Draft Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Act 2023 (Revocation and Sunset Disapplication) Regulations 2023

Oliver Heald Excerpts

Monday 18th September 2023 General Committees

[The Solicitor General]

What warm words of welcome those were, and what a great pleasure it is to follow them. I again thank the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston, for his kind words, as I do the hon. Member for Glasgow North, to whom I will come back in a few minutes’ time.

I thank the shadow Minister for his wide-ranging and detailed comments. He is right in a lot of what he says. I thank him for welcoming the measures, in so far as he does welcome them, and I thank him for his questions. On the question of why revocation is needed, the hon. Gentleman is being a little mealy mouthed, if I may say so, in welcoming this tidying up of the statute book—an important thing that the Government can and should do. He is right to say that that is not the limit of the Government’s ambitions, and of course it is not. He read a very short excerpt from the written ministerial statement—you will be pleased, Mr Stringer, to hear that I will not read all of it—but there are more details in the statement of the plans and ambitions of the Government.

The draft regulations are an important tidying-up exercise, which is why I introduced them as a short but important SI. Tidying up the statute book helps businesses, provides clarity and is good government. This is the dashboard working well and working as it should do. I warmly welcomed the dashboard, as the hon. Gentleman will have. It is right to say that that is part of good governance and of ensuring visibility, so that any of us can log on to gov.uk and see the latest status of things should we be so inclined.

On disapplication and preservation, section 1(4) was part of the retained EU law Bill for that reason. It was always envisaged that there would be a need for an SI such as this, and that is why we are here. I would phrase it in a slightly different way—in terms of good governance, checking, ensuring and preserving where necessary. The hon. Gentleman highlighted a couple of examples. The details were set out and published on 4 September—he is right. There are more details regarding the preservation regulations and SI, but I submit that that, again, is a form of good governance. I welcome his welcome, albeit that it was cautious.

The hon. Gentleman picked out one or two of the rest of the SIs. I agree with his assessment of the Sex Discrimination Act 1975—he is right. It is obsolete and was superseded by the Equality Act 2010. That was one of the SIs that I had highlighted in my notes. He also mentioned regulation 6. It is important to have saving provisions in relation to civil legal aid, as that ensures continuity of civil legal aid. I am not surprised that the hon. Gentleman picked that up—he was right to do so—but it is an important measure. That is why the saving provisions are in place.

Deep down, I think, the hon. Member for Glasgow North warmly welcomed these measures; I think that sums up his five or six minute speech. He called himself pedantic, but I think he is being too self-deprecating. It is important to have pedants on Committees such as this from time to time. I welcome his contribution. He also noted my hon. Friend the Member for Watford, giving me the giving me the opportunity to welcome him to this Committee. His presence highlights the expertise on both sides of this Committee. They sat through the retained EU law Bill Committee and kicked it off on Second Reading—a bit of history.

The hon. Member for Glasgow North reminded us of the history of the Solicitor General. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for South Swindon (Sir Robert Buckland) took through the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 as Solicitor General and, of course, the then Solicitor General Lord Howe took through the European Communities Act 1972. We even have a former Solicitor General on this Committee, as well.

[Sir Oliver Heald (North East Hertfordshire) (Con)]

Would my hon. and learned Friend agree that it is not unusual for a Solicitor General to deal with a measure of this sort, which covers a whole range of different laws? I took through the Deregulation Act 2015, which had a similar pattern to it.

[The Solicitor General]

I am grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend. He is absolutely right. As a distinguished former Solicitor General, he took through a number of pieces of legislation, as all Solicitor Generals do. It is always a pleasure to appear on Committees such as this one. The hon. Member for Glasgow North asked whether it would happen again and if it does, and if it is me, I look forward to it very much.

Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill

Oliver Heald Excerpts

Consideration of Lords message
Monday 12th June 2023 Commons Chamber

[Sir Robert Buckland (South Swindon) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Stirling (Alyn Smith). His remarks are always couched in a pithy and clear way, but I disagree fundamentally with his point about a legislative consent motion. It is entirely within the rights of the devolved Administrations and their Parliaments to consent or not, but the very fact that a consent has not been granted should not be regarded as either legally or politically fatal to a Bill that clearly deals with the competences that lie here at Westminster.

I am afraid that the characterisation of the hon. Gentleman and the nationalists—the SNP and nationalist parties elsewhere—that this is a power grab away from Cardiff and Edinburgh in favour of Westminster is a complete misreading of the situation. These powers lay in Brussels, at the European level, and they are coming back to the next level of Government. That is not in any way some sort of reverse grab away from the devolved Administrations. It cannot be, and it does not follow. I speak not only using my experience as a lawyer, but as a former territorial Secretary of State. That characterisation has to be resisted at every turn.

I will now deal with the three particular issues that we have before us today.

[Sir Oliver Heald (North East Hertfordshire) (Con)]

Before my right hon. and learned Friend departs from his remarks in response to the hon. Member for Stirling (Alyn Smith) about Scotland, does he agree that, if laws are passed in Europe, they are a compromise representing the interests of 27 different countries? There is an opportunity for some smart deregulation, and that would be as beneficial to Scotland as to any other part of the UK.

[Sir Robert Buckland]

I entirely agree with my right hon. and learned Friend. At the risk of invoking the ire of my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Sir William Cash), the new Companion of Honour, it is right to say that, although consensus was indeed the means by which regulations were agreed by the Council of Ministers, it usually involved the UK and its assent to that consensus. I know that is not quite the narrative that he agrees with, but we risk fighting the old battles that he and I were on either side of.

Oral Answers to Questions

Oliver Heald Excerpts

Wednesday 1st February 2023 Commons Chamber

[The Attorney General]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising that important case. Sentencing is, of course, a matter for the independent judiciary, the Ministry of Justice and the Sentencing Council. I know that he shares the Government’s desire to do all we can to make sure that the victims of violence against women and girls get justice.

[Sir Oliver Heald (North East Hertfordshire) (Con)]

Does the Attorney General agree that the Crown Prosecution Service is very dependent on the quality of the investigation from the outset? I therefore welcome this joint working, which is something that had been hoped for over many years and seems to be delivering results. I do not know whether she has anything she can say about its roll-out to the country as a whole.

[The Attorney General]

I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for his question. I know that this is something he has personally been working on for many years. It is true to say that joint working is the answer, and in Leeds on Friday I was able to see a police gatekeeper—that is what he is called, but I think a better word would be “interpreter”—who was able to work between the lawyers and the victim and witnesses and ensure that the case was investigated properly right from the beginning and that disclosure was managed in a sensible way.

Withdrawal Agreement: Legal Opinion

Oliver Heald Excerpts

1st reading: House of Commons
Tuesday 12th March 2019 Commons Chamber

[The Attorney General]

I would need to see the hon. Lady’s quotation in detail. The position is that if you agree and put your name to a joint instrument of this kind, you are bound by it. You are bound by it as to its interpretation and, if it expresses agreement to specific operational commitments, as this one does, you are bound by it on those, because it is an agreement that you will then carry out those specific commitments. It is an agreement, so we should not get hung up on labels. The question is: what is its substance? It is binding.

[Sir Oliver Heald (North East Hertfordshire) (Con)]

Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that article 31 of the Vienna convention makes it perfectly clear that this protocol does have legal force, is binding and is of equal status to the treaty? Does he also agree that substantial, legally binding changes have been delivered, and that it is wrong to read just one paragraph of his legal advice—one has to read each paragraph of it? When it comes to paragraph 17 of his advice, my right hon. and learned Friend makes it clear that this is a substantial change in the level of risk.

[The Attorney General]

I think I had better just say that I agree with that one.

Withdrawal Agreement: Legal Position

Oliver Heald Excerpts

Monday 3rd December 2018 Commons Chamber

[The Attorney General]

The regulatory regime in Great Britain will be a matter entirely for the Government of the United Kingdom. It is permitted and agreed under the protocol that they can maintain their regulatory regime in the way they choose, in which case they could choose to maintain, as I have no doubt they would wish to do, regulatory parity with the position in Northern Ireland. That is all the Secretary of State is saying, and I see nothing controversial in that.

[Sir Oliver Heald (North East Hertfordshire) (Con)]

I commend my right hon. and learned Friend on the statement he has made. Does he agree that in international law concepts of good faith and of using one’s best endeavours are very important, because right at the heart of international law is the idea of a rules-based system that good countries aspire to? Does he agree that it is therefore important both to the UK and to the EU that they should show good faith and should use their best endeavours? Does he also agree that if they did not do so when it came to the point that has just been raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Sir Michael Fallon) about paragraph 11 in the references to the protocol, it would be an absolute disaster for either the UK or the EU to be found not to be in good faith?

Oral Answers to Questions

Oliver Heald Excerpts

Tuesday 10th February 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Gyimah]

The hon. Lady talks about the register. Let me make it clear: Electoral Commission data show that 3 million people were missing from the register in 2000. By 2011, 7.5 million people were missing from the register. The deterioration of the register happened when the Labour party was in government. IER is part of the solution to get the register right. Under the old system, people moved house but the register did not. With online registration, we are making it simpler and easier for people to get on the register. That is how we will ensure that more people get on the register.

[Sir Oliver Heald (North East Hertfordshire) (Con)]

Will the Minister join me in welcoming the initiative, by Facebook and the Electoral Commission, to contact 35 million users of Facebook and encourage them to register online? Does he agree that this sort of innovative approach will lead to better use of online registration?

[Mr Gyimah]

My hon. and learned Friend is absolutely right. The way forward for the completeness and accuracy of the register is not to go back to the old system of block registration—I know the Labour party likes its block votes—but to use initiatives, such as using Facebook, to market to the vast majority of the British public who should be on the register but are not.

Deregulation Bill

Oliver Heald Excerpts

Wednesday 14th May 2014 Commons Chamber

Proceedings resumed.

[The Solicitor-General]

I echo the good wishes to my hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Rory Stewart) and commiserate with the worthy runners up.

On the Opposition’s amendment 72 to clause 1, the effect of clause 1 is to exempt self-employed persons from health and safety law, except those on a prescribed list of activities, which is to be laid in regulations.

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

I believe that a draft list was given to Members in Committee. I tried to obtain it in the Library, but was told that it is not available until the consultation starts. Would it be possible to at least have a copy of what was given to the Committee?

[The Solicitor-General]

Yes, I am sure that that would be possible. I am looking to the Box and to my Parliamentary Private Secretary sitting behind me to see whether that can be achieved. A list was certainly provided. It is not definitive. It was produced on the basis that regulations would be produced and in place by the time of Royal Assent, that there would be proper consultation, and that the Health and Safety Executive would be involved. The idea is that the House has an opportunity to see them and that there is proper consultation on them.

The Government believe that we should reduce the number of administrative hoops that self-employed people have to jump through to free them up to continue to do their jobs unhindered and to continue to contribute to the UK’s economic growth. Currently, section 3(2) of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 imposes a duty on every self-employed person to have regard to, and protect against, the risks that their undertaking creates both to themselves and others, regardless of the type of activity they are undertaking.

[Toby Perkins]

Will the Minister expand on what the hoops are that self-employed people will no longer have to jump through? In practical terms, for any self-employed person who has the time or inclination to watch the debate, what is it that they will no longer have to do that they would previously have found so burdensome and obstructive to their responsibilities?

[The Solicitor-General]

I will come on to that in a moment. Let me just say, for the benefit of the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell), that the prescribed list of undertakings has been compiled to include high hazard industries or activities. They will be prescribed if one of four criteria is met: where there are high numbers of self-employed people in a particular industry with high rates of injuries or fatalities, for example agriculture; where there is significant risk to members of the public, for example fairgrounds; where there is potential for mass fatalities from, for example, explosives, fireworks and so on; and where there is a European obligation to retain the general duty on self-employed persons, for example in construction, where there is a Council directive imposing duties on the self-employed. That is the nature of the way the list is being compiled.

In answer to the hon. Member for Chesterfield (Toby Perkins), at the moment, a self-employed accountant or an author working at home would be under a duty to carry out a risk assessment. He said in Committee that that would be a quick and easy thing to do, but the point is that every self-employed person in the country—we are talking about millions of people—has that duty. The perception that they have an onerous burden on them was identified by Professor Löfstedt at King’s College, the leading expert in risk assessment, who was asked to examine this for the Government. The amendment seeks to limit the number of self-employed persons covered by section 3(2) of the 1974 Act. The change would mean that only self-employed persons who conduct an undertaking of a prescribed description would be covered by the duty. That is what the regulations will prescribe.

The change has been proposed as a result of the recommendations of Professor Ragnar Löfstedt in his report, “Reclaiming health and safety for all: An independent review of health and safety legislation”, which was published in 2011. He recommended that self-employed persons be exempt from health and safety law where they pose no potential risk of harm to others through their work activity.

“Prescribed” is defined by the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 to mean prescribed by regulations made by the Secretary of State. This clause therefore enables the Secretary of State to make regulations for the purposes of bringing self-employed persons within the scope of section 3(2), where their undertaking poses a significant risk of harm. Committee members will have seen a list of prescribed undertakings, which will be subject to public consultation and parliamentary procedure. The list is designed to strike a careful balance between the need to free self-employed people from unnecessary burdens while still providing the important protections to those who need them. The clause was debated in Committee, and the Committee voted for it. I thus urge the hon. Member for Chesterfield and his colleagues not to press the amendment and I urge Members to accept Government new clause 2.

[Toby Perkins]

I am pleased to speak to new clause 2 and to support amendment 72, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central (Chi Onwurah) and me. I start by declaring my interest as a member of Unite the Union, which has made representations on this issue, and by expressing my gratitude for the opportunity to discuss these amendments. We are grateful to the Government and others who supported our demand for proper time to debate the important health and safety aspects of the Bill. We felt that the original programme motion might well have denied Members that opportunity.

Let me respond first to the Minister’s comments about new clause 2. Labour Members warmly welcome the intention to allow Sikhs to wear turbans in place of head protection in all workplaces. Making such a change is important to our Sikh communities and for our country as a whole. I am pleased that the Minister was able to announce the extension of the exemption to Northern Ireland. That will be pleasing to the Sikh community in Northern Ireland and throughout Great Britain. The turban is not only the most visual part of a Sikh’s faith, but a proud part of our island story. We want the contribution of Sikhs to be visibly demonstrated in workplaces across the country. The Minister was absolutely right to speak warmly of the contribution that Sikhs have made to Britain. The success of this approach was seen in 2012 when Guardsman Jatinderpal Bhullar became the first turban wearer on guard duty outside Buckingham palace.

Despite our broad and deep support, we feel that the new clause could be clarified, so let me make a couple of suggestions for the Minister to consider as further improvements. First, on the blanket exclusion for emergency response services and military personnel, we believe that each case should be considered according to its individual merit. What further steps can the Minister take on that? The pace of technological change in the future will never be as slow as it is today—amazing though that may seem to us now—so it would be prudent to keep the mechanisms for making such amendments as flexible and responsive as possible. Why has the Minister not opted to have exclusions set outside the primary legislation as a statutory instrument simply to allow changes to the law to move with the time?

[The Solicitor-General]

The exclusion does not amount to a blanket exemption. It applies only in hazardous operational situations in which the wearing of a safety helmet is considered necessary. That means that all other means of protecting the Sikh must be considered and rejected before that legal requirement would kick in. It is based on circumstances specific to the particular Sikh, and only a very hazardous situation would require this to happen.

[Toby Perkins]

The Minister may not have understood what I was talking about or I may not have understood what he was talking about. I believe that there is a blanket exemption to the exclusion with respect to emergency response services and military personnel.

[The Solicitor-General]

The exemption applies to the emergency services and the armed forces, but it is not a blanket one. It applies only in hazardous operational situations in which the wearing of the helmet is necessary. The narrow circumstances about a particular Sikh are looked at, and then the decision is made. The aim is that it should apply only in such circumstances as the burning building that I mentioned earlier.

[Toby Perkins]

I am grateful for that clarification. Will the Minister clarify the definition of “workplace”, as concerns have been raised that the term could be ambiguous and confusing? Could he offer some clarification and perhaps tighten up the definition and the language more generally? For example, would a Sikh working within a vehicle be considered to be working in a workplace?

--- Later in debate ---

[Toby Perkins]

The idea that the Liberal Democrats might be able to save themselves a bit of shame is a novel concept—perhaps my hon. Friend is being a little bit too ambitious—but we shall none the less listen with great interest to what they say.

[The Solicitor-General]

The hon. Gentleman, in his lurch to the left, seems to have forgotten that when his party was in office, it was in favour of a tenfold increase in contracting out in the NHS, and in favour of flexible working. Those were the things of which his party spoke, as new Labour. Is the hon. Gentleman old Labour?

--- Later in debate ---

[John McDonnell]

If the Government are going to legislate on the basis of hearsay and almost prejudice, they wind up with legislation that renders itself ineffective in the long run. I genuinely cannot see how the list could be implemented effectively.

[The Solicitor-General]

I am following the logic of what the hon. Gentleman is saying, but he should appreciate that the detailed regulations will be consulted on, which will include proper definitions. He has a list of activities, but the consultation will bore down into the detail. If he or his constituents have particular concerns, he will be able to raise those points and the Government will take account of them.

[John McDonnell]

That worries me even more. I make this not as a party political point, but as a practical governmental point: that means that the legislation is a leap in the dark, before we know in any detail the consequences of what we are doing.

The Government have been looking at the matter for three years now. I met Lord—I have forgotten his name. He got the sack after having a few drinks too many at a reception. I met the original Lord who was consulting on this. He turned up with an individual who I thought was his butler. It was an adviser. He eventually got the push because he had a few drinks too many and said some unwise words. He was so impressive that I cannot remember his name. I met him three years ago when the measure was first mooted. We went through examples of what he thought was unnecessary health and safety legislation in certain areas. One of the areas he was looking at was shops, so I introduced him to the Bakers, Food and Allied Workers Union, which explained to him that health and safety matters were a worry in shops where its workers were.

From that original prejudicial approach, I thought the Government were going to lay out in detail how the duties would be implemented. To introduce the legislation without such detail in such an important area will render the legislation ineffective and put people at risk.

--- Later in debate ---

[John Cryer]

My hon. Friends the Members for Derby North (Chris Williamson) and for Luton North (Kelvin Hopkins) and I served on the Committee, where this was one of the most controversial elements of the Bill. As my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) said, the list has gone through all sorts of vexed changes and debates. In Committee, we were already on the third or fourth version. The sorts of questions he has asked today—“Why is this on the list?”, “Why is that not on the list?”—were being asked then.

[The Solicitor-General]

I fully accept what the hon. Gentleman says about the lively debate on this subject, but only one list was produced for Members, and it is the list that has been produced today.

[John Cryer]

If I am mistaken, I apologise. I remember seeing at least two versions, but perhaps I have got that slightly wrong. Nevertheless, there is still controversy over why certain occupations are on the list and others are left off. I am concerned that the Bill is nearing the end of its progress, yet nobody is quite sure what will be on the list and what will not. The Solicitor-General said in Committee that the Government would consult on the issue, but that should have been done some months ago. As my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington has said, the discussions have been going on for about three years and it is only now that we are getting anywhere near some sort of public consultation.

[John Cryer]

Perhaps I am a victim of my own fevered imagination when it comes to the list, but I thought I remembered seeing different versions. My hon. Friend is right about the list.

[The Solicitor-General]

It may be that what the hon. Gentleman is remembering is the different approach taken by the Joint Committee. It came up with different proposals, to which the Government responded with the list.

[John Cryer]

Okay, I am prepared to accept that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Katy Clark]

I refer to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, which indicates that the trade union Unite recently made a financial donation to the Labour party in part of my constituency. I am not sure whether I am strictly required to make that reference, but Unite is hugely concerned—as are all British trade unions—about the Government’s stance on this matter.

As the Minister said in his opening remarks, the recommendation in the Bill came from the Löfstedt review of health and safety regulation. The Löfstedt committee did not hold a unanimous position, however, and the TUC nominee on the Löfstedt review, as well as the MP representing Labour, were clear that they were opposed to the position taken. Indeed, in autumn 2012 when the Health and Safety Executive consulted on exempting some of the self-employed from health and safety provisions, the majority of those who responded to that consultation—including a majority of the self-employed—were opposed to the proposal. Despite that, it has been included in the Bill.

The proposal was also opposed by professionals involved in health and safety. Indeed, their chartered body, the Institution of Occupational Safety and Health, stated:

“This is a very short-sighted and misleading move, it won’t actually help anyone; it won’t support business; but it will cause general confusion.”

That confusion has been illustrated clearly by the debate today, particularly on the list of types of employment, self-employment, and the sectors that would be included under the health and safety provisions, and those that might not be.

At the moment, all self-employed people have a legal duty to ensure that they protect others from harm resulting from their work activity. The strength of the health and safety legislation in the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 is its simplicity, and the fact that the test and legal obligation involved is simple and applies to everybody. One problem with other areas of employment protection is that it is often an employee who may receive some form of right or entitlement, rather than workers in general, which means that many people try to avoid obligations by using devices such as zero-hours contracts. The fact that the Government are proceeding down such a path for health and safety is a negative development that I believe we will all regret in years to come.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) indicated, fatality rates for those in self-employment are far higher than for those who are employed. The current fatality rate is 1.1 person per 100,000 for the self-employed, compared with 0.4 per 100,000 for employees. In part, that might be because self-employed people are more likely to be found in more dangerous occupations. However, the statistics on people with the same occupation show that self-employed people seem to have higher fatality rates.

Migrant workers are more likely to be self-employed and therefore more likely to be affected. They are obviously more likely to have a poor command of English, which probably means that they are more in need of clear guidance. Six out of 10 Romanian and Bulgarian immigrants living in Britain last year were self-employed. No statistics are currently kept on the number of people who are killed, injured or made ill as a result of the actions of the self-employed, whether relating to self-employed people themselves or the general public.

We know that the problem of deaths and illnesses associated with work is extremely significant. Worldwide, 2.3 million die as a result of incidents at work every year. Hazards, the health and safety magazine, estimates that, in Britain, work kills 1,400 people each year, and that 50,000 die in work-related incidents. Health and safety legislation is far from red tape. It has saved probably hundreds of thousands of lives since it came into effect in 1974. The Government are trying yet again in the Bill to take away that protection for the self-employed. It is a bad day for Britain. I ask the Minister to think again and to look at the legislation. I ask him to protect the simplicity of the 1974 Act and ensure that all workers and all at work are covered by it.

[The Solicitor-General]

We have had a lively debate, featuring contributions from my hon. Friend the Member for Rochford and Southend East (James Duddridge), and the hon. Members for Chesterfield (Toby Perkins), for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell), for Derby North (Chris Williamson), for Leyton and Wanstead (John Cryer), for Luton North (Kelvin Hopkins) and for North Ayrshire and Arran (Katy Clark).

I will begin with the two points made by the hon. Member for Chesterfield on the Northern Ireland provision—new clause 2. The meaning of “a workplace” does include a vehicle or a motorcycle. I believe I have answered his point on a “blanket provision”. His other point was on article 13A of the 1990 order, which he described as section 12. The point is that the measure relates to the protection of Sikhs from racial discrimination in connection with the requirements to wear safety helmets. Subsections (9) to (11) of new clause 2 amend article 13A so that any person who attempts to impose a requirement on a turban-wearing Sikh to wear a safety helmet at a workplace—rather than just on a construction site—contrary to article 13 of the 1990 order, would be discriminating against the Sikh individual under the Race Relations (Northern Ireland) Order 1997. Avoiding that liability would not be considered a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.

On health and safety law, it is worth starting by making the point that the Bill saves £300 million and is designed to lift burdens from business. I thought the Professor Löfstedt process was belittled somewhat by the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran, but there is no question but that he is highly regarded in the field. The process was done in an academic way, involving industry representatives. At the end of it, he made the point that there is a case for following a similar approach to other countries and exempting from health and safety law those self-employed people—those who are not employees—whose workplace activities pose no potential risk or harm to others. The debate has been conducted by some hon. Members as though the Government want to put people in danger, but all the dangerous activities will be exempt. We are trying to get off the backs of people who want to make jobs: those who want to go out and be self-employed and employ others.

--- Later in debate ---

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)]

Order. This is becoming a speech. It is supposed to be an intervention. We have heard the speech once and we do not need to hear it again.

[The Solicitor-General]

On some of the early points that were made, this is a matter—

[Chris Williamson]

Will the Solicitor-General give way?

[The Solicitor-General]

Hang on. This is a matter of exempting people in safe occupations from the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974. We are doing that for self-employed people because we want to encourage business. The process being followed to do this is very carefully thought through. The proposed prescribed list will ensure that self-employed persons conducting undertakings where they are most at risk of serious injury or fatality will not be exempt from the law. There is, therefore, an element of the debate that is just not part of the Government’s policy or the Bill. The hon. Gentleman mentions painting and decorating. That is covered, because the description of construction, which is on the list, includes painting and decorating. I will come on to some of the other points that have been made in a minute.

The measure has been described as having particular reference to bogus self-employed contracts, but that is not the case. This does not change the law: no employment law will be changed by the Bill. A number of other points were made. It was suggested that we should look only at the evidence of consultants—the institution that was mentioned—who give advice to people on health and safety. It is the job of members of such institutions to go out and give health and safety advice to people who want to set up in business and be self-employed, so it is not a shock to find that they are not keen on having 1 million or 2 million people exempted from the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act. Equally, we are told that this is a lawyers charter. Lawyers give advice and they are not saying what one would expect—that this measure will help them in some way.

[Chris Williamson]

Will the Solicitor-General give way?

[The Solicitor-General]

No, I am going to continue for a moment.

I was asked about support from organisations with a business background. Yes, they support these provisions. [Interruption.] Well, it is true; they do. There are people who benefit from having an extensive health and safety law that enables them to go out and give advice about these issues, and clearly they have a point of view. Those who want to represent small businesses are in favour of this measure because it helps people to set up in business.

[Katy Clark]

rose—

[The Solicitor-General]

I will give way in a few seconds.

Another point was raised about confusion between the workplace—[Interruption.] There was confusion in much of what was said between the place where the work takes place and the activity. It is the activity that is going to be exempted. If something is a dangerous or hazardous activity, it will be exempted from the change, so that people will be safe. The hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington asked about the docks, but if someone is doing something dangerous or hazardous there, they will be exempt. There is a separate regime for maritime activity, which is organised differently by the Maritime and Coastguard Agency—the enforcing authority for that area of endeavour.

[Toby Perkins]

The Solicitor-General is making a bizarre contribution, which is adding to the confusion rather than resolving it. He argues that if someone is doing an activity that is prescribed as safe but in a dangerous place, they will not be covered by the legislation. Does he not understand that the people who fund his party are those who will end up saving money, while the people in the trade unions are those who, over the years, have done the dying. That is why they feel so strongly about health and safety, which needs to be protected. The Solicitor-General needs to clear up the confusion, not add to it.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Solicitor-General]

The Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 has existed for a good period of time and done important work, but it is reasonable to exempt from it people who are in safe occupations or are self-employed after an academic study has found no reason for them to be regulated. What is wrong with that? It beggars belief that the party that is supposed to be campaigning for work—the Labour party, is it not?—is opposing the entrepreneurship that would make more work available.

[Chris Williamson]

Will the Solicitor-General give way?

[The Solicitor-General]

I have one or two more points to make, and then I shall see if I can give way again. [Interruption.] All right, I will give way.

[Chris Williamson]

The hon. and learned Gentleman says that the provisions are clear and that there is no confusion, but clearly there is confusion. Why cannot the Solicitor-General see it? I thought he was a solicitor with a legal brain, so surely he must be able to understand it. [Interruption.] He is a barrister, even; my goodness me. Can he not see that this is not an exhaustive list, and that it will therefore create confusion? There is no problem with the legislation as it stands, so why is he trying to change it? He is in search of a problem that does not exist.

[The Solicitor-General]

There certainly is confusion on the Opposition Benches because Opposition Members simply do not understand deregulation or entrepreneurship. If we say, “Here is a list”, they say, “Well, it is not defined enough.” and when we explain that there will be a full consultation on all the definitions, they say, “But that is even worse”. How can it be worse? It is obviously a process that has been going on in a measured and sensible way. It is designed to deregulate, to enable business to thrive in our country and to enable us to continue the improved growth we are seeing. It is a way of enabling employment to continue to grow in our country.

The hon. Member for Chesterfield talked about looking at the polling, but he should look at the polling, because the people of this country are starting to turn to the Conservative party and to recognise the achievements of the Conservative-led coalition. It is the Labour party that should be worried, because not a single one of its policies would help this country. Labour has a negative approach; in Committee, no solid or positive proposal was made.

A deregulation Bill that saves £300 million, made up of many small measures, is something that Labour Members simply do not understand. They say that this or that measure will not save that much money, but when all the measures are taken together, we see a change—a transformation. This Bill is about reducing burdens on business, and about the future of our country.

Question put and agreed to.

New clause 2 accordingly read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

Amendment proposed: 72, page 1, line 1, leave out clause 1.—(Toby Perkins.)

Serious Fraud Office (Contingencies Fund Advance)

Oliver Heald Excerpts

Thursday 30th January 2014 Written Statements

[The Solicitor-General (Oliver Heald)]

I would like to inform the House that a cash advance from the Contingencies Fund has been sought for the Serious Fraud Office (SFO).

The SFO has incurred higher than anticipated expenditure and a reserve claim has been agreed by HM Treasury as part of the supplementary estimate 2013-14 process.

The advance is required to meet an urgent cash requirement on existing services pending parliamentary approval of the 2013-14 supplementary estimate. The supplementary estimate seeks an increase in both the resource departmental expenditure limit and the net cash requirement in order to settle material liabilities.

Parliamentary approval for additional resources of £19 million will be sought in a supplementary estimate for the SFO. Pending that approval, urgent expenditure estimated at £11 million will be met by repayable cash advances from the Contingencies Fund.

The advance will be repaid upon Royal Assent of the Supply and Appropriation (Anticipation and Adjustments) Bill.

Offences Against Children

Oliver Heald Excerpts

Wednesday 20th November 2013 Ministerial Corrections

[Diana Johnson]

To ask the Attorney-General how many referrals have been made to the Crown Prosecution Service by the police regarding child sexual offences in each of the last five years.

[Official Report, 1 November 2013, Vol. 569, c. 609-10W.]

Letter of correction from Oliver Heald:

An error has been identified in the written answer given to the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson) on 1 November 2013.

The full answer given was as follows:

[The Solicitor-General]

The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) does not maintain a central record of the number of referrals made to the CPS by the police for allegations of child sexual offences. The CPS does identify, by way of a monitoring flag, the number of pre-charge decisions made against suspects alleged to have been involved in the sexual abuse of children. The following table sets out the number of such decisions in each of the last five years:

[The Solicitor-General]

The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) does not maintain a central record of the number of referrals made to the CPS by the police for allegations of child sexual offences. The CPS does identify, by way of a monitoring flag, the number of pre-charge decisions made against suspects alleged to have been involved in the abuse of children. The following table sets out the number of such decisions in each of the last five years:

Welsh Assembly Legislation (Attorney-General)

Oliver Heald Excerpts

Tuesday 15th October 2013 Commons Chamber

[Paul Flynn]

Absolutely. We could have saved lots of the bedroom tax if this had not been done. The legal cost incurred by the Welsh Government was £30,000, and about £15,000 was spent on civil service time in the Wales Office. The total bill was £150,000. Why? Because some pernickety piffle artist in the Attorney-General’s office was trying to make some kind of stand against devolution. He went through the might of the High Court. Five judges were there, looking dignified and wise in their wigs. The total number of judges who agreed with the Government was zero. It was a unanimous vote that this was a frivolous intervention.

[The Solicitor-General (Oliver Heald)]

While following the very excited way in which the hon. Gentleman is putting his case, I cannot let him get him get away with that, because the Court made it clear that it was a perfectly justifiable application, and in fact it clarified the law in an important way.

[Paul Flynn]

I think that a number of them agreed and the judgment was won.

--- Later in debate ---

[Huw Irranca-Davies (Ogmore) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Newport West (Paul Flynn) not only on introducing the debate and on his excellent peroration on the stymieing of legislation and policy in Wales by the current Westminster Government, but on expounding on the narrative history of the Chartists and why it is relevant. I can only share his disappointment that we have so little time to debate this—we could go overnight, but, in compliance with the wishes of right hon. and hon. Members, we will try to avoid that situation.

The legislative competence order process was a previous mechanism for producing legislation in Wales. It was slightly cumbersome and convoluted, and required a great deal of detailed scrutiny in Parliament. However, it passed some cognisance of the growing authority of the Welsh Government. LCOs were much criticised at the time—rightly, in some ways, because they caused delay and were complex, even for the very good officials in the Wales Office in London and in Cardiff, and for Welsh Government officials, who worked through the minutiae. The intention—to afford proper scrutiny in Parliament and ensure that the Welsh Government could introduce their own measures under the process within their clearly devolved responsibilities and so on—was good. Yes, it caused delays, but there was a good spirit. We managed to pass LCOs into legislation, even after good scrutiny in Parliament by the Welsh Affairs Committee and others. There was never any intention to hold things up unduly.

The purpose was the growing relationship under the LCO system between the right scrutiny of this place at that time and the right role of the Welsh people, through their elected officials in the Welsh Assembly and the Welsh Government, to introduce appropriate measures from Wales. As my hon. Friend pointed out, that was not without its difficulties. It could sometimes be tortuous—even the now legendary red meat LCO took a little time to get on to the books, and that was one of the more straightforward orders—but we got there eventually. On all occasions, the intention of my right hon. Friends the Members for Neath (Mr Hain) and for Torfaen (Paul Murphy) was for their officials to work with officials in the Welsh Government and the Welsh Assembly to try to progress the measures through the LCO mechanism, which was imperfect but was what we had at the time.

What has followed, with the will of the Welsh people, is ostensibly an attempt to streamline the process to give clarity on where devolved responsibilities lie, and to allow the Welsh Government, the Welsh people and Welsh civic society to get on with passing their own laws—whether we, on both sides of the House, might agree or disagree with them ideologically—to define their own democratic path. As we have heard, it has not quite gone that way. For those on the Opposition Benches it feels like there has been by the current Secretary of State for Wales—I do not blame the Solicitor-General for looking quizzical—a maybe inadvertent but deliberate attempt to hold up, to challenge, to rebuke the Welsh people for being so impertinent as to actually bring forward their own legislation.

[The Solicitor-General]

I am surprised to hear the hon. Gentleman suggest that LCOs are better than the current system, whereby the National Assembly for Wales has primary powers in 20 areas. What is more, most of the Bills are going through without any difficulty. There have been difficulties with two, but the idea that we should go back to LCOs is wrong.

[Huw Irranca-Davies]

I could not agree with the hon. and learned Gentleman more. Perhaps I should clarify what I was saying: LCOs were clearly imperfect, but the new system is meant to be better. Even with the LCO paraphernalia—it was difficult and cumbersome—attempts were made within the constitutional arrangement, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Torfaen has made clear, to work through those difficulties. If necessary, and as a last resort, they would be escalated up the constitutional food chain for resolution at a higher level, but there was certainly not the seemingly macho political posturing of taking it outside of this place without recourse to internal mechanisms and straight to the Supreme Court. I can see only one possible justification for that: to prove some sort of point and say to the people of Wales and the democratically elected representatives in Wales, “Know your place.”

--- Later in debate ---

[The Solicitor-General (Oliver Heald)]

I start by thanking the hon. Member for Newport West (Paul Flynn) for initiating the debate. The issues raised are important and go to the heart of the UK’s devolution arrangements. It is clear that the issues have raised concerns among several hon. Members.

The hon. Gentleman, in his characteristic way, brought in history and his own political struggle over many years, and it was clear that he would like devolution to go further still. That is his viewpoint. I found the information about the three villages law of 945 particularly interesting, although I am not sure that it would be of current import and could cause some concerns if implemented by the current Government. It is not the Conservative’s stance on law and order, but it was an interesting piece of context.

The subject of the debate is the role of the Attorney-General in reviewing legislation passed by the National Assembly for Wales—a role that I share with him. Despite the comments of the right hon. Member for Neath (Mr Hain), this role was conferred by Parliament on the Attorney-General under the Government of Wales Act 2006. That was, of course, under a Labour Government, with their own approach to the issue of devolution. They had set forward a system of devolution that was a conferred powers model rather than the sort of model used elsewhere in the United Kingdom. As that happened, Parliament recognised that the devolution settlement for Wales must be made to work. The 2006 Act sets out the 20 “devolved” subjects in respect of which the National Assembly may legislate. It is the responsibility of this Parliament to legislate in any area that is not devolved.

The 2006 Act provides for the Attorney-General to consider each Bill of the National Assembly, so the Government look carefully at all legislation passed by it to ensure that it falls within the Assembly’s legislative competence. The Act provides that, where the Attorney-General or I consider a Bill to go beyond the Assembly’s competence, we can refer it to the Supreme Court to decide the question.

All of that recognises that it is in the nature of legislation that it may often appear to be about more than one thing. Where that happens with legislation passed by the National Assembly, a judgment has to be made about whether the legislation is about something that either is or is not devolved. The Government of Wales Act 2006 provides a means for the Attorney-General and, if necessary, the Supreme Court, to arrive at that judgment. If it did not, the devolution settlement could not work. The same power to refer a Bill to the Supreme Court is conferred on the Counsel General for Wales. In this way, there is an appropriate equality between the UK Government and the Welsh Government.

That illustrates an important point that I do not want to get lost in the debate. Something has been made of the idea that this Government are anti-devolution or are somehow determined to thwart the will of the Welsh Government and the democratically elected National Assembly for Wales. Where concerns arise, as the right hon. Member for Torfaen (Paul Murphy) said, most are resolved by a process of negotiation between the UK and the Welsh Governments. My officials have excellent working relations with their colleagues in the Wales Office and their opposite numbers in the Counsel General’s Office. The Attorney-General and I have excellent working relations, as one would expect, with the Secretary of State for Wales and with the Counsel General, Theodore Huckle QC. Together, we are working hard to try to reach agreement.

It was suggested by the hon. Member for Llanelli (Nia Griffith), the shadow Minister for Wales, that there was a problem with the UK Government making an effort to resolve issues before they escalated to the Supreme Court. It is, however, the last resort. The Wales Office, working with the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, has discussed with the Welsh Assembly Government concerns about the Agricultural Sector (Wales) Bill from the outset, and the Secretary of State wrote to the First Minister as soon as the draft Bill was available, expressing concerns about it—but the Welsh Government could not be persuaded to address them. The mechanisms provided under the Government of Wales Act 2006 will therefore need to be followed. Under its provisions, we are guardians of the Welsh devolution settlement and together we must put our efforts into making it work.

A reference to the Supreme Court is not a confrontational process. It does not amount to this Government or any Government picking a fight with the National Assembly. It is a simple recognition of the fact that a particular piece of Welsh legislation raises difficult devolution questions that are best answered by the independent Supreme Court. That process of resolution is to the benefit of the Welsh Government, the National Assembly and the UK Government. It is in all our interests that we fully and clearly understand the boundaries of the devolution settlement.

Full primary law-making powers are still relatively new for the National Assembly. It was the UK Government and the former Secretary of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs Gillan), who facilitated the successful referendum in 2011 on the devolution of those powers to the Assembly, allowing it to pass its own laws in 20 devolved areas for the first time. That was a major departure in comparison with a legislative competence order, as it lodged the power squarely with the Assembly.

We are still learning about the settlement. Decisions by the Supreme Court about what is within the legislative competence of the Assembly allow us to establish the boundary with greater certainty, and the Supreme Court itself has recognised that when there is uncertainty, it is appropriate for a reference to be made to allow it to be resolved at the earliest possible stage. That was true of the byelaws case.

Having said all that, 1 do not want the House to think that a reference to the Supreme Court is made lightly, or is somehow to be seen as the easy way out. Several Bills have now been passed by the Assembly, and the vast majority are uncontroversial in devolution terms. For the most part, there is consensus with the Welsh Government and the National Assembly that the legislation passed is within competence.

It is clear from this evening’s debate that the reference of the Agricultural Sector (Wales) Bill has given rise to strong emotions, which were set out by the hon. Member for Swansea East (Mrs James). Given that the reference has been made, I do not think that I should discuss the arguments about, in particular, the competence of that Bill in any detail here. We shall await the Court’s decision. What I will say is that the reference relates to all the themes that I have already identified, and that the United Kingdom Government take the view that employment law is a UK competence.

The Attorney-General considers that the Agricultural Sector (Wales) Bill raises important questions about the extent of the Assembly’s legislative competence and the boundary of the devolution settlement. Despite the good working relationships that I have described and the efforts of the UK Government, it was not possible to persuade the Welsh Government that there was a way forward that would meet their concerns. That is why the Supreme Court will have to make the decision. It is a sign of the Government’s respect for the current devolution arrangements, and our wish to provide certainty and stability for those who work in the agricultural sector, that we are continuing the existing agricultural wages regime in Wales until the court case is decided.

The Government of Wales Act 2006 was introduced by the previous Labour Government. It provided a conferred model for Welsh devolution whereby subjects that were devolved and within the legislative competence of the Assembly were specified in the legislation. The present Government believe that the conferred model is right for Wales. The settlement is not perfect, and the Silk commission—which has been mentioned—is currently considering how it could be improved. The Government will respond to Part 1 of the commission’s recommendations in due course, and, as the House will know, there was a further consultation about stamp duty during the summer. The Government are determined to see the process through, and to make it work.

There is some room in the settlement for different views in certain areas about the extent of the National Assembly’s legislative competence. That is why the last Labour Government provided a mechanism for the Supreme Court to scrutinise Assembly Bills. However, I agree with the right hon. Member for Torfaen that, if possible, it should be the last resort.

It was this Government who enabled the referendum on full Assembly powers to take place. That is an achievement of which we are proud, and because of it we are seeing a growing and maturing legislature in Wales. That is what devolution is about.

The hon. Member for Newport West mentioned the Asbestos (Recovery of Medical Costs) Bill. It is true that there have been constructive discussions about the Bill, but that demonstrates that the UK Government are seeking to resolve the devolution concerns at the earliest possible stage.

I do not think that the hon. Member for Ogmore (Huw Irranca-Davies) should be so pessimistic. I realise that to some extent he was making a political case, and it was very nice of him to say how reasonable and fair-minded I am; I have always found him to be the same. However, I think that progress is being made. It is early days, and I believe that this will be seen as a major achievement which is proceeding effectively.

Question put and agreed to.