Outsourcing and Tax Credits

Kevin Brennan Excerpts

Friday 4th November 2016 Commons Chamber

[Simon Kirby]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Those are two key objectives and it is important to get the balance right between them. Whoever delivers—whether it be the private sector or the public sector—must deliver what is most appropriate. We have been clear that in the case of Concentrix, it was not the most appropriate way to proceed. We must ensure that what is done is fair, reasonable and represents value for money.

[Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)]

I am sure it was inadvertent, but I do not think the Minister fully answered the point made by the hon. Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) when he asked what penalties Concentrix would suffer as a result of its failure. Is it not the case that, in fact, because the Government are ending the contract early, Concentrix are the ones that are going to be compensated? Will the Minister clear that up for us right now?

[Simon Kirby]

The contract is still under sensitive commercial negotiation. As for the exact penalties, the contract states clearly and transparently that penalties will be imposed for a failure to fulfil elements of it. I can tell the hon. Gentleman that HMRC will be seeking the best possible deal for taxpayers and, indeed, people who are entitled to these payments, and we fully expect to get the best possible deal.

Oral Answers to Questions

Kevin Brennan Excerpts

Tuesday 19th July 2016 Commons Chamber

[Ian Blackford (Ross, Skye and Lochaber) (SNP)]

7. What assessment he has made of the near-term effect of the outcome of the EU referendum on economic confidence and growth in the UK.

[Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)]

8. What recent assessment he has made of the economic effect of the outcome of the EU referendum.

[The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr Philip Hammond)]

While it is clear that the referendum decision represents a shock to the UK economy, thanks to the actions taken over the past six years by my predecessor, the economy is well placed to respond. I will work closely with the Bank of England to provide immediate stability and to maintain confidence in the fundamental health of the UK economy as we prepare for the autumn statement. As further post-referendum economic data are published, the economy’s short-term response to the Brexit decision will become clearer. If further measures are required, they will be announced in the autumn statement.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Hammond]

The hon. Gentleman is right; the figures that he quotes are right. The evidence is anecdotal in the early stages, as he would expect. As he would also expect, the initial response to this kind of shock must be a monetary response delivered by the Bank of England. In announcing that interest rates were not to be lowered last week, the Governor made it clear that the Bank is developing a monetary package that will be announced in due course.

[Kevin Brennan]

The Chancellor’s certainty that the purchase of ARM by SoftBank is good for the UK following the EU referendum is not shared by its founder Hermann Hauser, who said it means that

“determination of what comes next for technology will not be decided in Britain any more, but in Japan”.

Why does the Chancellor think that the company’s founder is wrong?

[Mr Hammond]

I suspect that the founder of the company has not had the benefit of discussions with the acquiring company. I have met the leader of the current management team, who are wholeheartedly supporting the purchase by SoftBank. We have achieved some very hard guarantees—these were volunteered without our having to extract them—about the future autonomy of the company, headquartered in the UK, and about its commitment to double the number of UK employees over the next five years. What became very clear from a discussion with the founder and CEO of SoftBank is that it firmly believes Cambridge will be the global centre for developing the internet of things and ARM will play a key role in developing that industry.

Budget Resolutions and Economic Situation

Kevin Brennan Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd March 2016 Commons Chamber

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

I beg to move amendment (b), in paragraph (2), after “tax”, insert—

“(except in relation to value added tax on insulation, solar panels and any other category of energy-saving material or their installation)”.

I and my party share the sentiments expressed by the Chancellor and those across the House in condemnation of what happened in Brussels today. Our thoughts and prayers are with the victims and their families. We support the security measures, of course, taken by the Government and say to the people of Belgium that we stand with them.

I am glad to see the Chancellor has at least turned up today. Let me make it clear from the outset that, in my view, and I believe the view of many others, the behaviour of the Chancellor over the last 11 days calls into question his fitness for the office he now holds. I also believe that it certainly calls into question his fitness for any leading office in government. What we have seen is not the actions of a Chancellor, a senior Government Minister, but the grubby, incompetent manipulations of a political chancer.

For the record, let us go back to last Friday week. The Chancellor personally forced through cuts in personal independence payments. The statement issued by the Government that Friday on PIPs was not a consultation and not a suggestion; it was a statement of policy. Personal independence payments are the benefits that, for many disabled people, make life worth living. They help them get to work. They help them have some normality in their lives. Often, they keep people out of residential care. The Chancellor was willing to cut away that vital support to some of the poorest and most disadvantaged members of our community. Do not tell us that we are all in this together.

[Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)]

Would it not at the very least help to dispel the impression that the Chancellor is acting in his own political interests, rather than in the national economic interest, if he made it clear today that he was not going to stand for the leadership of the Tory party so that he could concentrate on his job as Chancellor of the Exchequer?

[John McDonnell]

The reason I refer back to fitness for office is because many of us know the distress that has been caused to so many people over the past week.

Enterprise Bill [Lords]

Kevin Brennan Excerpts

Wednesday 9th March 2016 Commons Chamber

[Sajid Javid]

The hon. Gentleman should really be ashamed of his party’s performance today. He tries to hide behind a policy, but we know that the only thing the SNP was interested in today was headlines and denying the people of England and Wales a change that, as expressed in their MPs’ will, they clearly wanted to see. That is all the SNP was interested in.

[Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)]

Will the Secretary of State give way?

[Sajid Javid]

I shall carry on for a while. Other Members will want to speak.

Of course, the Bill is about much more than just Sunday trading. It will create an institute for apprenticeships, which will help British businesses to develop the talent that they will need to compete in the years ahead; it supports our deregulation agenda, making it simpler to do business; it addresses the issue of business rates; it will help to release pub landlords from restrictive contracts; and it will give the Green Investment Bank the freedom and flexibility that it needs to grow.

I am particularly proud of the measure that will create a small business commissioner. I have seen for myself, too many times, how hard it is for a small business or sole trader to challenge a larger firm. I have seen how late payments, unfair charges and other obstacles may not just make it harder to do business, but actually drive companies to the wall. The creation of a small business commissioner will make a real difference in tackling such problems, and I am pleased to note that it has widespread support.

[Sajid Javid]

I agree wholeheartedly with my hon. Friend. I think that the measure will make a huge difference. Small businesses are often held back from challenging larger firms, and I hope that it will give many of them the confidence that they need.

[Kevin Brennan]

The Secretary of State said, and the Minister for Housing and Planning said earlier, that passing the amendment would mean the removal of workers’ rights. As I understand it, however, schedule 5 is still in the Bill following the vote, so the additional workers’ rights are there—and they should stay there, as well. Will the Secretary of State confirm that that is the case?

[Sajid Javid]

I can confirm that that is not the case. As the hon. Gentleman knows, the Government presented a package consisting of more flexibility for Sunday trading hours along with additional workers’ rights. Since that package has been rejected, there will be no additional rights, because they will be unnecessary.

[Kevin Brennan]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I hope that it is a point of order. My understanding is that the passing of amendment 1 does not affect the presence of schedule 5, which is entitled “Sunday opening hours: rights of shop workers”, and that, as we send the Bill to the House of Lords, those workers’ rights are enshrined in it.

[Mr Speaker]

The short answer to the hon. Gentleman’s point of order is that the passage of amendment 1 does not affect the presence of the schedule in the Bill. As I am not an expert on legislative interpretation and impact, and it is not for me to speculate upon that, I will not, but I stand by—on, of course, the basis of advice, and my own study—the first part of my answer to the point of order. I have sought to give that information in a dispassionate way, responding to a factual inquiry with what I understand to be a factual response.

--- Later in debate ---

[Amanda Solloway (Derby North) (Con)]

I want to take the opportunity to highlight a really good part of the Bill, and, having worked in retail since the tender age of 16—not too long ago—I have full authority to talk about it. I have worked in a variety of different roles and I recognise how essential it is that we support small businesses, as they can be so vulnerable to the market forces we have today. I welcome the introduction of the small business commissioner, whose function it will be to provide advice and information to small firms, and to assist them in payment disputes with larger firms.

[Kevin Brennan]

I, like the hon. Lady, started working in a shop at 16. Does she also welcome the fact that clause 33(5), which gives effect to schedule 5, means that what we have achieved by voting down Sunday trading is not only not having the extension of Sunday trading hours, but improving workers’ rights on a Sunday, as that remains part of the Bill, as we heard earlier?

[Amanda Solloway]

I have limited time available to me now, so let me just say that I think Sunday trading would enhance the role of retailers and give people the choice that they very much want to have.

Enterprise Bill [ Lords ] (Seventh sitting)

Kevin Brennan Excerpts

Thursday 25th February 2016 Public Bill Committees

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

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

[Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)]

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

[The Chair]

You are kind, Mr Brennan.

[Kevin Brennan]

Although we have also hugely enjoyed Sir David’s chairmanship, as Sinead O’Connor once sang, “Nothing compares to you”. [Interruption.] I am showing my age, as the Minister quite rightly says.

Amendment 103 is a probing amendment that makes an important point about value for money. As I said on Tuesday, we are not convinced that the clause will ultimately bring value for money in the public sector or, indeed, among some workers in the private sector. We want to discuss that point, which is coming up next. On that basis, I will not ask my hon. Friends to press the amendment to a vote. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

Division 5

Ayes: 7

---

Labour: 5
Scottish National Party: 2

Noes: 10

---

Conservative: 9

[Kevin Brennan]

I beg to move amendment 123, in clause 35, page 51, leave out lines 20 to 24 and insert—

‘(10) Nothing in this section applies in relation to payments made by the bodies listed in NS3.”

This amendment would exclude employees of companies listed at NS3 operated by the private sector from the scope of the proposed cap.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss new schedule 3—Bodies excluded from the restrictions on public sector exit payments—

“Payments made by the following bodies are excluded from the restrictions on public sector exit payments—

(a) Sellafield Ltd

(b) Westinghouse Springfields Fuels Ltd

(c) Magnox Ltd

(d) National Nuclear Laboratory

(e) International Nuclear Services

(f) Atomic Weapons Establishment Ltd

(g) Low Level Waste Repository Ltd

(h) Dounreay Site Restoration Ltd

(i) RSRL Winfrith and

(j) RSRL Harwell ”

See amendment 123.

[Kevin Brennan]

I congratulate Government Members on voting in the way they intended on that occasion.

Amendment 123 would exclude employees of the companies listed in new schedule 3, which are operated by the private sector, from the scope of the cap proposed in clause 35. Employees of Magnox and similar companies across the nuclear estate and elsewhere are employed by companies that operate in the private sector, so why are they being included in and affected by a measure that the Secretary of State told us on Second Reading is designed to hit public sector fat cats? Those employees never imagined for one second—one can understand why—that they were covered by the Conservative party’s manifesto commitment to cap public sector exit payments.

We raised that issue on Second Reading, and I know the Minister has subsequently met with Members of Parliament to discuss it further. Hopefully, by the end of the debate, we will have a solution and those employees will be excluded from the exit payment cap. These companies are in a unique position: they are mostly engaged in managing the safe closure of nuclear facilities, which is obviously a hugely important task for our country.

[Mary Creagh (Wakefield) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the recent terrible and tragic explosion at Didcot shows just how difficult and dangerous such decommissioning work is? That was a conventional gas-fired power station being demolished. I am sure the sympathies and thoughts of the whole Committee are with those affected and their families. The terrible tragedy that befell workers there shows what a difficult, dangerous and technical job they are doing. A great deal of specialist expertise is required to do it safely. Of course, the risks of a nuclear decommissioning site are exponentially increased because of the risk of anything escaping out into the wider environment.

[Kevin Brennan]

My hon. Friend is right. Exclusions have been made for those who serve our country, and I think these workers also serve our country in what they do—which is, as she said, difficult, technical and sometimes dangerous work.

[Jessica Morden (Newport East) (Lab)]

I commend my hon. Friend for the argument he is making in support of Magnox workers. Those workers include a constituent of mine, who rightly pointed out not only that she was extremely shocked to find herself included in these redundancy terms but that, if we change people’s terms and conditions at this stage, the industry is very much threatened by losing the vital skills we need to do this decommissioning work.

[Kevin Brennan]

I said earlier in the Committee that Government Whips should be seen but not heard, but of course that convention does not apply to Opposition Whips in Committee, as all Committee members will know. That is particularly useful, as it allows my hon. Friend to raise a constituency issue of such direct importance to what is under discussion. I am sure her constituents will take note of what she is doing in the Committee to defend their interests.

As I said, these companies are in a unique position. They are mostly engaged in managing the safe closure of nuclear facilities, which is a hugely important task that is very difficult to manage. By its nature, it involves working towards a specific end date, at which point the employees will in effect make themselves redundant. They are in a particularly different category. To get someone with the necessary skills to commit to that task when they are in, say, their early or mid-30s, we need to ensure that they know they will be provided for if they successfully complete their task by the time they reach their mid to late 50s, when finding re-employment in a similar role with their skills would be potentially very difficult.

As we have heard, if these companies cannot afford the packages necessary to compensate someone for the loss of their role when their task is completed, the companies will find it extremely difficult to prevent these highly skilled workers, who were mobile in earlier parts of their career, from simply leaving. That, in itself, will ultimately drive up the costs and risks associated with decommissioning and exacerbate an already difficult skills shortage in the industry.

Legislating now, as the Government are doing, to override long-standing arrangements in the nuclear sector where the employees involved have kept their end of the bargain faithfully, is pretty unconscionable in my opinion. How can it be right that workers who have stayed with a company to deliver successfully the safety commissioning of a site see their promised redundancy compensation reneged on by the Government when it is due to be paid?

The Treasury justification for applying the cap to the employees of those companies, as I understand it, is the old chestnut of the Office for National Statistics judging them to be publicly controlled. That technical, statistical designation, however, does not mean that applying the cap to those workers is either fair or necessarily value for money for taxpayers in the long term. It is unfair unilaterally to strike down agreements between companies and their employees. It will drive up overall costs for decommissioning as recruitment and retention in the relevant sectors take a hit. There is also no proof that taxpayers will receive any benefit, as the private operators of the companies often receive higher incentive payments under their contracts as a result.

Unless the Government decide to act on this, and I hope they do, employees in the sector will note that when it comes to pension provision and other issues the Treasury has excluded them from the public sector, but it considers them within scope for the cap in the Bill. Proceeding with imposing the cap on the employees of those companies will store up significant industrial relations issues. One can only guess how they will feel —actually, we do not have to guess, because we know from the evidence that we have received, which I will come on to in a moment. How will they feel when they discover that the Secretary of State considers them to be fat cats requiring legislation to limit their payments, even though they are employed by the private sector, while the Government absolutely reject any limit on anyone working in the banking sector? Why is a privatised banker not given the fat-cat treatment by the Secretary of State, but nuclear decommissioning workers are? Yet again it seems to be up with the bankers and down with the workers with this Government. What a shocking value-free zone the policy is, if the Government stick to it and do not accept that they have got it wrong and should support our amendment.

We have received strong representations from Magnox workers and from the trade unions that have represented them so ably. Other companies in the sector are covered and they are referred to in new schedule 3. For the record and for the sake of inclusivity in my remarks I will name those included in the new schedule: Sellafield Ltd, Westinghouse Springfields Fuels Ltd, Magnox Ltd, National Nuclear Laboratory, International Nuclear Services, Atomic Weapons Establishment Ltd, Low Level Waste Repository Ltd, Dounreay Site Restoration Ltd, RSRL Winfrith and RSRL Harwell. Note that none of those companies is called Fat Cats Ltd.

[Mary Creagh]

My hon. Friend made a good point earlier comparing the workers and the bankers. Does he agree that the list he has just read out is an interesting hangover from the privatisation of the electricity grid and the national nuclear authority? Some risks can only be borne by Government. One of those risks is the premature exit of a skilled, competent workforce equipped to deal with nuclear materials and their safe disposal. There are strong arguments for the Government to continue to bear the redundancy risk, or to allow the workers to be classified—I am not sure whether they are classified as being state or private sector workers, but the point is, when we privatise things, some risks only Government can bear, and that is what the amendment is all about.

[Kevin Brennan]

My hon. Friend is right. I am sure that the Minister will confirm that that is why those companies fall in scope, but that does not stop the Government from deciding actively to exclude them from scope. As I said earlier, they are radiant with the lawful power to do that; we are not, but they can do it. I encourage the Minister to commit to doing so in her response.

The Committee has formally received dozens of letters from Magnox workers. I have some here and I am sure hon. Members have read them. I congratulate the workers on the quality of representations they have made to the Committee as well as the trade unions. Kevin Coyne of Unite, whom I met, has co-ordinated joint union meetings to campaign on the issue. We are reaching the last stages of the Committee so there is not time to read all of the letters out, but they have been entered formally as evidence to the Committee, so they are available for people to read.

--- Later in debate ---

[Anna Soubry]

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

[Kevin Brennan]

Will the Minister give way?

[Anna Soubry]

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

[Kevin Brennan]

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

[Anna Soubry]

I am just answering the points that have been made.

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Kevin Brennan]

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

[Anna Soubry]

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Bill Esterson]

I want to make a few remarks as the Minister did not allow me to intervene earlier. My hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield made a point about consistency and the treatment of workers, whether they are senior bank executives or Magnox workers. Reasonable people might expect similar and decent treatment from the Government, whether they work in a bank, in decommissioning in the nuclear industry, or anywhere else. That is the grave concern about some of what we have heard and about the clauses tabled by the Government, which we want to amend. I tried to intervene on the Minister’s comments on trade unions. I do not doubt her desire to engage with trade unions or her understanding of the importance of talking to the trade unions.

The Minister is right that constituency MPs have a crucial role in discussing with Ministers the impact of legislation on their constituents. Workers in the nuclear industry who are extremely worried, with good reason, about the proposals in the Bill are rightly being represented by their Members of Parliament and by members of the Committee. Indeed, representations were made on Second Reading and will be made on Report in two weeks’ time. The Minister made comments about the pressures on her diary, but I gently say to her that partnership between Government, business and the workforce, especially through its trade union representation, is a hallmark of successful economies.

As success comes in large part from the relationship between the Government and the trade unions, in order to do the Magnox workers justice, the Minister should have made it a priority to meet their trade union before we got to this point in Committee. It is a great pity that she did not.

[Kevin Brennan]

I thought the Minister’s response was disappointing, given the weight of the evidence submitted to the Committee and the strength of feeling among hon. Members and their constituents. The workers have made their plans and taken decisions on the basis of guarantees and promises given by Government. As far as we can surmise from the limited information that the Minister is prepared to provide about the Government’s intentions, it now appears that the Government are going to take action that will affect them.

To listen to the Minister, one might think that the workers would not be affected at all. She seemed to be dealing with all sorts of shibboleths that were nothing to do with what is in the new schedule, rather than telling us directly whether the workers’ pensions and prospects would be affected by the exit payment cap. The Minister rehearsed arguments about all sorts of scares, which may have been put about by mythical people she was not prepared to name, but going by the evidence submitted to us, the workers in question will be affected—and to quite a large extent.

We represented those arguments and made the case on the workers’ behalf, and quoted, albeit selectively, from a heavy weight of evidence that they submitted to us about their circumstances. All we got from the Minister was a response to issues that had not been raised in the workers’ letters to us and a vague reference to secondary legislation at some later date that will name some as yet unknown entities that may be excluded from the cap.

I am sorry, but I was brought up not to buy a pig in a poke, and if I were the Magnox workers I would not fall for that for a second. It is the oldest trick in the book for Ministers to say “We might do something at a later date, but let something through in the meantime.” That is not why we are here. We are here to get on the record the Government’s position, and whether they accept the arguments about Magnox and other workers that we have set out in the new schedule. We want to know whether they are prepared to exclude those workers, through secondary legislation, from the exit payment cap. At the very least, will they give a strong indication that that is how they are minded to act?

All we got from the Minister was an empty sheet of paper, with nothing written on it. I am afraid that is not good enough for the constituents who have written to us and who are directly affected.

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

My hon. Friend is making an important point. I want to express my concerns about the issue. It speaks to what seems to be a wider Government issue on pensions. We had a debate yesterday about women born in the 1950s who have been significantly affected by the Government’s switching the goal posts. The Government are pulling the rug out from under people. People have paid into the system and saved all their lives for their pension, only to find that the Government have changed the rules at the last minute. That suggests a profound disrespect for those people, but also for the principle of saving and doing the right thing. The Government profess to support those people, but they are doing the opposite.

[Kevin Brennan]

Indeed. Those people are the definition of strivers; they are hard-working—the beating heart of the working people of this country. It shows in their letters to us. Neither are they swivel-eyed lefty loonies or anything of that kind. Their letters reveal that they are ordinary working people. Often they live in the constituencies of Conservative Members. The one I quoted earlier lives in Maldon, the constituency of the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, and there are many others in constituencies represented by Members from both sides of the House and all parts of the United Kingdom.

[Mary Creagh]

I do not know how many of those workers cast votes for the Conservatives in the election, but had they been apprised of the facts before the election obviously they might have chosen to vote differently in some of the marginal seats mentioned by my hon. Friend. Also, one of the letters that I have received mentions that the impact assessment says that this course of action will save in the low hundreds of millions of pounds over this Parliament. The woman who wrote the letter contrasts that with the £130 million of back tax that has been paid by Google, which is under the spotlight again, given the news that the French Government are asking for £1.3 billion of back taxes from that company.

[The Chair]

Order. We are in danger of drifting quite a long way from the subject.

[Kevin Brennan]

As ever, I will follow your instructions, Ms Buck.

[Alan Brown]

The hon. Gentleman spoke about the Minister’s disappointing response. Does he agree with me that one aspect of that response was that firefighters would be affected by the provision on exit payments? Is that not an illustration of what is wrong with this whole premise? They are anything but fat cats.

[Kevin Brennan]

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

[Anna Soubry]

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

[Kevin Brennan]

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

[Anna Soubry]

I never used that term.

[Kevin Brennan]

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

[Mary Creagh]

Let me attempt to help the Committee. I am sure that the Minister meant, when she referred to payments of up to half a million pounds, that some of those will be making up the pension requirements. Let us say that somebody is made redundant at 50. Their contract states that they can have their pension made up as if they had worked until the state retirement age, which is 65. We are talking about 13 years of pension fund payments on a salary of, I think, £30,000 a year. Thirteen years of payment would amount to £156,000. That is not going into that person’s pocket; it is going into their pension fund, and they have planned for that in order to help to pay their mortgage and to help them save towards their retirement.

[Kevin Brennan]

Indeed. All their life decisions were taken on the basis that they had a good pension fund that they were paying into and that they could expect, under the terms and conditions, to receive. That was contractually promised and, at the time of privatisation, commitments were made and guarantees were given that these people going into the private sector would not be affected in the way they are now being affected. The Government are hiding behind the veil of the argument that the ONS has classed them as public sector. That is irrelevant because the Government have the authority to exclude them if they accept the argument put forward by the Magnox workers.

I know that the Minister has expressed some sympathy—that is why I was quite surprised at her last intervention—privately in relation to Magnox workers. [Interruption.] That has been reported to me. I should explain. I will put it on the record, then. My hon. Friend the Member for Ynys Môn (Albert Owen) told me that in the meeting that he and other Members from across the House had with her that she expressed some sympathy with the case that the workers were putting forward. Nevertheless, she has come to the Committee with nothing for them today and no indication that on Report the Government will come back with something better than they have produced today, which is the square root of very little, to put it politely.

--- Later in debate ---

Restriction on public sector exit payments: consequential and related provision

[Kevin Brennan]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Anna Soubry]

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

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

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

[Kevin Brennan]

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

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

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Schedule 4 agreed to.

New Clause 1

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

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

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

“(c) a Welsh regulatory function.”;

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

New Clause 2

Devolved Welsh matters

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(4) In section 74 (general interpretation)—

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

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

““devolved Welsh matter” means —

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

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

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

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

See the explanatory statements for amendments 1 and 2.

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

New Clause 3

Apprenticeships: information sharing

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

“Part 1A

Apprenticeships: information sharing

England

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland

40B Sharing of information by HMRC and devolved authorities

(1) HMRC may disclose information held by them—

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

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

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

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

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

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

(3) In this section—

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

“Northern Irish authority” means—

(a) a Northern Ireland department, and

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

“Scottish apprenticeships” means apprenticeships undertaken under arrangements made—

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

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

“Scottish authority” means—

(a) the Scottish Ministers, and

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

“Welsh apprenticeships” means—

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

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

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

“Welsh authority” means—

(a) the Welsh Ministers, and

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

(4) In subsection (3)—

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

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

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

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

(a) “Northern Irish apprenticeships”,

(b) “Scottish apprenticeships”, or

(c) “Welsh apprenticeships”.

General

40C Wrongful disclosure

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

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

(a) is specified in the disclosure, or

(b) can be deduced from it,

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

40D Interpretation

(1) In this Part—

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

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

(2) In this Part—

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Anna Soubry]

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

[Anna Soubry]

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

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

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

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

[Kevin Brennan]

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

Question put and agreed to.

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

New Clause 4

Apprenticeship funding

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

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

(b) after subsection (4) insert—

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

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

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

New Clause 5

Market rent only option: rent assessments etc

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

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

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

New Clause 6

Reports on avoidance

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

“71A Reports on avoidance

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(b) is unfair.””—(Anna Soubry.)

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

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

New Clause 22

The Institute for Apprenticeships

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

This new Clause introduces NS2.

Brought up, and read the First time.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kevin Brennan]

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

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

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

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

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

[Anna Soubry]

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Anna Soubry]

I am not sure whether that is terribly helpful.

[Kevin Brennan]

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

[The Chair]

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

[Anna Soubry]

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

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

[Kevin Brennan]

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

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

Question put and agreed to.

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

New Clause 23

The Institute for Apprenticeships: transitional provision

“(1) Subsection (2) applies to—

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

(b) any plan which—

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

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

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

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

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

(5) In this section—

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

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

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

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

New Clause 21

Extended Sunday opening hours and Sunday working

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

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

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

(3) After that paragraph insert—

“Consent notices published by Sunday trading authorities

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(4) Accordingly—

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Brought up, and read the First time.

[The Minister for Housing and Planning (Brandon Lewis)]

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Brandon Lewis]

I will admit that it is some years since I was working in employment law, but the laws have been around for a long time. The process by which employees can use their rights has been there and has been developing and evolving for a long time. We are developing it further by increasing employees’ rights.

Not only Conservative but Labour local authorities are keen to have these powers so that they can see their local areas grow and have that flexibility. Ultimately, I feel so passionately about this not only because of the opportunity to see high streets flourish when they can compete with online shopping, which is growing exponentially—not only can we now shop online on Sundays, but companies will deliver at any hour on a Sunday, so we need to give our high streets that chance—but because it is about devolving power, moving it from central Government to where it matters: local communities.

I shall now touch briefly on the technical amendments we have tabled. Amendment (a) to new schedule 1 amends the new schedule to remove an additional reference to a “shop worker” from section 42 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. To be clear, that is simply because, as a consequence of the changes we are making, that section will no longer apply to shop workers. Amendment (b) to new schedule 1 amends the new schedule to provide for a definition of “alcohol” in relation to Scotland by reference to the relevant legislation of the Scottish Parliament. Finally, amendment 77 amends the long title of the Bill to include reference to the Sunday trading provisions.

[Kevin Brennan]

The Minister said it might be worth while if, over the lunch break, we were to look at what he said earlier. Would he be able to provide us with a copy of his notes? Otherwise we will have to rely on what we heard. We can do that, but he did offer.

[Brandon Lewis]

I can repeat what I said for the hon. Gentleman very clearly. First, where the employer fails to comply with the notification requirement, the notice period for both opt-outs will reduce automatically: from one month to seven days at large shops, and from three months to one month at small shops. Secondly, we are enabling an employment tribunal to make a minimum award if an employer is found to have failed to notify shop workers of their opt-out rights in the context of a related successful claim. With that, I commend the new clause to the Committee.

Oral Answers to Questions

Kevin Brennan Excerpts

Tuesday 16th June 2015 Commons Chamber

[Damian Hinds]

My hon. Friend is right to highlight the broad benefit of our policy. Increases in the personal allowance and the higher-rate threshold during the current Parliament will benefit 30 million people. It is not possible to make reliable projections for an individual parliamentary constituency, but I can tell my hon. Friend that 2.28 million taxpayers in the west midlands have benefited from personal allowance increases to date, and that a typical basic-rate taxpayer is £825 better off.

[Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)]

Apart from specific tax steps, what steps is the Minister taking to ensure that employers actually pay the minimum wage?

[Damian Hinds]

Minimum wage compliance is, of course, vital, and work in that regard is ongoing. Universal credit encourages people to work more hours, and, in general, they should be doing higher-paid work.

European Union Referendum Bill

Kevin Brennan Excerpts

Tuesday 16th June 2015 Commons Chamber

[Alex Salmond]

I think that even the Prime Minister and many of his right hon. and hon. Friends would concede that Scotland is a nation and that the United Kingdom is a multi-national state. I suspect that terminology is not the key problem with the Conservative party in Scotland and why it reached the nadir of 14%, its lowest result for over a century, in last month’s general election. If the hon. Gentleman fails to recognise the nationality and nationhood of Scotland, which is a theme running through the ranks of the Conservative party, then the road back to having two MPs as the summit of the Tory party’s ambition, as opposed to the current lonely one, will be a long, hard road indeed.

It is exactly because the United Kingdom is a multi-national state that we should recognise that respect, as evinced by the Prime Minister, is about more than a simple majority across the UK; it must also give reference to the component nations of the United Kingdom.

[Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)]

I welcome the right hon. Gentleman back to this House. Is not the analogy with the United States a little tenuous, because we are talking about international relations and treaty relations, and in the United States treaties will be determined by the Executive with confirmation by the Senate of the whole of the United States and with no veto for the constituent states?

[Alex Salmond]

I was merely pointing out that there are a number of international examples. As I said, my hon. Friend the Member for Ochil and South Perthshire will go through some of those in some great detail. This is not unusual in matters of constitutional import.

There is no doubt that a constitutional referendum on whether the United Kingdom should be part of the European Union carries constitutional implications. It is not unusual internationally, even in a federal or confederal state, to have more than a simple majority on such matters, and also reference to the various component parts of that state. If that is the case for a confederal or federal state, surely it should be so much more the case for a United Kingdom of four component nations.

Royal Bank of Scotland

Kevin Brennan Excerpts

Thursday 11th June 2015 Commons Chamber

[Harriett Baldwin]

I could not put it better myself.

[Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)]

As I understand it, the stake was originally acquired for £5 a share and the Government are selling them for about £3.50 a share and claiming that the taxpayer is making a profit. On that basis, with the weekend approaching, is the hon. Lady prepared to lend me £20? I will give her a tenner back next week.

[Harriett Baldwin]

I have just been informed by my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon Central (Gavin Barwell) that the hon. Member for Cardiff West (Kevin Brennan) still owes him a fiver, which he lent him last week.

Finance (No. 2) Bill

Kevin Brennan Excerpts

Wednesday 25th March 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

It is a business matter for the Government, as the shadow Leader of the House is well aware. Rightly or wrongly—whichever the House may decide—a business motion was agreed to yesterday, as I understand it, and as we know, business of the House is decided by the Government, not by the Chair, so it is not a matter for the Chair.

[Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)]

Further to that point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Usually I am an assiduous attender, as you know, of business questions, but I was unable to attend last week. Was this announced then? If it was not, can you tell us when you and Mr Speaker were informed that the motion was to be tabled?

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

It was a business motion that was agreed yesterday, but not the terminology, I presume. Mr Speaker is not in the Chair so I do not know when he was told. I was told about five minutes ago when I came into the Chair. [Interruption.] No, that is correct. There is a business motion. [Interruption.] Mr Doughty, we are trying to deal with this. We have many other points of order on that matter.

Oral Answers to Questions

Kevin Brennan Excerpts

Tuesday 10th March 2015 Commons Chamber

[Andrea Leadsom]

I completely agree with my hon. Friend. She is right that we want Britain to be the best place to start and grow a business. I am delighted for her that she has 9,600 new start-ups in her constituency, which she has fought for diligently throughout this Parliament, and that, as a result of this success, unemployment is down 38% in her constituency since 2010. I was particularly delighted to pay a visit with her to one of them, My Plumber Ltd, and to meet the wonderful Ollie, who was the apprentice there in charge.

[Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)]

One fiscal measure that affects business a great deal is the rate of VAT, and every Conservative Government put up VAT. In 1979, they put it up from 8% to 15%; in 1991, up to 17.5%; in 1994, on fuel and power; and in 2010, VAT was raised again to 20%. So we know what they will do, but let us give them one more chance. Will the hon. Lady rule out putting up VAT if in power after May?

[Andrea Leadsom]

It is extraordinary. I wonder if the hon. Gentleman would like to admit that every Labour Government when they leave office leave unemployment higher than when they came in. That is the truth of the matter. The Government are sorting out the mess left by the Labour Government, which was the worst financial crisis in British peacetime.