Oral Answers to Questions
Debate between Oliver Heald and Lindsay Hoyle(11 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sir Oliver Heald (North East Hertfordshire) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the reasons—[Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. When a Member is asking a question, other Members should wait or be seated.
Sir Oliver Heald
Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the great strengths of our rejoining Horizon and the other European programmes is that our expert researchers and top professors will lead research teams that attract researchers from across the world, including the EU? That is one way to retain researchers here.
Oral Answers to Questions
Debate between Oliver Heald and Lindsay Hoyle(2 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Speaker
I call Sir Oliver Heald—[Interruption.] I didn’t know you were so popular!
Sir Oliver Heald (North East Hertfordshire) (Con)
Petitions
Debate between Oliver Heald and Lindsay Hoyle
Sir Oliver Heald (North East Hertfordshire) (Con)
On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Clearly, we are soon moving on to the Adjournment debate. As there seems to be more time than is often the case, would it be in order for Members such as me who are concerned about chalk streams to make a contribution to the debate, or do I need the permission of the Member in charge or the Minister?
Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Lindsay Hoyle)
I can help with that: no, in both cases. As there is more than half an hour for the debate, it is open for other Members to speak—obviously as long as their speech is relevant.
National Health Service
Debate between Oliver Heald and Lindsay Hoyle(9 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
You have certainly corrected that. It is a point of correction, rather than a point of order. It is all on the record now and everyone can continue. Let us see whether we can turn the heat down a bit.
Sir Oliver Heald
Further to that point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I just do not accept the point of order that the shadow Secretary of State has made. May I just—
Mr Deputy Speaker
Order. No—I said straight away that it was not a point of order, but a point of correction. The point is that it is all on the record for people to read tomorrow, to continue a debate on who is right and who is wrong. Both parties, quite rightly, have stated what their belief is. Mr David T.C. Davies has not much time to go and I am very worried that he will not get to the end of his speech. He has only eight minutes in total.
Deregulation Bill
Debate between Oliver Heald and Lindsay Hoyle(10 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
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.
Deregulation Bill
Debate between Oliver Heald and Lindsay Hoyle(10 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Solicitor-General (Oliver Heald)
I beg to move amendment 58, page 157, line 11, at end insert—
‘Mining Industry Act 1920 (c. 50)
3A The Mining Industry Act 1920 is repealed.
3B In consequence of paragraph 3A, in Schedule 4 to the Mines and Quarries Act 1954, omit the entry for the Mining Industry Act 1920.
Mining Industry Act 1926 (c. 28)
3C (1) In the Mining Industry Act 1926, omit section 20 (which confers power on coal-mining companies to establish profit sharing schemes irrespective of the terms of their articles of association).
(2) The repeal made by sub-paragraph (1) is to have no effect in relation to any scheme still in existence that was established, and is being carried on, in reliance on the power conferred by section 20 of the Mining Industry Act 1926.’.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Government amendments 75 and 59.
Amendment 4, page 162, line 22, at end insert—
Part 7A
Civil Law
Defamation Act 1996 (c.31)
34A Omit section 13 of the Defamation Act 1996 (which allows an individual litigant in defamation cases to waive the ban in Article IX of the Bill of Rights on proceedings in Parliament being impeached or questioned in court).’.
The Joint Committees on Parliamentary Privilege in 1999 and 2013 both recommended the repeal of this hardly-used provision.
Government amendment 60.
Amendment 73, page 163, line 12, at end insert—
‘Part 9 Communications
Copyright Design and Patents Act 1988
37 The Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 is amended as follows.
38 Section 73 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 (Reception and re-transmission of wireless broadcast by cable) is revoked.’.
Section 73 was introduced in the 1980s to encourage cable roll-out as a competing platform to terrestrial (analogue) television. This has clearly now been achieved and cable is a highly-effective and well-resourced competitor to Sky and Freeview.
The Solicitor-General
This group contains amendments to schedule 18, which makes provision for repealing legislation that is no longer of practical use. Before I outline the amendments, may I say how much I welcome re-encountering the hon. Members for Chesterfield (Toby Perkins) and for Newcastle upon Tyne Central (Chi Onwurah), whose very helpful and constructive approach in Committee has improved the Bill?
The Mining Industry Act 1920 and section 20 of the Mining Industry Act 1926 will be repealed as they are no longer needed for mining and quarrying. Most of the Mining Industry Act 1920 has already been repealed, and we now seek to repeal the remaining provisions. That will not affect rights to ownership. The remaining sections are outdated administrative arrangements. For example, functions were originally conferred on the Board of Trade, but were long ago transferred to the Secretary of State through a transfer of functions. Sections 18 and 22 concern the powers to make drainage schemes for groups of mines, but they are now dealt with by negotiations between mine owners and other local landowners. Sections 25 and 26 are technical provisions.
Overall, the only matter that needs to be mentioned is section 20 of the 1926 Act, which provides for the establishment of profit-sharing schemes. It of course pre-dates the nationalisation and privatisation of the coal mining industry, as well as modern companies legislation. Such legislation should apply to coal mining companies in the same way as it applies to any others, so there is no need for any special provision. However, the amendment contains a saving provision, because it would clearly not be fair to undermine any existing profit-sharing schemes, and they will be allowed to continue.
Most of the Merchant Shipping Act 1988 has already been repealed. Section 37, which relates to the licensing of tidal works by harbour authorities, disapplies the requirements of section 34 of the Coast Protection Act 1949. That Act has already been repealed, so the saving provision is no longer of any practical effect.
Amendment 59 will extend the repeal of the Milk (Cessation of Production) Act 1985 to Northern Ireland. EU legislation in 1984 set up a system of production—the milk quota system—in which, in essence, each producer was allocated a quota. That will end on 31 March 2015, so the underlying EU legislation will cease to be effective next April. The amendment will allow the Bill to repeal and revoke all relevant UK legislation relating to Northern Ireland, as well as England and Wales.
Amendment 60 will ensure that the saving provision in paragraph 3 of schedule 18 to the Housing Act 1988 will cease to have effect in England, although it will continue to apply in Wales. The saving provision has become redundant in England. Essentially, sections 56 to 58 of the Housing Act 1980, which have been repealed, enabled landlords to grant assured tenancies for newly built or newly repaired dwellings. The vast majority of tenancies were converted in 1989 into new style assured tenancies under the Housing Act 1988. Sections 56 to 58 were repealed subject to a saving provision, which is now being abolished because there are no longer any assured tenancies under the 1980 Act in existence in England, and it is therefore redundant.
To turn to the non-Government amendments, amendment 73 would require the Government to revoke section 73 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) for raising that important issue. The effect of section 73 is that public service broadcasters cannot charge cable services for the inclusion of their channels on these services.
Section 73 is part of a much wider framework supporting the availability of television and investment in television programming in the UK. A variety of rules and regulations affect the production, availability and ease of discovery of public service programming and its relationship with the different platforms—cable, satellite, digital TV and terrestrial—that carry it. They include the obligations on public service broadcasters to offer their content to all relevant platforms, the rules governing payments by broadcasters for technical platform services and the powers for regulators to compel these services to carry public service broadcast content.
This is an area with many competing interests. The Department for Culture, Media and Sport produced a policy paper, “Connectivity, Content and Consumers” last year. The Government stated that their policy objective was zero net charges, where fees for access to the main platforms—cable, satellite, digital TV and terrestrial—would be cancelled out by charges made by the BBC, ITV, Channel 4 and Channel 5, so creating a zero net charge regime. That is close to the current market position, and it recognises the benefits to platforms, public service broadcasters and consumers.
Section 73 is an integral part of that picture, but the arrangement is under pressure. Online services rely on section 73 to exploit public service broadcaster content, but no benefit flows back to the public service broadcaster.