Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Bill

Matt Hancock Excerpts

Tuesday 16th October 2012 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Skills (Matthew Hancock)]

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

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendment 34.

[Matthew Hancock]

Government new clause 14 relates to civil liability for breaches of health and safety duties. It fulfils our commitment in the Budget to introduce measures to reduce the burden of health and safety, following the recommendations made in the independent Löfstedt report. Professor Löfstedt considered the impact that the perception of a compensation culture has had in driving over-compliance with health and safety at work regulations. The fear of being sued drives businesses to exceed what is required by the criminal law, diverting them from focusing on sensible preventive health and safety management and resulting in unnecessary costs and burdens.

Professor Löfstedt identified the unfairness that can arise when health and safety at work regulations impose a strict duty on employers that makes them liable to pay compensation to employees injured or made ill by their work, despite all reasonable steps having been taken to protect them from harm. Employers can, for example, be held liable for damages when an injury is caused by equipment failure, even when a rigorous examination would not have revealed the defect. The new clause is designed to address that and other unfair consequences of the existing health and safety system.

We all have different reasons for coming into politics. When I was growing up, I had one of the experiences that brought me to this place, concerning the over-burdensome intervention of health and safety officers. I worked in a family computer software company when an over-long health and safety investigation took place, which took up huge amounts time for the officers and senior management. The only result at the end of it was the recommendation that some bleach in a cupboard must be labelled correctly. After a sign was put up saying, “There is bleach in the cupboard. Please do not drink it,” the company was passed under the health and safety regulations.

These changes will ensure that there is a reasonableness defence in the consideration of some health and safety cases.

[Guy Opperman (Hexham) (Con)]

I am enjoying the march back through time to the Minister’s computer existence. I speak as a former health and safety barrister—on behalf of the prosecution, I should say. I welcome the changes recommended in the independent report. Is not what we are trying to do to bring flexibility and fairness to a system that is too old and defunct?

[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.

[Claire Perry (Devizes) (Con)]

I am enjoying the Minister’s attention to detail on this important matter. Will he reassure us that this provision will not add to the burden for small businesses because of the process of providing proof? Has he done any number crunching to show what it will mean for the businesses that matter so much to Britain?

[Matthew Hancock]

My hon. Friend anticipates my speech, because this provision will reduce the burdens on business. It is difficult to know precisely by how much because businesses react not only to the letter of the law, but to the perception of the law. There are perceived health and safety requirements that go beyond technical breaches of the law, and we want to remove them. One can go to the new Government website and ask whether something is required by health and safety legislation. Many of the cases that are brought to the Government’s attention are not required by health and safety legislation. The problem is the perception of health and safety legislation. By including a reasonableness defence, we will help to remove the implied, expected and perceived burdens on business.

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

When my hon. Friend became a Minister, what assessment did he make of the previous Labour Government’s attempts to lift the burdens on business and the perception of those burdens over the 13 years that they were in office?

[Matthew Hancock]

I have found no evidence of that. If my hon. Friend can point any out to me, I would be extremely grateful.

[David Rutley (Macclesfield) (Con)]

I welcome the direction in which the Minister is taking the debate and the policy. I will never forget a conversation that I had in Macclesfield marketplace, a place with which I know he is familiar. A lady told me how disturbed she was that the perception of health and safety was giving it a bad name. I asked who she worked for and she said the Health and Safety Executive. The situation is going too far. Does the Minister agree that it is important to move to a common-sense approach, which I think is the direction in which he is taking Government policy?

[Matthew Hancock]

It is important to have a health and safety framework in which responsible businesses act in a way that supports and enhances the safety of the people who work for them. Indeed, it is vital that we all have a duty to behave reasonably on questions of health and safety.

I hope that making negligence a requirement before a health and safety case can be brought will mean that those who behave reasonably have no reason to fear health and safety legislation and that those who think carefully and responsibly about the businesses that they run will know that they are behaving not only reasonably, but lawfully.

[Chris Kelly (Dudley South) (Con)]

I thank the Minister for his speech. Does he agree that the managers of companies who are acting reasonably will be freed up to go out and win more export business, including those in the manufacturing and engineering companies in my constituency of Dudley South?

[Matthew Hancock]

Indeed, this action will reduce the burdens on business and help Britain to compete. It also provides important reassurance to employers that they will be liable to pay compensation only when it can be proved that they have been negligent.

[Jim Sheridan (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (Lab)]

I well recall when I worked in the shipyards watching the white particles of dust and asking whether they had any health and safety implications, only for the employer to tell me, “Don’t be stupid. Get on with your lot, young man. It won’t do you any harm.” Hundreds of thousands of people are now suffering from mesothelioma. Is that the kind of employer that the Minister wants to support?

[Matthew Hancock]

The hon. Gentleman gives a good explanation of why there is cross-party support for health and safety measures that are reasonable. After all, it was a Conservative Government who brought in the Factory Acts. On the specific point that he raises, the provision is forward looking and is not retrospective. It will not have an impact on acts that were committed in the past, but is about actions that take place in the future. He raises an important question and I hope that I have reassured him.

[Mr David Anderson (Blaydon) (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for giving way; he is being very helpful. Will he clarify whether there is currently—or will be in the legislation—a legal definition of what “reasonable” actually means?

[Matthew Hancock]

The definition of reasonableness will come from the common law interpretation, and the concept is already well regarded and specified in law.

The new clause makes a significant contribution to the Government’s reform of civil litigation to redress the balance between claimants and defendants. It is good for Britain’s competitiveness, reduces burdens on businesses, and strengthens and underpins our health and safety system, thereby ensuring that people think it is fit for purpose.

[Julie Hilling (Bolton West) (Lab)]

I am concerned by the Minister’s remarks because far too many people are already killed at work each year, and people are also injured through faulty or wrong seating and other things that happen. The office is not a safe working space, and when the Minister says that we worry too much about health and safety, I am worried that we will make things far worse for people not only in heavy industry but in other working situations. Health and safety legislation exists to protect those people from back injury, repetitive strain injury and all the other things that occur. This legislation will completely reduce that issue in people’s minds.

[Matthew Hancock]

On the contrary, although I share the hon. Lady’s concerns to ensure that health and safety legislation is regarded and reasonably interpreted throughout work forces, whether in industry, agriculture or offices, and although such legislation is an important part of the modern workplace, it is unhelpful when health and safety becomes a byword for regulations that get in the way and stop businesses competing or, for instance, children from being taken on school trips once reasonable precautions have been put in place, and instead bring the whole system into disrepute. That is what the Government are trying to stop. The key defence of negligence ensures that if people breach health and safety rules or have not acted reasonably, that will—of course—be taken into account under the system, and the new clause will not change criminal health and safety procedures. We must, however, ensure that unreasonable claims, and the existing perception of health and safety legislation, do not get in the way of Britain’s ability to compete.

[Stewart Hosie (Dundee East) (SNP)]

The Minister is pushing the point about perception. He is right: businesses do respond to perception, and sometimes go further than is legally required. However, if they respond to perception in one direction, they may well respond to a new perception in another direction and do less than is required. If that is the case, how many injuries or deaths will it take for the Minister to be back at the Dispatch Box rewinding some of the changes?

[Matthew Hancock]

If businesses behave unreasonably and are negligent, they will be caught by the system. That proves the point about why we have to strike a good balance between a health and safety system that everybody supports and under which employers—and others—have to behave reasonably and take reasonable precautions, and a system in which the test of having acted reasonably is not a defence in civil law. That is the change being made; it will help to free up business, and I commend the new clause to the House.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

I call the Minister [Interruption.] I meant the shadow Minister.

--- Later in debate ---

[Matthew Hancock]

We have had impassioned contributions to the debate, not least from the hon. Members for Blaydon (Mr Anderson) and for Paisley and Renfrewshire North (Jim Sheridan). Several Opposition Members have made the point about a lack of consultation with the Opposition Front Benchers. However, the Löfstedt review involved a consultation, to which there were something like 400 submissions. That review published some of the evidence on which our proposal is based, not least evidence showing that most employers do not make a distinction between health and safety measures on a civil and a criminal basis. They are therefore more likely to waste time over-complying—the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North mentioned the problem of time being wasted—than to focus on the need to ensure rigorous health and safety so that they can reduce the number of deaths and serious injuries in the workplace. That is what is valuable, and Opposition Members have spoken powerfully about it. That is where the focus should be, rather than on over-compliance with the details and technicalities that are often put in place, which are not required and not helpful for safety purposes. Instead, they give health and safety a bad name.

[Mr Anderson]

Is not the danger, though, that we will end up with under-compliance, which will lead to more people dying? I would rather waste time, as the Minister puts it, than waste lives.

[Matthew Hancock]

I assure the hon. Gentleman that if there is under-compliance, people will have been negligent and the full force of both the criminal and civil law will be available.

The hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr Wright) mentioned the Federation of Small Businesses, but it has stated:

“A wider problem for small businesses is that many do not feel confident that they are compliant owing to confusion about what is absolutely necessary, and so feel the need to gold-plate the law to protect them.”

Indeed, an FSB survey showed that 87% of its members supported the Löfstedt approach. Given that figure, and given that the FSB is clear about the lack of confidence caused by the current confusion in the law, I hope he will accept that it is very much behind the Government’s approach.

Likewise, EEF, the manufacturers’ organisation, has stated:

“The current compensation system is serving the needs of neither employees nor employers and is the source of many of the media stories and public concern about excessive health and safety.”

That concern has been part of our debate. Of course, the substance of when technical breaches occur is a crucial part of the change that we are making, but I am glad that the hon. Gentleman acknowledged that there is also the problem of perception, which leads to over-complication. Both those problems need to be addressed, and they will be by our changes.

[John Howell (Henley) (Con)]

I was moved, as I am sure everyone else in the House was, by the earnest statements that Opposition Members made about how members of their families and other people they knew had been killed by industrial diseases. However, difficulties such as those that we find in the current legislation do not help to prevent such cases.

--- Later in debate ---

[Matthew Hancock]

Indeed, and over-compliance and the fear of technical breach bring the wider health and safety law into disrepute. All parties support that law. As has been acknowledged, it was introduced by a Conservative Government, and it has been vigorously supported by Labour Governments over the past century or so. However, it is undermined when the impression is given that the system is over-complicated, confusing and aimed at technical, rather than substantive, breaches.

[Andrew Bridgen]

I, too, was impressed with the genuine passion of Opposition Members who talked about health and safety, but I honestly believe that they missed one fundamental point. They seem to believe that there is no cost to over-compliance with regulations, but there is not only a cost to our economy and the Exchequer, which is important at the moment, but a cost borne by the long-term unemployed and the workless. They pay for over-compliance by not having access to the workplace, which vastly decreases their life expectancy. They are the people paying the price.

[Matthew Hancock]

My hon. Friend makes the point with great power that those who are out of work pay for an uncompetitive economy. They are the people whom we need to support.

[Mr Iain Wright]

If this is about costs and benefits, why is there not an impact assessment for the new clause?

[Matthew Hancock]

The benefits are set out clearly in Löfstedt. Most importantly, because it is necessarily difficult to ascertain the amount of over-compliance, Britain’s health and safety system will benefit from being able to compete and focus its resources on avoiding substantive breaches of health and safety law rather than on technicalities and over-compliance. All parties should focus on problems such as death in the workplace due to negligence. The hon. Member for Paisley and North Renewfreshire—[Laughter.] North Renewfershire—

[Ian Lavery]

If the proposals are passed by Parliament, does the Minister envisage a great reduction in the number of fatalities in the workplace next year?

[Matthew Hancock]

I would expect the focus to be on the substantive breaches and negligence that, sadly, bring about the injuries and deaths in the workplace that we all want to minimise.

The hon. Member for Paisley and elsewhere mentioned the problems with asbestos in educational institutions, and especially in further education colleges. I want to give him the reassurance that past actions will not be affected by the changes in the law, should it be passed according to the will of Parliament. Now that the problems with asbestos are widely known and documented, I anticipate that people who ignore those problems will be ruled negligent by the courts, rather than such instances merely being considered technical breaches. I therefore do not see that question applying in such circumstances.

[Jim Sheridan]

For the benefit of Hansard, I should like to point out that my constituency is Paisley and Renfrewshire North. Concern has been expressed that this whole debate has been driven by B-list celebrities and B-list journalists on The Daily Mail who have probably never worked in such a workplace in their lives. Can the Minister name one company that has clearly told him that it will employ more people if the Bill goes through?

[Matthew Hancock]

As I have said, 87% of FSB members support the Löfstedt approach—[Hon. Members: “Name them!”] I am sure that if the hon. Gentleman asks the FSB, it will give him the names of some of those supporters. I prefer to be driven by evidence such as that survey, rather than by unnecessary concerns, given that precautions are being put in place through these amendments. The hon. Gentleman mentioned sunshine in Glasgow, and I hope that the new jobs and benefits to business that will result from the ability to remove the perception of a fear of health and safety will bring that sunshine not only to Glasgow but to the rest of the country. I hope that the new clause will reduce the effects of the perception of a need for over-compliance with health and safety measures, and that instead the focus can be placed on substantive breaches of health and safety regulations. I commend the new clause to the House.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jo Swinson]

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

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

Question put and agreed to.

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

New Clause 9

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

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

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

“Buildings in England: heritage partnership agreements

26A Heritage partnership agreements

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

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

(a) any other relevant local planning authority;

(b) the Secretary of State;

(c) the Commission;

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

(e) any occupier of the listed building;

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

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

(3) A heritage partnership agreement may contain provision—

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

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

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

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

(6) A heritage partnership agreement may also—

(a) specify or describe works that would or would not, in the view of the parties to the agreement, affect the character of the listed building as a building of special architectural or historic interest;

(b) make provision about the maintenance and preservation of the listed building;

(c) make provision about the carrying out of specified work, or the doing of any specified thing, in relation to the listed building;

(d) provide for public access to the listed building and the provision to the public of associated facilities, information or services;

(e) restrict access to, or use of, the listed building;

(f) prohibit the doing of any specified thing in relation to the listed building;

(g) provide for a relevant public authority to make payments of specified amounts and on specified terms—

(i) for, or towards, the costs of any works provided for under the agreement; or

(ii) in consideration of any restriction, prohibition or obligation accepted by any other party to the agreement.

(7) For the purposes of subsection (6)(g), each of the following, if a party to the agreement, is a relevant public authority—

(a) the Secretary of State;

(b) the Commission;

(c) a relevant local planning authority.

(8) In this section “specified” means specified or described in the heritage partnership agreement.

(9) In this section and section 26B—

“owner”, in relation to a listed building or a part of such a building, means a person who is for the time being —

(a) the estate owner in respect of the fee simple in the building or part; or

(b) entitled to a tenancy of the building or part granted or extended for a term of years certain of which not less than seven years remain unexpired;

“relevant local planning authority”, in relation to a listed building, means a local planning authority in whose area the building or any part of the building is situated.

26B Heritage partnership agreements: supplemental

‘(1) A heritage partnership agreement—

(a) must be in writing;

(b) must make provision for the parties to review its terms at intervals specified in the agreement;

(c) must make provision for its termination and variation;

(d) may relate to more than one listed building or part, provided that in each case a relevant local planning authority and an owner are parties to the agreement; and

(e) may contain incidental and consequential provisions.

(2) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision—

(a) about any consultation that must take place before heritage partnership agreements are made or varied;

(b) about the publicity that must be given to heritage partnership agreements before or after they are made or varied;

(c) specifying terms that must be included in heritage partnership agreements;

(d) enabling the Secretary of State or any other person specified in the regulations to terminate by order a heritage partnership agreement or any provision of such an agreement;

(e) about the provision that may be included in an order made under regulations under paragraph (d), including provision enabling such orders to contain supplementary, incidental, transitory, transitional or saving provision;

(f) applying or reproducing, with or without modifications, any provision of sections 10 to 26 and 28 for the purposes of heritage partnership agreements;

(g) modifying any other provision of this Act as it applies in relation to heritage partnership agreements.

(3) Regulations made under subsection (2)(a) may, in particular, include provision as to—

(a) the circumstances in which consultation must take place;

(b) the types of listed building in respect of which consultation must take place;

(c) who must carry out the consultation;

(d) who must be consulted (including provision enabling the Commission to direct who is to be consulted in particular cases); and

(e) how the consultation must be carried out.

(4) Listed building consent granted by a heritage partnership agreement (except so far as the agreement or regulations under subsection (2) otherwise provide) enures for the benefit of the building and of all persons for the time being interested in it.

(5) Subject to subsection (4), a heritage partnership agreement cannot impose any obligation or liability, or confer any right, on a person who is not party to the agreement.

(6) Section 84 of the Law of Property Act 1925 (power to discharge or modify restrictive covenant) does not apply to a heritage partnership agreement.”

(3) After section 26B insert—

“Buildings in England: orders granting listed building consent

26C Listed building consent orders

‘(1) The Secretary of State may by order (a “listed building consent order”) grant listed building consent under section 8(1) in respect of works of any description for the alteration or extension of listed buildings of any description in England.

(2) The consent may be granted subject to conditions specified in the order.

(3) Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (2), the conditions that may be specified include any conditions subject to which listed building consent may be granted under section 16.

(4) A listed building consent order may (without prejudice to section 17(2)) give the local planning authority power to require details of works to be approved by them, and may grant consent subject to conditions with respect to—

(a) the making of an application to the authority for a determination as to whether such approval is required, and

(b) the outcome of such an application or the way it is dealt with.

(5) A listed building consent order may enable the Secretary of State or the local planning authority to direct that consent granted by the order does not apply—

(a) to a listed building specified in the direction;

(b) to listed buildings of a description specified in the direction;

(c) to listed buildings in an area specified in the direction.

(6) An order may in particular make provision about the making, coming into force, variation and revocation of such a direction, including provision conferring powers on the Secretary of State in relation to directions by a local planning authority.

(7) Nothing in sections 10 to 26 applies in relation to listed building consent granted by a listed building consent order; but that does not affect the application of sections 20, 21 and 22 in relation to an application for approval required by a condition to which consent is subject.

26D Local listed building consent orders

‘(1) A local planning authority for any area in England may by order (a “local listed building consent order”) grant listed building consent under section 8(1) in respect of works of any description for the alteration or extension of listed buildings.

(2) Regulations under this Act may provide that subsection (1) does not apply to listed buildings of any description or in any area.

(3) The consent granted by a local listed building consent order may relate—

(a) to all listed buildings in the area of the authority or any part of that area;

(b) to listed buildings of any description in that area or any part of that area.

(4) The consent may be granted subject to conditions specified in the order.

(5) Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (4), the conditions that may be specified include any subject to which listed building consent may be granted under section 16.

(6) A local listed building consent order may enable the local planning authority to direct that the consent granted by the order in respect of works of any description does not apply—

(a) to a listed building specified in the direction;

(b) to listed buildings of a description specified in the direction;

(c) to listed buildings in an area specified in the direction.

(7) An order may in particular make provision about the making, coming into force, variation and revocation of such a direction, including provision conferring powers on the Secretary of State.

(8) Nothing in sections 10 to 26 applies in relation to listed building consent granted by a local listed building consent order; but that does not affect the application of sections 20, 21 and 22 in relation to an application for approval required by a condition to which consent is subject.

(9) Schedule 2A makes provision in connection with local listed building consent orders.

26E Powers of Secretary of State in relation to local orders

‘(1) At any time before a local listed building consent order is adopted by a local planning authority the Secretary of State may direct that the order (or any part of it) is not to be adopted without the Secretary of State’s approval.

(2) If the Secretary of State gives a direction under subsection (1)—

(a) the authority must not take any step in connection with the adoption of the order until they have submitted the order or the part to the Secretary of State and the Secretary of State has decided whether to approve it;

(b) the order has no effect unless it (or the part) has been approved by the Secretary of State.

(3) In considering an order or part submitted under subsection (2)(a) the Secretary of State may take account of any matter the Secretary of State thinks relevant.

(4) It is immaterial whether any such matter was taken account of by the local planning authority.

(5) The Secretary of State—

(a) may approve or reject an order or part of an order submitted under subsection (2)(a);

(b) must give reasons for that decision.

(6) The Secretary of State—

(a) may at any time before a local listed building consent order is adopted by the local planning authority, direct them to modify it in accordance with the direction;

(b) must give reasons for any such direction.

(7) The local planning authority—

(a) must comply with a direction under subsection (6);

(b) must not adopt the order unless the Secretary of State gives notice of being satisfied that they have complied with the direction.

(8) The Secretary of State—

(a) may at any time by order revoke a local listed building consent order if of the opinion that it is expedient to do so;

(b) must give reasons for doing so.

(9) The Secretary of State—

(a) must not make an order under subsection (8) without consulting the local planning authority;

(b) if proposing to make such an order, must serve notice on the local planning authority.

(10) A notice under subsection (9)(b) must specify the period (which must not be less than 28 days from the date of its service) within which the authority may require an opportunity of appearing before and being heard by a person appointed by the Secretary of State for the purpose.

(11) The Secretary of State must give the authority such an opportunity if they require it within the period specified in the notice.

26F Considerations in making orders

‘(1) In considering whether to make a listed building consent order or local listed building consent order the Secretary of State or local planning authority must have special regard to the desirability of preserving—

(a) listed buildings of a description to which the order applies,

(b) their setting, or

(c) any features of special architectural or historic interest which they possess.

(2) Before making a listed building consent order the Secretary of State must consult the Commission.

26G Effect of revision or revocation of order on incomplete works

‘(1) A listed building consent order or local listed building consent order may include provision permitting the completion of works if—

(a) listed building consent is granted by the order in respect of the works, and

(b) the listed building consent is withdrawn after the works are started but before they are completed.

(2) Listed building consent granted by an order is withdrawn—

(a) if the order is revoked;

(b) if the order is varied or (in the case of a local listed building consent order) revised so that it ceases to grant listed building consent in respect of the works or materially changes any condition or limitation to which the grant of listed building consent is subject;

(c) if a direction applying to the listed building is issued under powers conferred under section 26C(5) or 26D(6).”

(4) After section 28 insert—

“28A Compensation where consent formerly granted by order is granted conditionally or refused

(1) Section 28 also has effect (subject to subsections (2) and (3)) where—

(a) listed building consent granted by a listed building consent order or a local listed building consent order is withdrawn (whether by the revocation or amendment of the order or by the issue of a direction), and

(b) on an application for listed building consent made within the prescribed period after the withdrawal, consent for works formerly authorised by the order is refused or is granted subject to conditions other than those imposed by the order.

(2) Section 28 does not have effect by virtue of subsection (1) if—

(a) the works authorised by the order were started before the withdrawal, and

(b) the order included provision in pursuance of section 26G permitting the works to be completed after the withdrawal.

(3) Section 28 does not have effect by virtue of subsection (1) if—

(a) notice of the withdrawal was published in the prescribed manner and within the prescribed period before the withdrawal, and

(b) the works authorised by the order were not started before the notice was published.

(4) Where section 28 has effect by virtue of subsection (1), references in section 28(2) and (3) to the revocation or modification of listed building consent are references to the withdrawal of the listed building consent by revocation or amendment of the order or by issue of the direction.”

(5) Schedule [Local listed building consent orders: procedure] (which inserts Schedule 2A to the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990) has effect.’.—(Matthew Hancock.)

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Matthew Hancock]

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

[Mr Speaker]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Government new clause 10—Listed buildings in England: certificates of lawfulness.

Government new schedule 1—‘Local listed Building consent orders: procedure.

Government amendments 38 to 40, 42, 43, and 48 to 50.

[Matthew Hancock]

I shall speak to new clause 9 and new schedule 1 in the first instance. Those provisions are intended to improve the effectiveness of the listed building consent regime and they follow the Penfold review of non-planning consents. They introduce a new system of national and local class consents, and received broad support during consultation. The new system is designed to reduce the number of listed building consent applications for works that have neither a harmful nor significant impact on a building’s special interest. It will be possible to grant consent automatically for certain categories of work or buildings—where the extent of the special interest is well understood—without the need to make an additional application. Thus, the new provisions will protect listed buildings. I, like many others in this House, have a special adoration for the heritage of our listed buildings in this country, not least the one in which we are standing. Our approach will also improve the operation of the regime. [Interruption.] I suppose that I should declare an interest, although it is not the one that the hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr Wright) thinks; I work in a wonderful listed building and I want to ensure that it is protected.

The changes will also reduce burdens on applicants and free up local planning authority resources to focus on the listed building consent applications that really matter. The Secretary of State will be required to consult English Heritage before making a national order and will be able to apply conditions to consent granted by an order, as with listed building consent at the moment. Both the Secretary of State and any local planning authority will be able to direct that an order does not apply to a specified building, or to buildings of a specified type or in a specified area. The Secretary of State will have the power, at any time, to revoke a listed building consent order, having first served notice on the local planning authority and given it an opportunity to make representations.

The Secretary of State or the local planning authority must have special regard to the desirability of preserving the listed buildings to which the order applies, as well as their setting and any features of special architectural or historic merit that might be affected. We envisage that the processes leading to a class consent will involve the same level of public notice, engagement and consultation as applies to listed building consent currently. These provisions will reduce regulatory burdens without diminishing protection for important heritage sites and buildings. New clause 9 also restates, with minor technical changes in some of the consequential Government amendments, provisions on heritage partnership agreements which were already in the Bill.

New clause 10 introduces a new certificate of lawfulness of proposed works to listed buildings, which will provide certainty to owners and developers of listed buildings—this proposal also received support during consultation. Works to a listed building that do not affect its character as a building of special architectural or historic interest do not require listed building consent. However, interpretations of whether or not consent is needed can vary, and local planning authorities are often reluctant to give a view because it is ultimately a matter for the courts to determine. That means that those seeking to make changes to listed buildings are sometimes required to submit a formal application for listed building consent in order to gain certainty as to whether or not proposed works would affect the special interest. We hope that certificates of lawfulness of proposed works will provide a simple, straightforward mechanism for owners and developers of listed buildings to gain the certainty they require, while reducing the number of unnecessary consent applications. I therefore trust, not least given the widespread support we had in the consultation, that hon. Members will support these new provisions, and I commend them to the House.

[Mr Iain Wright]

As I mentioned during the Committee stage, we have no issue with some of the Government’s provisions for heritage planning. Indeed, when we were in government we prepared something similar, in the guise of the Heritage Protection Bill. I am on the record as saying that the merging of conservation area consent and planning permission is sensible and helps us to streamline the process so that it is efficient for the benefit of all concerned. I reiterate the point that I made in Committee that Opposition Members recognise the merits of heritage planning agreements. They have the potential to provide greater efficiency and time savings in the planning process while ensuring, as the Minister has rightly said, that our listed buildings are safeguarded for future generations.

The new clauses, however, raise a number of questions about the Government’s approach. The Department for Culture, Media and Sport document “Improving Listed Building Consent” had a consultation period of only four weeks—from 26 July to 23 August. The Heritage Alliance rightly raised significant concerns that that was insufficient and I agree with its written submission to the consultation:

“One month is an extremely short period of time in which to co-ordinate the responses of third sector and voluntary organisations, many of whom meet monthly or quarterly, and may not have an August meeting because of the holiday break. A consultation period over the summer break, which includes the Olympic Games, should be longer not shorter, because potential respondents are on holiday and/or their decision-making bodies do not meet in August.”

Will the Minister directly address that point? Why was the consultation period curtailed, especially when it involved a Department that had geared itself up for the Olympics, which were taking place at that time?

--- Later in debate ---

[John Mann (Bassetlaw) (Lab)]

I am Mr Self-Discipline, but someone needs to break this ridiculous, cosy consensus over the tax grab that is being proposed, and I suggest that the House should get into the real world. I live in a listed building and deal with local authorities, and week by week, across the country, pre-planning advice from those local authorities is being charged for.

At the moment, if I want to splice one little piece of wood in one window in my house, I require planning permission costing £400. The Government’s new clause means that, if I want to splice one little bit of rotten wood, I will be charged £400 for pre-planning advice by my authority. That is happening with authorities all over the country. It is total nonsense.

Authorities are finding new ways of making money and new taxes. It might not be the Government’s intention, but that is what happening. Authorities are finding new ways that they never bothered about before to say, “You’d better seek some advice before doing things.” My neighbour has been told that a slight change in the colour of his paint requires planning consent. My house is 400 years old and I have a brick wall that is 30-years-old. I was told this week that if I want to add a brick to it, I will need planning consent. Where is the heritage in a 30-year-old 1970s brick wall in a 400-year-old house? There is none.

This is a tax grab by local authorities. Added to the affordable housing tax grab and the community infrastructure levy tax grab, it means that those who live in listed properties will not be able to afford to do anything with them. It is about time someone spoke up against the additional taxes that this evil coalition is bringing in.

[Matthew Hancock]

rose—

[Paul Maynard (Blackpool North and Cleveleys) (Con)]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I fear I must now call the Minister—I am sorry to disappoint the hon. Gentleman.

[Matthew Hancock]

In the very short time available, I shall first deal with the previous two speeches. I agree with every word spoken by my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (John Penrose) and am grateful for his intervention, but I disagree with almost everything that the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann) said, not least because the Government’s measures will make his situation easier, and because changes other than where there is a special interest will no longer require consent in the same way. That will make his life easier.

[Paul Maynard]

The Twentieth Century Society has asked me to point out one of its concerns. There is no obligation to any planning authority to consult it, as an amenities society, rather than English Heritage. As the Minister may know, they have very different views on modern buildings. Will he reflect on that?

[Matthew Hancock]

I shall respond to that and to the questions from the hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr Wright) in the same way, if I may.

Enforcement, local consultation—this deals with my hon. Friend’s concern—and the system for calling in are unchanged by the new clauses. There will be no addition of formality. That is unlikely—[Interruption.] That is not the intention. The new system will be less cumbersome than the current one.

On the question of what “conclusively presumed” until there is a “material change” means, “material change” means exactly what it says.

I echo what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare and add that there were 400 responses to the consultation, not least because of the amount of face-to-face discussions with Ministers at the time and the amount preparatory work.

On capacity, we will work with local planning authorities, but overall, the measures will reduce the burden on them. Currently, local planning authorities do not put a named individual in charge. In most cases, there is an IT system to ensure that proposals go through to somebody in good time.

Let me give the House an example of how the measures will help. British Waterways carried out 353 works to designated heritage assets in 2010-11. Some 164 required full applications, and 189 were performed after clearance to proceed without consent through correspondence with the local planning authority. We certainly do not want to water down the communication with local planning authorities that makes things easier.

I shall give some examples of the sorts of things that the provision will help. Technically, grouting within a listed property requires consent. I am sure that we can all agree that grouting is good and is the sort of thing that could be covered by a national agreement. Lock replacements—