo Swinson]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that clarification, but given that I speak on behalf of the Government, it is only fair that I point out that many of my Conservative colleagues also share his concerns. Very often, on the issue of people with disabilities who require support, the reporting in some sections of the media leaves a lot to be desired.

[Jack Dromey]

Were the disability organisations right or wrong in their recent powerful report making a direct link between the tone set by the Government and the rise in hate crime?

[Jo Swinson]

Every organisation is entitled to put forward its views and concerns. It is important that language is used carefully, as has been pointed out by various Members. Whether they are a member of the Government or not, everyone needs to be careful about the language they use in these discussions. That is not to say, of course, that we should never make any changes to provisions affecting people with disabilities, but that debate should be conducted responsibly.

The hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) was rather dismissive of many of the Government’s measures on equalities, and said that there was much consensus in these areas. These are measures that the previous Labour Government did not undertake during their 13 years in power, so if there is such consensus, the question needs to be asked, “Why didn’t they get on with it?”

[John McDonnell]

The hon. Lady completely misinterpreted what I said. I was not dismissive at all. I welcomed the measures and said that they were supported across the House. This measure, however, is one of the first steps on equality in nearly a decade that has not been taken consensually.

[Jo Swinson]

I take the hon. Gentleman’s point that there has not been a consensual debate today, although I do not think it would be accurate to say that there is a consensus on, for instance, the Government’s measures to tackle discrimination in the trans community or our proposals on equal marriage. I can say that as a constituency MP, and my mailbag, and no doubt those of others, would attest to it. The Government have a positive record, including on measures that the previous Government did not address.

On the reasons for new clause 12, the shadow Secretary of State gave a version of events that differed from mine in referring to the case in 1994. For the record, according to the GEO’s lawyers, the reasoning and rationale for bringing forward that provision is as I set out in my opening remarks. It is also worth pointing out that even though the 1994 case to which he referred happened before that provision was in place, those individuals rightly won their case. Ultimately, the important change is the change in definition, which took place as a result of the case, which I mentioned, in 2007.

[Mr Umunna]

The point is that after the 1994 case was won, the principal point of law that was the subject of the case was called into question several times and the law changed various times—I know that from my own practice—which is why we did what we did in the Equality Act 2010.

[Jo Swinson]

The change made in 2007 was made for the specific reason that has been mentioned, and that was what was replicated in 2010, but in any event, I reiterate what I said earlier about the fact that significant protections remain. This is not to say that by removing the three strikes test there is no remaining protection for people, so that employers do not have to have regard to ensuring that their employees are not harassed at work; rather, employers retain a common-law duty of care to their employees, and they will still need to ensure that they do not fall foul of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997.

Let me turn to the Equality and Human Rights Commission. I am glad that we are not assuming, on both sides of the House, that the position was perfect under the last Government, and I welcome the comments that various Opposition Members have made to that effect. It is worth bearing in mind that we had significant concerns, as did many of the stakeholder organisations, about the EHRC’s ability to fulfil its core duties. On human rights, for instance, Liberty said:

“We have…watched the turbulent”

history

“of the EHRC with some disappointment…The EHRC has a vital statutory duty”

to defend human rights, and

“notwithstanding considerable staffing and other resources, this is a duty which it is yet to fulfil.”

The Equality and Diversity Forum expressed concern that the human rights inquiry was

“the only visible work EHRC has done that is explicitly concerned with fulfilling its duty to promote respect for human rights.”

The Public and Commercial Services Union listed human rights debates from which it said the commission was absent due to a

“failure to communicate its role effectively”.

In addition, concerns were expressed by the Joint Committee on Human Rights, so there was indeed a problem with the basic statutory duties that are the core functions of the EHRC not being properly undertaken previously. That is why our amendments seek to focus the duty and make it crystal clear that that is the priority.

[Kate Green]

The hon. Lady has mentioned a number of organisations and their concerns about how the commission was fulfilling or failing to fulfil some of its core responsibilities, but does she not accept that not one of the organisations she has named—neither Liberty, the Equality and Diversity Forum nor the PCS—has called for a reduction in the commission’s remit? What they have called for is improvements in governance and management, some of which, I accept, we are now seeing.

[Jo Swinson]

It is certainly the case that there is wide agreement that improved governance and management are necessary. Much of that has been happening, which is definitely to be welcomed. However, this comes back to whether we should have a legal duty—something that is tightly drawn and focused—or something that is more akin to a mission statement or vision statement. The purpose of a legal duty is about something being manageable and achievable, and although the duty that the shadow Secretary of State read out described what we would all want to achieve, it would be ambitious for a Government, with all the resources available to them, to say that they would achieve them, let alone for a solitary organisation to try to achieve such a wide range of ends, albeit good ones.

[Mr Umunna]

I am grateful to the Minister for giving way to me again. We are not the only ones who have raised concerns about what she is doing to the commission in this Bill; they include members of her party, as I have said. Councillor Lester Holloway, the head of the BAME Councillors Association, has said:

“A combination of biting budget cuts and the stripping away of many of its powers threatens to turn the commission into little more than a glorified equalities thinktank.”

The head of the Ethnic Minority Liberal Democrats has said:

“I have heard the argument that if it wasn’t for the Lib Dems the Conservatives might have abolished the EHRC altogether by now. However that argument is unlikely to cut much ice”—

--- Later in debate ---

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Order. Mr Umunna, when I say, “Order”, you sit down. I also need to remind you that interventions are supposed to be brief. I appreciate that you were using a quotation, but using several quotations is not in order.

[Jo Swinson]

I meet and speak to those Liberal Democrat colleagues regularly, and I spoke to Lester Holloway last week about these issues. Some of the points that have been made have been based on inaccurate information, such as that about black and minority ethnic staff in the commission. The commission has corrected a lot of inaccurate information and misunderstanding about the impact that the restructuring plans will have on its staff. Of course, diversity is taken very seriously in all public sector organisations, but in the EHRC perhaps more than most there is acute awareness of how vital it is.

The duties that will remain in sections 8 and 9 of the Equality Act 2006 are the core functions of the EHRC. Several Members referred to the Let’s Kick Racism Out of Football campaign, which was an excellent initiative but contained nothing at all that could not be done under section 8. It is a false argument to take something excellent that the EHRC has done in the past and say that such an initiative could not be taken in future because of the changes that we are making to section 3. It absolutely could be taken under section 8.

Several Members asked whether the changes to the EHRC were about growth. I am not going to pretend that making its remit more structured is specifically a growth measure, but that does not mean that it is not a helpful thing to do. I have outlined the impact that the provisions coming out of the red tape challenge will have on business. Business will welcome that, coupled with all the other measures that we are taking in the red tape challenge to bear down on unnecessary regulation.

Several comments have been bandied around that many Government Members wish to see the back of the EHRC and that the change is abolition by stealth. I hope that I can reassure hon. Members that that is not the case. We certainly have not heard any suggestions to that effect from Government Members. Perhaps if that was what they believed, they would have come to the House to say so today. [Interruption.] I am sure that if any of them had wished to say that, they would have done. Even if that were the case, it is not the coalition Government’s position. We recognise that the EHRC is an important institution and that equalities law is vital. It is vital to our economic recovery, because we need to ensure that we use the talents of all the people in our work force and potential work force. That is why we are ensuring that it is focused on what is most important. We want to focus the EHRC on its core functions and, as I have mentioned, strengthen its governance and accountability, in which we have already had some degree of success.

A few Members mentioned the consultation and suggested that there was not necessarily unanimous support for the Government’s measures. However, if we examine the responses that were received from individuals—for clarification, they were not Members of Parliament—we see that more than half advocated the abolition of the EHRC. Opposition Members should be slightly careful what they wish for if they urge Governments always to follow consultation results exactly. We obviously have to take views into account, but we must also ensure that important provisions and protections are not undermined. Even if there were to be a groundswell of support for doing such a thing, the Government would recognise the important protections that the EHRC ensures are in place.

The hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) asked questions about the equality advisory and support service helpline, which opened on 1 October. It has some advantage compared with the previous commission helpline. It is open for longer—from 9 am to 8 pm Monday to Friday and from 10 am to 2 pm on Saturday—and is therefore more convenient. It handles conversations that people might not want to have while they are at work, so having longer opening hours is helpful and makes the service more accessible. It is free to phone from landlines, and it will soon be free from most mobiles too.

The inaccurate suggestion was made that the helpline can be used only when there are referrals from other organisations. That is not the case. It is there to help people with discrimination problems, and there is nothing to prevent a member of the public from approaching the EASS directly, although we accept that most people probably will access it via a referral.

[John McDonnell]

Can the hon. Lady explain where it is advertised?

[Jo Swinson]

It started on 1 October and there are not massive advertising budgets at the moment, but—[Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman clearly wants some huge advertising campaign, but we do not have massive budgets available at the moment. It is important that the advice is out there, that referrals are there and that the information is available when people wish to access the service.

The hon. Gentleman also said that he was concerned about the zero-based budget exercise that was being conducted on the EHRC. However, I understand that that is now Labour party policy. At its recent conference, the shadow Chancellor said that

“the public I think would expect this, to have a proper zero-based spending review where we say we have to justify every penny and make sure we are spending in the right way.”

Perhaps the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington does not agree with the concept of a zero-based budget review, but his shadow Chancellor certainly does.

[John McDonnell]

There is a difference between conducting a zero-based budget exercise when seeking to ensure the effective operation of an organisation and having one when 62% cuts have just been made and the Government are threatening to close it.

[Jo Swinson]

I can say from the Dispatch Box that there is no such threat to close the organisation. The EHRC is an important part of our equalities infrastructure and the Government are committed to ensuring that it is maintained—

[Mr Umunna]

Will the Minister give way?

[Jo Swinson]

The shadow Secretary of State might wish to let me respond to the point raised by the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington; then I will see whether I have an opportunity to hear from him.

The hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington mentioned the percentage of cuts and bandied about a figure of 62%. It is important to bear in mind that removing functions such as the conciliation service, which are now being provided elsewhere, will clearly result in a reduction in the number of individuals required. That service is no longer being provided by the EHRC. When we take into account the functions that have been transferred, the cuts that the EHRC is dealing with are broadly in line with other public sector cuts. Yes, it would be lovely to be in a situation in which we did not have to make any cuts but, unfortunately, the nature of the economic circumstances that we were left with in 2010 means that that is not possible.

[Mr Umunna]

I think it is fair to say that we remain deeply concerned about this matter. Will the Minister give us a guarantee now that, for the remainder of this Parliament, there will be no move to make any further changes to the statutory remit or footing of the Equality and Human Rights Commission?

[Jo Swinson]

The shadow Secretary of State does not surprise me greatly when he says that he is not convinced by our arguments today. This was never going to be the most consensual of debates. He is now asking me to look into a crystal ball, but I am clearly not going to make any predictions for the future. I will, however, say that the EHRC is a vital body that is hugely important to our equalities protection. We are conducting a zero-based review to ensure that it can undertake its functions in a more focused way, and that is what we will continue to do.

The hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston mentioned the potential risk to the A-rated status of the EHRC as a human rights body. We are in discussions with the international co-ordinating committee on this, and we want to address any concerns that it might have. We are determined to ensure that we have an A-rated and highly respected human rights body. The hon. Lady also asked about the framework document and suggested that it could undermine the independence of the institution. In fact, it has been agreed on between the commission and the Government, and it sets out specifically that the commission must be

“free to exercise its statutory functions free from ministerial interference or undue influence.”

[Kate Green]

I am grateful to the Minister, and I note that assurance, but does not the framework document imply that the function of the EHRC is to deliver the Government’s equality strategy? That does not exactly speak to its independence.

[Jo Swinson]

As I have said, the framework document is absolutely independent. The commission should be

“under as few constraints as reasonably possible in determining its activities, timetables and priorities”,

and it should not be regarded as the servant or agent of the Crown, or enjoy any status, immunity and privilege of the Crown. Those words are very clear.

I agree with the hon. Lady that there is much more to do on equality. This is in no way “job done”. She outlined the scandal of the remaining pay gap, which we are committed to addressing. I would point out, however, that we were left with a 20% pay gap in 2010 after 13 years of a Labour Government. So before the Opposition get too holier than thou, they should show a little humility. It was not “job done” after they had been in government. We need to work together to ensure that equalities are driven forward, and that these situations are improved. In addition, on the issues the hon. Lady raised around racial inequality, social mobility and the sort of action we are taking through the pupil premium will certainly help. I welcome her support for equal marriage, and I would note again that the previous Labour Government did not do anything about it for 13 years.

We are deliberately making sure that the EHRC is improved in respect of its management. We have made significant progress at the EHRC: we have a permanent chief executive appointed, and as I said, the pre-appointment scrutiny hearing took place this morning for the preferred candidate for its chair. Ministers will, of course, properly consider the report before formally deciding whether to appoint Baroness O’Neill. We have had two clean sets of accounts laid before Parliament—

--- Later in debate ---

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Jo Swinson]

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

[Mr Speaker]

With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendment 33.

[Jo Swinson]

New clause 15 amends the definition of “estate agency work”, which determines the application of the Estate Agents Act 1979. This fulfils our commitment to introduce a measure on this issue following our recent targeted consultation, which was developed as part of the disruptive business models/challenger businesses theme of the red tape challenge.

New clause 15 extends a current exemption to that definition of estate agency work. Intermediaries, such as internet portals for private sales, will be out of the scope of the Estate Agents Act if they merely enable private sellers to advertise their properties and provide a means for sellers and buyers to contact and communicate with one another. Such intermediary businesses will therefore not be obliged to comply with requirements that are relevant to full service estate agency businesses, such as the disclosure of any self-interest in a property transaction and membership of a redress scheme for residential estate agents. These private sales businesses are not actively involved in property transactions, but offer a lower-cost alternative of enabling individuals to market their own property and buy and sell privately.

Those intermediary businesses will be able to provide a means for the seller and prospective buyer to contact one another, for example online; to provide a branded for sale board to the seller to assist this process; and to pass on to a prospective buyer solely the information provided by the seller in their advertisement, by whatever channel of communication. If, however, the intermediary offers any personal advice to a seller or a buyer, or other ancillary services, such as preparing property particulars or photographs or an energy performance certificate, the intermediary will be in the scope of the Estate Agents Act and bound by its obligations. The Estate Agents Act will therefore continue to apply to businesses that are involved in or have scope to influence property transactions.

The Government have found uncertainty and a range of views among stakeholders as to the application of the Estate Agents Act to intermediary businesses, particularly online. This is unhelpful to consumers who might wish to use an intermediary, and unhelpful to businesses, whether intermediaries or more traditional estate agents, or those interested in entering the market. Stakeholders are also concerned that consumers should be protected where they rely on a service provider in relation to a transaction as valuable and important as a house sale or purchase. Clearly, for most people it is the highest value and most important purchase they will make. The Estate Agents Act will continue to apply to businesses providing personal advice about a potential sale or other ancillary services.

For those reasons, this is a limited deregulation. It addresses the perceived uncertainty as to the scope of the Estate Agents Act and it brings benefits to consumers and to the industry, but, crucially, it does not unduly reduce consumer protection in relation to services that involve the service provider in the property transaction.

[Mr Iain Wright]

I thank the Minister for her helpful comments and I have also read her written ministerial statement to the House on this matter from 13 September. As she rightly says, Government new clause 15 updates and extends an exemption to the definition of estate agency work, as set out in the Estate Agents Act 1979. The legislation pre-dated the rise of the internet, and as the Minister rightly said, the world of buying and selling a house has been revolutionised by the internet. Buyers and sellers are now more likely to looking at the likes of Rightmove, Zoopla or PrimeLocation online than to be using a traditional high street estate agent, at least in the early stages of the process.

From the Minister’s comments I understand that some private sales internet portals may be exempt from the Estate Agents Act while others may be within its scope, depending on whether they provide advertising space or allow prospective buyers and sellers to match up via an online messaging board.

The Minister mentioned the Government’s report “Removing Red Tape for Challenger Businesses”. I was struck by a particular comment that is relevant to this part of the Bill. It states:

“Stripped-down business models, offering competitive prices to home buyers and sellers in exchange for limited, online services are caught by current legislation which applies a broad definition to ‘estate agency work’. Once legally categorised in this way, these innovative businesses are tied to regulation which can be disproportionate to the range of services they offer, and which may be inhibiting the growth of this alternative method of house buying and selling.”

The Opposition do not necessarily disagree with the Government’s approach to this, and we would certainly welcome innovation and improved competition to support, first and foremost, the consumer in what is, as the Minister rightly said, probably the biggest and most significant purchase or sale in his or her life, but we do have a number of questions that I hope the Minister will be able to address.

Discussions about amending the Estate Agents Act 1979 go as far back as February 2010, when the Office of Fair Trading reported on its study into home buying and selling. I fully appreciate that the study strongly stated that innovation could have an impact on the cost of buying and selling a home and that the current legislation might be hindering the emergence of new business models, but it also stated that overall satisfaction with estate agents had improved in recent years and that, where there were problems in the process, consumers on the whole did not tend to think that the estate agent was at fault. The OFT found the existing legislation to be both comprehensive and wide-ranging and that further regulation was unnecessary.

I appreciate—I say this before the Minister intervenes—that the amendment is deregulatory in nature, but the OFT report concluded that the focus should be on improving the enforcement of current rules to guard against serious breaches. That being the case, and notwithstanding my earlier, hopefully supportive, comments welcoming the introduction of a greater degree of innovation in the industry, will she go back to first principles and outline the specific benefits that the new clause will produce? What forecast has she made regarding how and in what numbers she anticipates new entrants will come into the market? What estimates has she made regarding cost savings to consumers? Has she been able to quantify the savings to business that such a deregulatory approach would produce?

For a Bill that purports to be all about enterprise, the theme of our deliberations during its passage through the House has been a spectacular lack of evidence to support its provisions, so it would be useful if she could provide some quantifiable and empirical evidence. What consideration has the Minister given to consumer protection in the light of the new clause? Is there a risk that people will not have access to the suitable, robust and—one would hope—impartial advice that could be provided by an estate agent? Has she thought about the potential risks to vulnerable people, particularly the elderly, some of whom might be susceptible to scare tactics and unscrupulous behaviour? What is in place to ensure that those people do not see a reduction in their consumer protection as a result of the new clause?

The Minister might also be aware of concerns raised by the National Association of Estate Agents about a potential breach of the UK’s anti-money laundering regulations as a result of the new clause. Estate agents are covered under the third money laundering directive, which I understand has been implemented in the UK through the Money Laundering Regulations 2007. The Minister referred to those regulations in her written ministerial statement last month, stating that the Terrorism Act 2000 and the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 incorporate the definition from the Estate Agents Act 1979 in applying particular standards to regulated sectors, which include estate agents. Can she therefore confirm that the new clause will deal with the risk of money laundering? Can she—for my purposes, rather than anybody else’s—clarify that those estate agents who will be taken out of the scope of the 1979 Act because they provide a slimmed down business model will still be seen as a regulated sector for the purposes of money laundering regulations? I hope that she can answer these questions comprehensively, but the Opposition can certainly support one of the things she proposes with regard to injecting a greater degree of innovation into the market and embracing new business models. I look forward to hearing what she has to say.

[Jo Swinson]

I welcome the hon. Gentleman’s general support for the new clause. He is right to point out that the world has changed since the current legislation on estate agents came into force and that the internet has been absolutely revolutionary in that regard. He mentioned a number of popular and well-known property websites. I just caution him not to conclude that those household names would necessarily be caught by this limited deregulation. That is not the intention of the new clause at all. To put it into perspective, there are currently about 14,000 traditional estate agent offices in the UK—virtually all of them also have an internet presence—but there are fewer than 30 private sales portals in the UK, all of which are small and medium-sized enterprises, so that is quite an undeveloped part of our market. As for how many property sales go through estate agents, in 2000 the figure was 87%, with only 11% sold privately. That compares with other markets where it is rather less than that; for example, in the United States about 20% of sales are undertaken privately.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Iain Wright]

The Minister will recall that I mentioned concerns about money laundering. Will she say a few words about that?

[Jo Swinson]

The companies covered by this deregulation would not be involved in the transaction of money, because if they were they would remain caught by the Estate Agents Act. We therefore do not need to worry about this in relation to making it easier to undertake money laundering. Of course the Government maintain their provisions to try to make sure that they enforce the existing rules against money laundering in an appropriate fashion.

I hope that in the absence of any other questions from Members we will be able to proceed with a fair degree of consensus on this useful, though limited, deregulatory measure.

Question put and agreed to.

New clause 15 accordingly read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 9

Listed buildings in England: agreements and orders granting listed building consent

‘(1) The Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 is amended as follows.

(2) In Chapter 2 of Part 1, after section 26 insert—

“Buildings in England: heritage partnership agreements

26A Heritage partnership agreements

‘(1) A relevant local planning authority may make an agreement under this section (a “heritage partnership agreement”) with any owner of a listed building, or a part of such a building, situated in England.

(2) Any of the following may also be a party to a heritage partnership agreement in addition to an owner and the relevant local planning authority—

(a) any other relevant local planning authority;

(b) the Secretary of State;

(c) the Commission;

(d) any person who has an interest in the listed building;

(e) any occupier of the listed building;

(f) any person involved in the management of the listed building;

(g) any other person who appears to the relevant local planning authority appropriate as having special knowledge of, or interest in, the listed building, or in buildings of architectural or historic interest more generally.

(3) A heritage partnership agreement may contain provision—

(a) granting listed building consent under section 8(1) in respect of specified works for the alteration or extension of the listed building to which the agreement relates, and

(b) specifying any conditions to which the consent is subject.

(4) The conditions to which listed building consent may be subject under subsection (3)(b) in respect of specified works are those that could be attached to listed building consent in respect of the works if consent were to be granted under section 16.

(5) If a heritage partnership agreement contains provision under subsection (3), nothing in sections 10 to 26 and 28 applies in relation to listed building consent for the specified works, subject to any regulations under section 26B(2)(f).

(6) A heritage partnership agreement may also—

(a) specify or describe works that would or would not, in the view of the parties to the agreement, affect the character of the listed building as a building of special architectural or historic interest;

(b) make provision about the maintenance and preservation of the listed building;

(c) make provision about the carrying out of specified work, or the doing of any specified thing, in relation to the listed building;

(d) provide for public access to the listed building and the provision to the public of associated facilities, information or services;

(e) restrict access to, or use of, the listed building;

(f) prohibit the doing of any specified thing in relation to the listed building;

(g) provide for a relevant public authority to make payments of specified amounts and on specified terms—

(i) for, or towards, the costs of any works provided for under the agreement; or

(ii) in consideration of any restriction, prohibition or obligation accepted by any other party to the agreement.

(7) For the purposes of subsection (6)(g), each of the following, if a party to the agreement, is a relevant public authority—

(a) the Secretary of State;

(b) the Commission;

(c) a relevant local planning authority.

(8) In this section “specified” means specified or described in the heritage partnership agreement.

(9) In this section and section 26B—

“owner”, in relation to a listed building or a part of such a building, means a person who is for the time being —

(a) the estate owner in respect of the fee simple in the building or part; or

(b) entitled to a tenancy of the building or part granted or extended for a term of years certain of which not less than seven years remain unexpired;

“relevant local planning authority”, in relation to a listed building, means a local planning authority in whose area the building or any part of the building is situated.

26B Heritage partnership agreements: supplemental

‘(1) A heritage partnership agreement—

(a) must be in writing;

(b) must make provision for the parties to review its terms at intervals specified in the agreement;

(c) must make provision for its termination and variation;

(d) may relate to more than one listed building or part, provided that in each case a relevant local planning authority and an owner are parties to the agreement; and

(e) may contain incidental and consequential provisions.

(2) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision—

(a) about any consultation that must take place before heritage partnership agreements are made or varied;

(b) about the publicity that must be given to heritage partnership agreements before or after they are made or varied;

(c) specifying terms that must be included in heritage partnership agreements;

(d) enabling the Secretary of State or any other person specified in the regulations to terminate by order a heritage partnership agreement or any provision of such an agreement;

(e) about the provision that may be included in an order made under regulations under paragraph (d), including provision enabling such orders to contain supplementary, incidental, transitory, transitional or saving provision;

(f) applying or reproducing, with or without modifications, any provision of sections 10 to 26 and 28 for the purposes of heritage partnership agreements;

(g) modifying any other provision of this Act as it applies in relation to heritage partnership agreements.

(3) Regulations made under subsection (2)(a) may, in particular, include provision as to—

(a) the circumstances in which consultation must take place;

(b) the types of listed building in respect of which consultation must take place;

(c) who must carry out the consultation;

(d) who must be consulted (including provision enabling the Commission to direct who is to be consulted in particular cases); and

(e) how the consultation must be carried out.

(4) Listed building consent granted by a heritage partnership agreement (except so far as the agreement or regulations under subsection (2) otherwise provide) enures for the benefit of the building and of all persons for the time being interested in it.

(5) Subject to subsection (4), a heritage partnership agreement cannot impose any obligation or liability, or confer any right, on a person who is not party to the agreement.

(6) Section 84 of the Law of Property Act 1925 (power to discharge or modify restrictive covenant) does not apply to a heritage partnership agreement.”

(3) After section 26B insert—

“Buildings in England: orders granting listed building consent

26C Listed building consent orders

‘(1) The Secretary of State may by order (a “listed building consent order”) grant listed building consent under section 8(1) in respect of works of any description for the alteration or extension of listed buildings of any description in England.

(2) The consent may be granted subject to conditions specified in the order.

(3) Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (2), the conditions that may be specified include any conditions subject to which listed building consent may be granted under section 16.

(4) A listed building consent order may (without prejudice to section 17(2)) give the local planning authority power to require details of works to be approved by them, and may grant consent subject to conditions with respect to—

(a) the making of an application to the authority for a determination as to whether such approval is required, and

(b) the outcome of such an application or the way it is dealt with.

(5) A listed building consent order may enable the Secretary of State or the local planning authority to direct that consent granted by the order does not apply—

(a) to a listed building specified in the direction;

(b) to listed buildings of a description specified in the direction;

(c) to listed buildings in an area specified in the direction.

(6) An order may in particular make provision about the making, coming into force, variation and revocation of such a direction, including provision conferring powers on the Secretary of State in relation to directions by a local planning authority.

(7) Nothing in sections 10 to 26 applies in relation to listed building consent granted by a listed building consent order; but that does not affect the application of sections 20, 21 and 22 in relation to an application for approval required by a condition to which consent is subject.

26D Local listed building consent orders

‘(1) A local planning authority for any area in England may by order (a “local listed building consent order”) grant listed building consent under section 8(1) in respect of works of any description for the alteration or extension of listed buildings.

(2) Regulations under this Act may provide that subsection (1) does not apply to listed buildings of any description or in any area.

(3) The consent granted by a local listed building consent order may relate—

(a) to all listed buildings in the area of the authority or any part of that area;

(b) to listed buildings of any description in that area or any part of that area.

(4) The consent may be granted subject to conditions specified in the order.

(5) Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (4), the conditions that may be specified include any subject to which listed building consent may be granted under section 16.

(6) A local listed building consent order may enable the local planning authority to direct that the consent granted by the order in respect of works of any description does not apply—

(a) to a listed building specified in the direction;

(b) to listed buildings of a description specified in the direction;

(c) to listed buildings in an area specified in the direction.

(7) An order may in particular make provision about the making, coming into force, variation and revocation of such a direction, including provision conferring powers on the Secretary of State.

(8) Nothing in sections 10 to 26 applies in relation to listed building consent granted by a local listed building consent order; but that does not affect the application of sections 20, 21 and 22 in relation to an application for approval required by a condition to which consent is subject.

(9) Schedule 2A makes provision in connection with local listed building consent orders.

26E Powers of Secretary of State in relation to local orders

‘(1) At any time before a local listed building consent order is adopted by a local planning authority the Secretary of State may direct that the order (or any part of it) is not to be adopted without the Secretary of State’s approval.

(2) If the Secretary of State gives a direction under subsection (1)—

(a) the authority must not take any step in connection with the adoption of the order until they have submitted the order or the part to the Secretary of State and the Secretary of State has decided whether to approve it;

(b) the order has no effect unless it (or the part) has been approved by the Secretary of State.

(3) In considering an order or part submitted under subsection (2)(a) the Secretary of State may take account of any matter the Secretary of State thinks relevant.

(4) It is immaterial whether any such matter was taken account of by the local planning authority.

(5) The Secretary of State—

(a) may approve or reject an order or part of an order submitted under subsection (2)(a);

(b) must give reasons for that decision.

(6) The Secretary of State—

(a) may at any time before a local listed building consent order is adopted by the local planning authority, direct them to modify it in accordance with the direction;

(b) must give reasons for any such direction.

(7) The local planning authority—

(a) must comply with a direction under subsection (6);

(b) must not adopt the order unless the Secretary of State gives notice of being satisfied that they have complied with the direction.

(8) The Secretary of State—

(a) may at any time by order revoke a local listed building consent order if of the opinion that it is expedient to do so;

(b) must give reasons for doing so.

(9) The Secretary of State—

(a) must not make an order under subsection (8) without consulting the local planning authority;

(b) if proposing to make such an order, must serve notice on the local planning authority.

(10) A notice under subsection (9)(b) must specify the period (which must not be less than 28 days from the date of its service) within which the authority may require an opportunity of appearing before and being heard by a person appointed by the Secretary of State for the purpose.

(11) The Secretary of State must give the authority such an opportunity if they require it within the period specified in the notice.

26F Considerations in making orders

‘(1) In considering whether to make a listed building consent order or local listed building consent order the Secretary of State or local planning authority must have special regard to the desirability of preserving—

(a) listed buildings of a description to which the order applies,

(b) their setting, or

(c) any features of special architectural or historic interest which they possess.

(2) Before making a listed building consent order the Secretary of State must consult the Commission.

26G Effect of revision or revocation of order on incomplete works

‘(1) A listed building consent order or local listed building consent order may include provision permitting the completion of works if—

(a) listed building consent is granted by the order in respect of the works, and

(b) the listed building consent is withdrawn after the works are started but before they are completed.

(2) Listed building consent granted by an order is withdrawn—

(a) if the order is revoked;

(b) if the order is varied or (in the case of a local listed building consent order) revised so that it ceases to grant listed building consent in respect of the works or materially changes any condition or limitation to which the grant of listed building consent is subject;

(c) if a direction applying to the listed building is issued under powers conferred under section 26C(5) or 26D(6).”

(4) After section 28 insert—

“28A Compensation where consent formerly granted by order is granted conditionally or refused

(1) Section 28 also has effect (subject to subsections (2) and (3)) where—

(a) listed building consent granted by a listed building consent order or a local listed building consent order is withdrawn (whether by the revocation or amendment of the order or by the issue of a direction), and

(b) on an application for listed building consent made within the prescribed period after the withdrawal, consent for works formerly authorised by the order is refused or is granted subject to conditions other than those imposed by the order.

(2) Section 28 does not have effect by virtue of subsection (1) if—

(a) the works authorised by the order were started before the withdrawal, and

(b) the order included provision in pursuance of section 26G permitting the works to be completed after the withdrawal.

(3) Section 28 does not have effect by virtue of subsection (1) if—

(a) notice of the withdrawal was published in the prescribed manner and within the prescribed period before the withdrawal, and

(b) the works authorised by the order were not started before the notice was published.

(4) Where section 28 has effect by virtue of subsection (1), references in section 28(2) and (3) to the revocation or modification of listed building consent are references to the withdrawal of the listed building consent by revocation or amendment of the order or by issue of the direction.”

(5) Schedule [Local listed building consent orders: procedure] (which inserts Schedule 2A to the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990) has effect.’.—(Matthew Hancock.)

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Matthew Hancock]

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