Oral Answers to Questions

John Cryer Excerpts

Thursday 21st March 2013 Commons Chamber

[Vince Cable]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right that the issue in the industrial strategy is promoting not simply the prime contractors but the supply chains. These have been badly hollowed out in recent years, but there is quite a lot of evidence of re-shoring, and we want to support that with the advanced manufacturing supply chain initiative.

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

The Secretary of State has just cut by half the consultation period for large-scale redundancies. Does he imagine in his wildest dreams—I imagine he has some pretty wild ones—that this will do anything to foster economic confidence?

Oral Answers to Questions

John Cryer Excerpts

Thursday 7th February 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Willetts]

I very much hope to join that event. I hope to be up there that day. If not, I will be there on another occasion, because I am a great admirer of what has been achieved at the university of Chester.

[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.

Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Bill

John Cryer Excerpts

Wednesday 17th October 2012 Commons Chamber

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[John Cryer]

Did the hon. Gentleman read the evidence that Mr Beecroft gave to the Public Bill Committee? When he was asked, repeatedly, what the basis of his assertions was on a whole range of subjects, and what evidence he was bringing to bear, he more or less said, “Well, it’s something I’ve just dreamed up.” He did not present any particular evidence that I can pinpoint in the Hansard report.

[Richard Fuller]

The hon. Gentleman makes a good point, but—[Interruption.] I am serious, and this is a serious point. I do not know much about football, but I understand that the idea is to play the ball, not the man. That is also important in debates, which was why I did not feel it was correct when the Secretary of State dismissed Adrian Beecroft’s proposals out of hand and called them “bonkers” on Second Reading. It is important that we should debate those proposals. If, as the hon. Gentleman says, there is not sufficient evidence for them, let us look forward and move on to other issues.

My point is that Opposition Members too often harangue business people or try to portray them in a particular light. I refer particularly to the comments of the hon. Member for Walthamstow, who I believe discussed how Mr Beecroft made his money. I gently urge her to recognise that Mr Beecroft’s boss at the time—they were in the same company, making the same money—was an adviser to the former Prime Minister, and that the Labour party received millions of pounds in donations from that gentleman. If she wishes to make such points about one individual, I look forward to being copied in on her letter to the Leader of the Opposition suggesting that the Labour party should return that money.

Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Bill

John Cryer Excerpts

Tuesday 16th October 2012 Commons Chamber

[Matthew Hancock]

We are ensuring that due health and safety measures are protected, but that there is a test of reasonableness for the actions of employers, so that those who have taken all reasonable precautions cannot be prosecuted for a technical breach. That will reduce the impression among many businesses, especially small businesses, that they are liable to health and safety legislation in many cases when they are not. It will reduce that impression while ensuring that taking reasonable steps to abate health and safety difficulties remains a vital part of everybody’s responsibilities. Indeed, the new clause does not change the criminal procedures in relation to health and safety.

How do we propose to do this? Civil claims for personal injury can be brought by two routes: a breach of the common-law duty of care, in which case negligence has to be proved, or a breach of statutory duty, in which case the failure to meet the particular legal standard alleged to have been breached has to be proved. The new clause will amend the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 to remove the right to bring civil claims for breach of a statutory duty contained in certain health and safety legislation.

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

As I am sure the Minister knows, the 1974 Act is riddled with the phrase

“so far as is reasonably practicable”.

Does that not give the protection against flimsy claims that he has been talking about?

[Matthew Hancock]

The 1974 Act does not give that protection, because a test of negligence is not required to proceed with a prosecution. In future, proof of negligence will be required to bring a case. It will be possible to bring a civil action for a breach of common law duty of care only on the basis that the employer has been negligent.

Oral Answers to Questions

John Cryer Excerpts

Thursday 6th September 2012 Commons Chamber

[Vince Cable]

Until I heard the hon. Gentleman’s question, I thought Fleetwood was primarily famous for its football team, which has just got back into the Football League. I will make an effort to visit Fleetwood. I am delighted to hear of the success of Fisherman’s Friend, which I consume a great deal of. I had not realised it was an export firm, but we will do everything we can to promote it overseas.

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

The Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Bill will, in effect, introduce no-fault dismissal by the back door through the system of protected conversation, which was debated extensively in Committee. Monitoring will be difficult, but what plans do the Government have to monitor the system to ensure that it is not abused by bad employers?

Oral Answers to Questions

John Cryer Excerpts

Monday 27th February 2012 Commons Chamber

[Michael Gove]

That is a typically acute point from my hon. Friend. We are seeking to reform initial teacher training at the moment to make sure that there is more practical, hands-on experience of the classroom and that we reward high-flying graduates who want to enter the noblest of professions.

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

Could the Minister tell the House how many civil servants at the Department for Education are working on the introduction of free schools?

[Michael Gove]

About 100. I popped into the Department on Saturday to see them as many had chosen, voluntarily, to work over the weekend. It is often the case in newspapers and elsewhere that criticism is directed towards public servants and public service, but the fact that people chose, of their own free will to come in and work to ensure that new schools could be established in areas of deprivation was for me an inspiration. It made me proud of the fact that I am the Secretary of State in a Department that has so many brilliant people working for it.

Oral Answers to Questions

John Cryer Excerpts

Monday 16th January 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Gibb]

My hon. Friend raises an important point. We want to raise the bar for entrants into the teaching profession, which is why we are limiting the number of retakes for those tests, which will be taken before trainees start their course, not at the end.

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

Following the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams), would the Secretary of State like to congratulate the Holocaust Educational Trust, which works tirelessly visiting schools and educating students in the horrors of the genocide of the second world war?

Oral Answers to Questions

John Cryer Excerpts

Thursday 27th October 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Prisk]

There was a real problem for the workers in that area, and we responded positively by providing the additional two enterprise zones. I hope the hon. Gentleman welcomes that.

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

8. What steps his Department is taking to support the construction industry.

[The Minister of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (Mr Mark Prisk)]

The Government are acting positively to strengthen the industry by reform the planning system, modernising public sector procurement, and producing the first national infrastructure plan, which will unlock up to £200 billion of both public and private investment.

[John Cryer]

Can we return to planet Earth? Since the election 65,000 jobs have gone in construction, no one is training apprentices, and public sector contracts have dried up. Do we not need a bit more action?

Oral Answers to Questions

John Cryer Excerpts

Monday 23rd May 2011 Commons Chamber

[The Minister of State, Department for Education (Sarah Teather)]

The proposals in the Green Paper that we are consulting on aim to make it clearer when a child should have a statement. Schools should therefore be much clearer about what is normally available, and I hope that that will make it easier for parents and schools to understand whether there should be a statement. The new proposals for an education, health and care plan ought to join up funding to make things much simpler for families.

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

Further to Question 13, we have been told for nearly a year that an announcement on the replacement for Building Schools for the Future is imminent, yet we are still waiting. We are now being told that there might be one before the summer recess. The fabric of some schools continues to crumble, and a few are now in a dangerous state. Will we hear an announcement in the next couple of weeks telling us exactly where we are going to be?

[Michael Gove]

No, I am afraid. I would make two points. Over the comprehensive spending review period we will be spending more every year on school capital than the previous Government spent in every year of their first eight years. It is therefore simply wrong to say that there is no investment in school buildings, because it will be greater than it was in the first eight years under the previous Government. Also, more than 700 schools in the BSF programme are still having their renovation work carried out. Of course we would like to do more, but our capacity to do so is impeded by the bureaucratic mess that we were left by the last Government and by the fact that there simply was not any money left after their comprehensive mismanagement of the economy.

Oral Answers to Questions

John Cryer Excerpts

Thursday 31st March 2011 Commons Chamber

[Vince Cable]

We certainly wish to encourage providers that charge highly competitive fee levels, but we also wish to encourage high-quality universities of the kind my hon. Friend described. I do not think that the two are in any way incompatible.

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

Will the three-year moratorium that the Secretary of State mentioned earlier apply to health and safety legislation? I ask that question in view of the fact that two people are killed every week in construction.

[Mr Prisk]

We are reviewing health and safety legislation following a report on a common-sense approach to it. The moratorium approach to domestic regulation for micro-businesses will extend across health and safety, but it will be a common-sense approach based on ensuring that when public safety or national security are involved, measures are progressed.