Oliver Heald
Main Page: Oliver Heald (Conservative - North East Hertfordshire)Department Debates - View all Oliver Heald's debates with the Leader of the House
(9 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
It is a delight to support the amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Helen Goodman), and an enormous shame that those who drafted the original clauses are not present to take part in the debate that they began.
Chris Bryant
I do not really think the Solicitor-General should be replying to a debate on broadcasting, but I am happy to give way.
The Solicitor-General
I am sure the hon. Gentleman will accept that we did have a debate in Committee, in which the hon. Gentleman who tabled the amendments was a very active member, and he was satisfied with the Government’s approach.
Chris Bryant
Of course—it stands to reason that the hon. and learned Gentleman was present; otherwise, he would not have been able to speak to the amendments. That is a rather redundant, kind of tautologous point—[Interruption.] No, the debate is not finished and I am sorry that the Solicitor-General is adopting that approach. The honest truth is that the Government have approached this whole issue in completely the wrong order. The amendments tabled this evening are the only way we can correct that order because we are putting the cart before the horse.
Surely we should decide what the point of the BBC is and how it should be financed, and then decide on sanctions should those things not be met—not the other way round. Under the Bill, however, before any review of the licence fee and the next charter, it has been decided in principle that there should be a change to the arrangement on sanctions for not paying the licence fee. That is completely the wrong way round. The Government have caved in to some frankly preposterous Back-Bench campaigning, and it is a shame that those campaigners are not present to see the end of this debate and listen to the next stage. The discussion is far from over.
If the Education Secretary were here and looking for a list of British values, I would tell him that I would put the BBC and British broadcasting at the top of that list. I have spoken to politicians from India who said that the style of broadcasting that we invented in this country and exported around the world inspired them to have free and independent broadcasting in their country. I have known politicians from Chile, Argentina and Spain who talked of sitting under the kitchen table and hiding while listening to British broadcasting on the radio—largely through the World Service as it was in the past—because they believed that was the only way they could get an independent source of news.
Chris Bryant
In a moment.
Many of my constituents are on low incomes and in a deprived community, but they are happy to pay the licence fee because it guarantees something for everybody. For them, the sport on television, which would probably be commercially available elsewhere, is public service broadcasting; “EastEnders” is public service broadcasting. The quality that is brought by ordinary broadcasting to everyday lives is part of what people in my constituency believe to be public service broadcasting.
Chris Bryant
I will give way first to the hon. Member for Macclesfield (David Rutley) because I said I would.
Chris Bryant
It is not, actually. What we are discussing is the order in which the Government should proceed—in other words, whether they should first decide what the future sanction should be and then review the licence fee, or whether they should first review the licence fee and the charter and then decide what the sanction should be. I believe the latter is the only logical and commonsensical way of proceeding. That is why I am strongly supportive of the amendments that my hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland has tabled, because that is precisely what they do. It would be extraordinary if the Government were to oppose our amendments this evening. I know that the Solicitor-General is sometimes a very reasonable man—[Interruption]—although he has not got his reasonable face on now, I see.
The Solicitor-General
The debate we have been having, in Committee and with my hon. Friend the Member for North West Leicestershire (Andrew Bridgen), is about enforcement of the licence fee, not about the principle.
Chris Bryant
I have read all the debates, which were actually about fundamental principles as well, and the fundamental principle for me is that we should do the whole policy in the round, rather than doing it piecemeal in a deregulation Bill.
That takes me to the key point about sanctions. Whatever regime one moves to—whether one decriminalises or not—one needs some form of sanction if one is not fundamentally to undermine the licence fee. As I understand it, the Government do not want to undermine the licence fee. They still support it—[Interruption.] From the look on the Solicitor-General’s face, I see that he is not so sure about that. However, broadly speaking, given that the majority of people in this country support the licence fee and believe that although it might not be perfect—they may support decriminalisation—it is none the less the best way to finance the BBC, it is only common sense for us to ensure that some of form of sanction is available.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland pointed out, we would need only a very small increase in the rate of licence fee evasion to see a significant fall in BBC income. I can imagine Government Members then being the first to say, “You can’t cut spending on programming in my area”, or “You can’t cut the regional current affairs programme”, or “You can’t cut spending on orchestras”, or “You can’t cut spending on programmes that are produced and delivered in my part of the country.” However, I say to them that if the Government make it easier for people to evade the licence fee, because they have not put in place sanctions—
The Solicitor-General
We have had a short but lively debate, and I would like to put it on record that no Government Member said that the BBC was not a fantastic institution, or anything of that sort. Our debate was not about the licence fee, although the charter review is coming up, and that will have a process of its own; it was about enforcement.
My hon. Friend the Member for North West Leicestershire (Andrew Bridgen)—I pay tribute to the way he put his case—made the point that there are many poor and vulnerable people who struggle with the licence fee, and they can be criminalised and even sent to prison for failure to pay it. He clearly felt concerned about them, and made his case in that way. It was not developed as some kind of veiled attack on the BBC. I think it right to look at decriminalisation. Even the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) seemed to accept that at one point, and he even seemed to accept that it would be right to have a review of the sort proposed by the Government. Again, I do not see much cross-party disagreement there.
Clearly, the Government will not take up the invitation of the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Helen Goodman) and say what the outcome of the review and the penalties will be—something I thought she said. She asks why the Government are unwilling to set the penalties now; the answer is that we have not yet had the review. Whether one particular body will have the duty of setting the variable fees is another issue for the review; we want a proper review that will look into all aspects of the issue. As to what analysis has been done of the potential impacts—positive and negative—of switching to a civil rather than a criminal enforcement, or of having the option of both, we are having a review precisely to determine that. The whole point is that we do not want to prejudge the review.
Helen Goodman
My question was not why the Government will not decide the penalties at this juncture—I completely accept what the Solicitor-General said about that—but why the Government were offloading the task of setting the penalties on to another body.
The Solicitor-General
There will clearly need to be a mechanism to effect the change; someone will have to decide what the variable penalties should be, and I shall come on to that in a moment. I do not think it right, however, to prejudge who or which body should do the setting. The hon. Lady suggested one particular body, but we are happy to let the review look into these issues and come up with its thoughts on what sort of regime should or should not be approved.
The amendments are designed to achieve two objectives. Under amendment 62,
“The Secretary of State must lay the terms of reference of a review”
of the TV licensing enforcement regime
“before each House of Parliament.”
Those would be key papers for the review, and there would be others. What normally happens, and what we propose, is that those papers are deposited in the Libraries of both Houses. It would be unusual to lay them before the House. That would be the normal and best way forward, and it would achieve the same effect as the amendment—that is, it would ensure that the House of Commons was fully aware of the details.
Amendment 63 looks to ensure that the power to decriminalise the failure to have a TV licence via secondary legislation, either by replacing the criminal regime with a civil regime, or by enabling the imposition of civil penalties for such offences, would not be exercised until after the conclusion of the charter process. As previously mentioned, this power would need to be exercised in the light of the review’s findings, and considering the full impacts, costs and benefits to licence payers, to the court system—where, as the hon. Lady said, changes are being made—and to businesses of any changes to the enforcement regime. That would be considered in the context of the charter review.
At this stage, it would be premature to put restrictions on the timing of when the power may be exercised, given that the charter review has not yet started, and the Government have not set out the detail of the process and the timing. The Government therefore resist the amendments on the following grounds. First, the key papers will be deposited in the Library in the normal way and, secondly, we do not want to restrict what should or could happen, in terms of decriminalisation, by aligning the legislation with the timing of the charter review, although the legislation would be in the context of the review.
My hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mark Field) made the point that we are living in a changing world. That is true, both as regards the courts and how they go about enforcing, and about the media and broadcasting world. It is also true in respect of how we look at enforcement. Given that so many public services have civil enforcement and that it can be effective, it is certainly right, I think, at this point to have a review, and to try to move away from the aggressive approach that my hon. Friend mentioned. The point was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (David Rutley), and I have encountered the issue in my constituency postbag and at surgeries. Elderly people who feel that they have paid their licence fee—they often have—can be threatened with bills, letters about going to court and so forth, yet it is often the TV licensing authorities that have made the mistakes. A civil approach, where at least the threat of court is not frightening elderly, vulnerable and poor people, might be a better way forward. It is certainly something worth reviewing. On the issue of excellence and free markets, it is right that both can deliver.
Chris Bryant
I got a bit confused with all the different reviews we seem to be talking about. We are talking about a review of the charter, which is coming along; and a review of the system of sanctions, which may lead to recommendations on what needs to change and on the use of the secondary legislation included in the Bill. All I am saying is that the latter should not come before the former.
The Solicitor-General
I hope the hon. Gentleman would accept that we are where we are. That may not be novel, but it is true. [Interruption.] It does. The Bill had within its scope the enforcement arrangements for the licence fee. My hon. Friend the Member for North West Leicestershire—not me—was concerned about the issue, which garnered considerable support in the House. He was persuasive in saying that it was right to review this area and take the powers at this convenient opportunity, in case the review comes to the same conclusion as him. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Rhondda is very experienced in these matters and has had a role in the leadership of House operations, so he understands these things. This is not such a novel and surprising thing. It is actually a good opportunity to tackle an issue that has arisen in Parliament.
Chris Bryant
What I think I understand by that—I hope the Solicitor-General will confirm whether I am right, or will correct me if I have it wrong—is that his Government would or could bring in and use the secondary legislation before the charter review happened. Is that his intention?
The Solicitor-General
It is certainly not the intention to do anything that does not take into account the full context—[Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman laughs, but there is a full context to the charter review. It is difficult when the process has not been set out and nobody is aware of the full details, so one needs to be wary of tying one’s hands too much. All I am saying is that some commitments have been made about the time scale for the review; that is in the legislation. We know when the charter review will take place, and we know that nothing will happen until the review has been completed, taking into account all the various points I have made. That should satisfy the hon. Gentleman.
The hon. Member for Bishop Auckland mentioned variable fees; they are provided for in the Government amendments, which also deal with the question of extent and the Crown dependencies. I commend Government amendments 14 and 15 and 20 and 22, and urge the hon. Lady to withdraw the amendment.
Helen Goodman
I did not find the Solicitor-General’s arguments very convincing. He seems to want to retain the freedom to fiddle around with the way in which the licence fee operates before we have seen the results of the royal charter review. None the less, I do not wish to press either amendment 62 or amendment 63 to a vote, although I suspect that amendment 62 may be re-examined in another place. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 55
TV licensing: alternatives to criminal sanctions
Amendments made: 14, page 40, line 24, after “be” insert “—
(a) ”
This amendment is a drafting amendment related to amendment 15.
Amendment 15, page 40, line 25, at end insert
“, or
(b) such amount, not exceeding a maximum amount specified in the regulations, as may be determined by a body so specified.”—(The Solicitor-General)
In the event of the Secretary of State deciding to make regulations replacing the TV licensing offences with a civil penalty regime, this amendment would allow the regulations to provide for the amount of the penalty to be determined by a body specified in the regulations, subject to a maximum amount specified in the regulations.
New Clause 3
Limit on indemnity required under Outer Space Act 1986
‘(1) The Outer Space Act 1986 is amended as follows.
(2) In section 3 (prohibition of unlicensed activities), after subsection (3) insert—
“(3A) An order under subsection (3) may—
(a) provide that section 10(1) does not apply to a person to the extent that the person is carrying on activities that do not require a licence by virtue of the order;
(b) specify the maximum amount of a person’s liability under section 10(1) so far as the liability relates to the carrying on of activities that do not require a licence by virtue of the order.”
(3) In section 5 (terms of licence), after subsection (2) insert—
“(3) A licence must specify the maximum amount of the licensee’s liability to indemnify Her Majesty’s government in the United Kingdom under section 10 in respect of activities authorised by the licence.”
(4) In section 10 (obligation to indemnify government against claims), after subsection (1) insert—
“(1A) Subsection (1) is subject to—
(a) any limit on the amount of a person’s liability that is specified in a licence, and
(b) any order made under section 3(3).”
(5) The Secretary of State may vary any licence under section 4 of the 1986 Act that is held at the time when this section comes into force so as to specify the maximum amount of the licencee’s liability under section 10 of that Act.
(6) A variation under subsection (5) is to be made by giving notice in writing to the licensee.
(7) The power under section 15(6) of the 1986 Act may be exercised so as to extend to any of the Channel Islands, the Isle of Man or any British overseas territory any provision made by this section (subject to any specified exceptions or modifications).” —(Oliver Heald.)
Section 10 of the Outer Space Act 1986 requires people carrying out certain space activities to indemnify the UK government against claims arising out of the activities. The new clause makes provision for limiting the amount of the liability under the indemnity.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Government new clause 6—Power of HMRC to disclose information for purposes of certain litigation.
Government new clause 7—Combining different forms of subordinate legislation.
Government new clause 20—Tenancy deposits.
Government new clause 21—Short-term use of London accommodation: power to relax restrictions.
Government new clause 22—Electoral Commission: changes to facilitate efficient administration.
Government new clause 23—LGBC for England: changes to facilitate efficient administration.
Government new clause 24—Poisons and explosives precursors.
New clause 8—Replacing homes lost through the Preserved Right to Buy—
‘(1) Within one year of this Act receiving Royal Assent, the Secretary of State shall lay before each House of Parliament a plan to—
(a) replace the homes lost through the Preserved Right to Buy;
(b) review the effectiveness of the current Right to Buy policy.
(2) Before making any further changes to Right to Buy, the Secretary of State must carry out and publish an assessment of the impact of Right to Buy policy on affordable housing supply since 2012.”
This new clause would require the Minister to produce a plan to replace affordable homes lost in England as a result of Right to Buy, review the effectiveness of current policy and carry out an assessment of changes since 2012 before making further policy changes.
New clause 10—Repeal of the Sunday Trading Act 1994—
‘(1) The Sunday Trading Act 1994 is amended as follows.
(2) Paragraph 2(1) of Schedule 1 to the Sunday Trading Act 1994 (which restricts Sunday trading at large shops) is repealed.
(3) Section 2, subsection (5) of that Act and Schedule 3 to the Act (which restricts loading and unloading at large shops on Sunday mornings) are repealed.”
New clause 11—Extending of Sunday trading hours—
‘(1) The Sunday Trading Act 1994 is amended as follows.
(2) In Schedule 1, paragraph 2(3), leave out “six” and insert “eight”.
(3) In Schedule 1, paragraph 2(3), leave out “6 p.m.” and insert “8 p.m.”.”
New clause 12—Suspension of restriction of Sunday trading hours—
‘(1) Paragraph 2(1) of Schedule 1 to the Sunday Trading Act 1994 (which restricts Sunday opening at large shops) does not apply during the suspension period.
(2) But Schedule 3 to that Act (which restricts loading and unloading at large shops on Sunday mornings) is to apply during the suspension period to any shop to which it would apply during that period were it not for the disapplication made by subsection (1).
(3) “The suspension period” means the part of the Glasgow 2014 Commonwealth Games period which—
(a) begins with Sunday 27 July 2014, and
(b) ends with Sunday 3 August 2014.
(4) Where a shop worker gives an opting-out notice in the pre-Games period that relates to work at an exempted large shop, section 41(3), of the Employment Rights Act 1996 has effect as if the notice period in relation to the shop worker were the period which— Section 42(2) of that Act accordingly has effect in relation to the shop worker as if the reference to three months were a reference to the notice period as it is modified by subsection (1).
(a) begins with the day on which the notice is given, and
(b) ends two months after that day, or with Sunday 3 August 2014 (if that is later).
(5) Where the opting-out notice includes an express statement to the effect that the shop worker objects to Sunday working only during the suspension period, the shop worker is to be treated for the purposes of that Act as having given an opting-in notice at the end of that period.
(6) The “pre-Games period” is the period which—
(a) begins with the day on which this Act is passed, and
(b) ends with Sunday 3 August 2014.
(7) An “exempted large shop” is a shop to which paragraph 2(1) of Schedule 1 to the Sunday Trading Act 1994 would apply during the suspension period were it not for the disapplication made by section 1(1).
(8) In this section—
(a) “opting-in notice”, “opting-out notice” and “shop worker” each have the same meaning as in the Employment Rights Act 1996, and
(b) “suspension period” has the meaning given in section 1(3).”
New clause 13—Suspension of restriction on Sunday trading hours—
‘(1) Paragraph 2(1) of Schedule 1 to the Sunday Trading Act 1994 (which restricts Sunday opening at large shops) does not apply during the suspension period.
(2) But Schedule 3 to that Act (which restricts loading and unloading at large shops on Sunday mornings) is to apply during the suspension period to any shop to which it would apply during that period were it not for the disapplication made by subsection (1).
(3) “The suspension period” means the part of the Rugby World Cup 2015 period, which—
(a) begins with Sunday 20 September 2015, and
(b) ends with Sunday 25 October 2015.
(4) Where a shop worker gives an opting-out notice in the pre-Rugby Cup period that relates to work at an exempted large shop, section 41(3) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 has effect as if the notice period in relation to the shop worker were the period which—
(a) begins with the day on which the notice is given, and
(b) ends with Saturday 31 October 2015.
(5) Section 42(2) of that Act accordingly has effect in relation to the shop worker as if the reference to three months were a reference to the notice period as it is modified by subsection (1).
(6) Where the opting-out notice includes an express statement to the effect that the shop worker objects to Sunday working only during the suspension period, the shop worker is to be treated for the purposes of that Act as having given an opting-in notice at the end of that period.
(7) The “pre-Rugby Cup period” is the period which—
(a) begins on Friday 17 July 2015, and
(b) ends with Friday 11 September 2015.
(8) An “exempted large shop” is a shop to which paragraph 2(1) of Schedule 1 to the Sunday Trading Act 1994 would apply during the suspension period were it not for the disapplication made by section 1(1).
(9) In this section—
(a) “opting-in notice”, “opting-out notice” and “shop worker” each have the same meaning as in the Employment Rights Act 1996, and
(b) “suspension period” has the meaning given in section 1(3).”
New clause 14—Further exemption to Sunday trading hours: garden centres—
‘(1) The Sunday Trading Act 1994 is amended as follows.
(2) In Schedule 1, paragraph 3(1), after paragraph (k) at end insert—
“(l) any garden centres.”
Government new schedule 2—Poisons and explosives precursors.
Amendment 84, page 11, line 18, leave out clause 17.
Government amendment 12.
Amendment 85, page 24, line 11, leave out clauses 30 and 31.
Amendment 79, in clause 30, page 24, line 14, leave out from “State” to end of line 17 and insert
“in relation to England may include a requirement that applies only where a planning authority makes compliance with the requirement a condition of a grant of planning permission.”
Government amendments 80 to 83.
Amendment 2, in clause 30, page 24, line 42, at end insert—
‘(2) This section and section 31 shall not come into force until the Secretary of State has laid a Zero-Carbon Housing Strategy before both Houses of Parliament.”
Government amendments 16 to 18.
Amendment 64, page 50, line 30, leave out clauses 73 to 76.
This amendment removes the requirement on persons exercising a regulatory function to have regard to the desirability of promoting economic growth.
Amendment 66, in clause 73, page 50, line 33, leave out “economic growth” and insert “sustainable development”.
Amendment 67, page 50, line 35, leave out “economic growth” and insert “sustainable development”.
Amendment 69, page 50, line 37, leave out “only”.
This amendment makes it clear that a person exercising a regulatory function under this section must take regulatory action when needed.
Amendment 68, in clause 75, page 51, line 29, leave out “economic growth” and insert “sustainable development”.
Amendment 70, in clause 76, page 52, line 4, after “75”, insert
“sustainable development” means development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of existing communities and future generations to meet their own needs; and that contributes to the principles that the nation and areas within it should live within their environmental limits, should achieve a sustainable economy and should seek to ensure a strong, healthy and just society.”
This defines sustainable development in terms recommended by the Communities and Local Government Select Committee 2011 inquiry into the National Planning Policy Framework, which drew on the 2005 UK Sustainable Development Strategy.
Government amendments 76, 19, 21 and 77.
Amendment 3, in clause 80, page 53, line 38, at end insert
“, subject to the condition in subsection (2) of that section;”
This amendment is consequential on amendment 2.
Government amendments 25, 50, 52 to 54 and 57.
The Solicitor-General
This is a substantial group that covers a range of issues, from zero-carbon homes to outer space and back again via the right to buy. Let me begin with new clause 3.
In their growth review, published in March 2011, the Government set out their intention to reform the Outer Space Act 1986 by introducing an upper limit on liability for United Kingdom operators. The aim was to help to level the playing field for United Kingdom companies competing for international business. UK space operators have long argued that the unlimited liability placed on them by section 10 of the Act is very difficult to manage in terms of financing. Given the global nature of the space industry, that could result in work being lost to countries from outside the United Kingdom. The licensing regime enables the UK Government—among other things—to offset some of the unlimited liability to which they are exposed under the terms of the United Nations liability convention.
Section 10 of the Act requires licensees to indemnify the Government against any proven third-party costs resulting from their activities. That is an unlimited liability on licensees. As it is not possible to insure against unlimited liability, licensees are required to obtain third-party liability insurance both during the launch and while the satellite is in operation, with the UK Government a named beneficiary. If a claim were to exceed that amount, the Government could seek to recover the balance under section 10 of the Act.
In the growth review, the Government set out their intention of reforming the Act by introducing an upper limit on liability for UK operators. A two-part approach has been undertaken. Part 1—the announcement by the Minister for Universities and Science of a reduction in the compulsory insurance requirement from £100 million to €60 million—was well received. Part 2 involves a legislative change that will cap the unlimited liability at €60 million for the majority of missions. The chosen route for the achievement of that change would give the Secretary of State the power to set or vary the liability limit through the licensing regime, which will provide flexibility, and, we hope, lead to a level playing field. It may also help with the development of smaller satellite technology. CubeSats, for instance, offer lower-cost and possibly lower-risk access to space, along with growth opportunities for the UK.
New clause 6—which deals with mesothelioma—and amendment 19 introduce a power to enable Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs to supply, without the need for a court order, the work history of deceased persons to their personal representatives and some dependants. That would be for the purpose of making a personal injury claim for the benefit of the deceased’s estate, or making a claim under fatal accidents legislation. The change will benefit the families and dependants of the deceased. It will enable them more quickly and easily to prove their claim for compensation against the person or organisation liable for the injury or death, including compensation for loss of dependency on the deceased. As I know that that proposal has all-party support, I do not intend to deal with it at greater length, but I will of course be happy to say more about it if that is required.
Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)
For the purpose of clarification, I refer Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. Let me also make it clear to the Minister that not only am I satisfied with the Government’s new clause, but it is, quite predictably, far better than the one that I originally tabled, and for that I am extremely grateful.
The Solicitor-General
I do not agree. I think that my hon. Friend makes a huge contribution in the House, although I do not always agree with him.
It was made clear in the briefing the Government published in 2007 that there was no intention of affecting prior deposits. It was also never the intention that landlords who had protected deposits and who had given their tenants information about that protection should then have to reissue the same information about the deposit protection each and every time the tenancy was renewed, although the same deposit would continue to be protected in the same scheme from one tenancy to the next. That, however, was the result of the Court of Appeal’s decision in the case of Superstrike Ltd v. Marino Rodrigues. As a result of that decision, a large number of landlords were at risk of court action and open to a financial penalty, despite having done what the sector and successive Governments considered to be the right thing. Our proposals are broadly similar to those made by my hon. Friend, and will protect landlords who follow Government and tenancy deposit scheme advice from financial penalties and delayed possession proceedings by providing a grace period and making other provision.
New clause 21 deals with short-term lets. It is aimed at an outdated, 40-year old law that restricts householders in London from being able temporarily to let out their homes, or even a spare room, for less than three months without having first secured planning permission for change of use. Currently, failure to secure planning permission in Greater London for short-term letting can result in a fine of up to £20,000. That is not the case in the rest of England, where property owners can let out their homes on a short-term basis without needing permission to do so.
During the 2012 Olympics while we were all encouraging visitors to come to London and join in the celebrations, some people who welcomed visitors into their homes were subject to enforcement action from London boroughs. That was not universal, but I do applaud the boroughs that entered into the spirit and encouraged residents to let out their homes or a spare room. Wimbledon is on at the moment, of course, and Londoners have traditionally rented out spare rooms and homes to people visiting the capital for the championships. The new clause enables the Secretary of State to make regulations to give London residents more of the freedoms enjoyed in other parts of the country.
I have discussed this with my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kensington (Sir Malcolm Rifkind). He made the point that sensitive handling is needed to ensure that regulations covering companies that sub-let regularly are not circumvented by these changes. The regulations have to be properly dealt with in a sensitive way.
Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)
I entirely agree with what the Minister says about the sensitivity of this matter and the importance of getting it right. The London property market’s problem at the moment is certainly not that it is too long term. With that in mind, does the Minister think there has been sufficient consultation and enough opportunity to consider the full implications, given that the proposal has been brought forward long after all the pre-legislative scrutiny has been finished?
The Solicitor-General
Clearly the regulations need to be carefully considered and proper consultation is needed to ensure that the effect of the measure, which is to give more freedom to individual householders, is respected while giving proper recognition in the policy to the difficulties the hon. Gentleman mentions, which my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kensington also brought to my attention.
Mark Field
I endorse the view stated earlier that a process of consultation began as recently as February on this issue and has not yet come to a close, so it feels a little strange that this measure has been rushed through in this Bill. That is the tenor of the concerns expressed by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kensington (Sir Malcolm Rifkind) as well. Why does the Minister think there is a different regime for London? Why was that put into place some 40 years ago and why is the time suddenly now right for it to be changed?
The Solicitor-General
As I think was said in another part of the country today, London is a super-city: it is an enormous city and it does have unique circumstances. The Government recognise the necessity of working with the London boroughs to design the provision to ensure we achieve the right balance between increasing the freedoms for Londoners and protecting London’s housing supply. We would not want that to be undermined. We are trying to ensure that speculators are not able to buy homes meant for Londoners and rent them permanently as short-term lets.
Ms Karen Buck (Westminster North) (Lab)
Is the Minister aware that central London authorities such as Westminster, as the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mark Field) will know, Kensington and Chelsea, Camden and Islington, backed almost unanimously by the amenity and neighbourhood associations in those boroughs, have all expressed extremely strong reservations about these proposals, precisely because of the fear that they will lead to a loss of residential stock in what are already highly stressed neighbourhoods?
The Solicitor-General
Yes, the Government are aware of that, and we have tried to respond, first of all by making the point, as the Department has done, that the London boroughs must be fully involved in the process and also by allowing the regulations to be subject to the affirmative procedure, which means that the hon. Lady and other colleagues will have an opportunity to consider the detail of the changes and whether they are appropriate.
Turning to Government new clauses 22 and 23, the Electoral Commission and the Local Government Boundary Commission are independent bodies established by Parliament and overseen by the Speaker’s Committee on the Electoral Commission. Currently, both bodies have to provide a five-year corporate plan. The Committee has reviewed governance and suggested a five-year corporate plan should be produced in the first financial year of a Parliament, and the duty to update it and produce a new plan on an annual basis should be removed, although the Committee would retain the right to request updated plans outside this cycle. Value for money studies would take place at the beginning of the five-year period, not annually, and provision would be made to allow the Local Government Boundary Commission to appoint independent members to its audit committee and other committees. These changes are supported by the Electoral Commission and the Local Government Boundary Commission.
I shall now turn—briefly—to the subject of poisons and explosives precursors. New clause 24 introduces the new schedule inserted by new schedule 2, which abolishes the statutory requirement for a poisons board under the Poisons Act 1972 and introduces a common licensing system for poisons and explosive precursors to streamline the regimes and bring them into line with the latest EU regulations.
I am sure the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) will wish to comment on new clause 8 and the preserved right to buy and the idea that within one year of Royal Assent a plan should be laid to replace homes that have been sold under right to buy and review the effectiveness of it. Since the revitalisation of right to buy, 19,500 households have achieved their home ownership aspirations, but this is not just about buying; it is also about building. More than £419 million from the right-to-buy sales has been ring-fenced to fund new homes, and I assure the hon. Lady that the Government are committed to keeping the reinvigorated right-to-buy scheme under review.
The impact assessment sets out a wider perspective on right to buy and how the policy will work. The Department for Communities and Local Government publishes quarterly statistics on right-to-buy sales in England and annual statistics on preserved right-to-buy, and live data tables are on the Department’s website. The hon. Lady will be pleased to know that, on future stock transfers, the Department for Communities and Local Government has recently published a stock transfer manual. So the Government have set out their position very clearly and the intention is that for transfers completing after 30 September 2014, net proceeds from preserved right-to-buy sales are, within three years, to be used to fund new affordable housing at no greater subsidy cost than under the main affordable homes programme.
Caroline Lucas
Not enough of that money is properly ring-fenced, and it has been estimated that only about one in every seven homes sold through right to buy has been replaced by more affordable housing. Is the Minister as shocked as I am to discover that in one London borough a third of the council homes sold in the 1980s are now owned by private landlords, some of whom own dozens of properties that they now rent back at very high rents?
The Solicitor-General
Of course we can always ask for more, but the point I would make to the hon. Lady is that that one in seven figure is misleading, because the money we are talking about is from extra sales, over and above the profile, and as far as that is concerned, this very considerable sum has been set aside. We are confident that over the next three years we will get the sorts of results I described.
On new clauses 10 to 14 on Sunday trading, I am afraid this time I am going to disappoint my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley, although I will not go on at great length as I am hoping he might have a chance to speak about this. The interests of smaller retailers, the working hours of employees, the effect of extra lorry traffic and the need to have some family day consideration lead the Government to the view that the current balance does not need changing, although it was for the Olympics, and very successfully so.
Gavin Shuker (Luton South) (Lab/Co-op)
Does the Solicitor-General agree that with 77% of the public supporting the current regime, it would be madness to change the plans in place now?
The Solicitor-General
I would never describe my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley’s plans as mad, but on this occasion I do not agree with them.
Turning to Government amendment 12 and the amendments to remove clause 17, we had a lively debate about insolvency practitioners in Committee. Of course, the profession deserves a great deal of credit for the good work it does in rescuing struggling businesses that still have a viable future, saving jobs and preserving value in the economy. As the hon. Member for Chesterfield (Toby Perkins) said in Committee, the World Bank rates our Insolvency Service the seventh best in the world, and it is a service that other countries admire. This has been achieved through innovative policy developments, and we believe that the one we are discussing now—the system of partial authorisation introduced by clause 17 —is a positive development for the sector, for the profession, for creditors and for insolvent companies and individuals.
The proposed system will reduce barriers to entry by enabling would-be insolvency practitioners to qualify in respect of only corporate or personal insolvency; if they want to, they can continue to do both, but those who wish to specialise will benefit from shorter training periods and lower training costs. That will increase competition and bring down fees, and the profession will benefit too. If a firm decides to fund someone through qualification, it will cost them less than it does now. The amount of money involved is substantial: BPP, the leading provider of professional training, charges £3,470 for each of the three courses needed for the professional examinations, and there are many fees on top of that, so we are talking about significant sums—not hundreds of pounds but thousands. The Government have heard arguments against partial authorisation, but have decided to continue with the policy.
Amendment 85, which would remove clause 30, is misguided. It is intended primarily to halt the Government’s proposed changes to the Planning and Energy Act 2008 and is based on a misunderstanding of what we are doing. It would bring to an end all the excellent work we have undertaken with industry and many interested bodies in the sustainability, access and environmental sectors to rationalise the plethora of local standards by regularising them through the building control system. It would also leave in place the considerable range of excessive and ill-considered costs imposed on the housing industry by some local authorities. These standards are holding back development and are a mess.
On journalistic materials, I did promise earlier that we would introduce extensions to the power of the criminal procedure rules to cover the procedure for making certain sorts of applications, ensuring that journalists do not lose any of the statutory protections they currently have.
I need not address the remaining minor and technical amendments at this stage. I am sorry to have taken up so much of the House’s time, but this is a big group of amendments.
Toby Perkins
I begin by drawing the House’s attention to my declaration of interests.
The fact that the Solicitor-General had to whistle through so many new clauses and amendments says a tremendous amount about the Bill and the way the Government have approached it. We have 49 minutes to debate 43 different new clauses, amendments and new schedules. It is an absolute disgrace and an affront to democracy that this House is being asked to whistle through the approval of very important measures that this Government have brought before us at a moment’s notice.
The Bill was originally an unambitious, predominantly inconsequential list of minor changes to the way we sell yarn and chocolate liqueurs that most people would not much mind or particularly appreciate, mixed in with a few substantially more dangerous provisions. However, it has morphed almost daily into a leviathan of a Bill with a multitude of ill-thought-out, scarcely consulted on clauses, the aims of which are unclear, the consequences of which are uncertain, the benefits of which are unproven, and the coherence of which is absolutely impossible to fathom. If this is the final piece of legislation this Government introduce, it will be a fitting climax for them: unloved, owned by no one, with few advocates, whose central purpose has long since been obscured, and who exist now only to be seen to be doing something, in the hope that, if they hang around for a bit, the polls might take a turn for the better.
The ultimate summary of the Government’s approach was heard when the Solicitor-General said in response to the very reasonable criticisms of his previous Bill that we are where we are. In fact, the Deregulation Bill could be the “we are where we are” Bill. Virtually no one is speaking up for it or offering much in the way of support for it.
We oppose clause 17 because we believe it will dumb down the profession. As the Solicitor-General rightly said, we have one of the best insolvency professions in the world. The Bill will de-professionalise what is a very successful profession. It will give an advantage to large insolvency firms, working against the smaller firms and new entrants to the market that Members on both sides of this House profess to support. In Committee, we warned that this change would represent a regulatory move, rather than a deregulatory one. Throughout their response, the Government were unable to come up with any serious support for the Bill.
The Solicitor-General said that the purpose of the Bill—its benefit—was to save money. When he was asked about that in Committee, he said that it costs £4,000 for each of these exams, and if someone only has to do two of them, they will save £4,000. He was also very critical of the insolvency profession, and then suggested that that saving will be passed on to the customers of insolvency practitioners. Many practitioners have been in the industry for some 20 years. The idea that, 20 years later, they are going to give some sort of discount because back then they saved themselves £4,000 bears no scrutiny.
In Committee, the Solicitor-General described responses to the consultation on this change as “mixed”. That was an extraordinarily generous euphemism. Excluding the Secretary of State, just one out of seven recognised professional bodies in the field supports partial licences, and 75% of small firms undertake both corporate and personal insolvency procedures for commercial reasons, so it is the large players that are likely to be able to adopt partial licences. If any of the benefits that the Solicitor-General has laid out actually come to pass—I strongly suspect they will not—they will exclude small players from the insolvency market and make it very much the preserve of large companies. He is setting out to dumb down the profession rated by the World Bank as the seventh best in the world, judged on the basis of the amount returned to creditors and the speed of the process—two key aspects we would expect an insolvency regime to have. When I asked a turnaround specialist from Germany who was working in Chesterfield why he was working in the UK rather than back in his homeland, he told me, “Because your insolvency regime is so much better than ours.” He gave a list of reasons why we should be proud of what we have. Amazingly, this Government are coming to this House to make changes that would de-professionalise something that is tremendously successful and which do not enjoy the support of the industry. The major trade body representing insolvency practitioners calls for clause 17 to be not amended but scrapped, yet the Solicitor-General says he is doing this on behalf of the industry. This is a bizarre set of circumstances.
The Solicitor-General will be creating a three-tier system where, rather than there being one set of exams, people will operate in three different ways. The implications for Scotland, whose insolvency regime is very different, have not been laid out. Our amendment would delete the clause. Even if one accepts the Government’s arguments on personal insolvency specialists not needing corporate insolvency, saying in reverse that people who do corporate insolvency, which will often involve aspects of personal insolvency, do not need to have studied personal insolvency is bizarre. We think the Government are very misguided, as does the industry, and we strongly call on them to do the right thing, support our amendment and drop this clause.
I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Jonathan Reynolds), the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) and the hon. Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) want to discuss their proposals, and despite the lack of scrutiny that these clauses will get, I will ensure that they get an opportunity to do so. However, I shall quickly speak on those measures from the Front Bench.
On Sunday trading, I support entirely what the Minister said, and I will not be supporting new clauses 10 to 14 for the following reasons: the Government promised that their emergency legislation for the Olympics was not a Trojan horse leading to further liberalisation of Sunday trading hours; the importance of Sunday trading legislation for employees; the broad, cross-party coalition supporting our current legislation in this area; the impact these proposed changes would have on small businesses and the convenience sector, which is very much under pressure; and the fact that these measures are being proposed in the way that they are, without any consultation on an issue that divides opinion tremendously. All those things mean that this Bill is entirely the wrong place for such measures to be introduced.
On new clauses 20 and 21, the Labour party is, as we said previously, absolutely committed to greater security for tenants and a long-term approach to the private rented market. It is revealing that at a time when the Labour party is proposing policies that will give tenants more security and certainty in their tenure, the Government are introducing something that specifically encourages more shorter-term lets. Just because their priorities are wrong, it does not mean that, individually, there is no merit in these new clauses, but they need to be considered carefully. The hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mark Field) has made a strong case, and London Members from across the House are deeply concerned that the London letting market does not suffer from the problem of being too long term. I am very concerned that there should be proper consultation on these new clauses.
We think that the proposal made by the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion is important. We are very conscious that the Green party leader of Brighton council recently slammed the entire principle of right to buy, describing it as the
“biggest privatisation programme this country has ever seen.”
Right to buy is important. We need to help people who otherwise would not be able to access the housing market, as with so many in Cameron’s Britain; in 1997, it took the average family three years to save for a deposit on a home but now it takes about 22 years. Given that catastrophic record of this Government, in particular, it is important that right to buy is available, but it is also important that these properties are replaced.
As I have said, this group contains a huge number of measures. We will seek to divide the House on amendments 84 and 2. It is entirely wrong that Members have had so little time to discuss this group, but in order to give people the opportunity to discuss their proposals, I will leave my comments there.