Onshore Wind (Planning Policy)

Debate between Peter Bone and Mark Prisk

Thursday 6th June 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Prisk]

As I said earlier, we are trying to make sure that the principal concern people have about the impact, and particularly the cumulative impact, is properly and clearly set out in the guidance. That will make sure that decisions on the kinds of application to which my hon. Friend refers will be influenced in the same way.

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Chris Heaton-Harris) on leading the campaign against wind farms in this House, and I have a sneaking feeling that I can detect the hand of the Minister without Portfolio, my right hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr Hayes) in this new revised policy.

Until now, planning applications were refused for wind farms, but on appeal were granted. Under this new guidance, as I understand it, if local councils act properly and say no to a wind farm, normally they will not be overturned on appeal. Am I right in thinking that?

[Mr Prisk]

My hon. Friend is right to highlight that there have been a number of contributions in this particular debate. What I would say to him is that we want to make sure the system is balanced. What most constituents have been concerned about—I am, perhaps, speaking now as a constituency MP—is that they feel their views are ridden roughshod over. That is what my hon. Friend referred to, and that is what we are seeking to correct.

Zoos (Regional Economic Development)

Debate between Peter Bone and Mark Prisk

Wednesday 14th December 2011 Westminster Hall

[Mr Prisk]

I am in the last minute of my speech, so I hope that my hon. Friend will bear with me; I must respond to this point. Science and skills are very important. Biology, zoology and veterinary science are crucial. As we heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport, the national marine aquarium is a classic example of what can be achieved. These are fine institutions. They deserve to be looked at and engaged with by the Government as a whole, across Whitehall—I include my Department. The roles that they can play in relation to tourism, science, skills and, of course, conservation mean that they continue to deserve the Government’s full support.

[Mr Peter Bone (in the Chair)]

I thank Members for their attendance and their self-restraint, which meant that nine Back-Bench Members have been able to speak in the debate.

Daylight Saving Bill (Money)

Debate between Peter Bone and Mark Prisk

Tuesday 22nd November 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Prisk]

As I said, we wanted to make sure that we gave this careful consideration, because this is a complex matter. [Interruption.] I say to my hon. Friends that I have seen this matter brought to this Chamber four separate times in the 10 years that I have been in this House, so it is right that we give it due consideration.

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

Will the Minister give way on that very point?

[Mr Prisk]

Not at the moment, because I wish to conclude the point that I was in the middle of making—I hope that my hon. Friend will bear with me. As we intend to seek to amend the Bill, it would have some relatively small expenditure implications. Our rough estimate of the amount of expenditure that would be needed is a figure of up to £750,000, which we think would be for the cost of researching and reporting on the potential benefits of trialling the advancing of clocks—that is obviously what the Bill seeks to achieve. Naturally, as it is also fair to point out, a subsequent proportional report may well be required on the monitoring and evaluation of any such experiment. The Bill, in its current form, would be likely to involve somewhat more expenditure than that, and the production of a report within three months of an Act being passed may well add to additional costs.

However, I must emphasise to the House that there is no guarantee that any trial advancement of the clocks will happen. We cannot rush that decision. A considered process is required, the starting point of which—this is the essence of the point that has been rightly made—is that there should be a proper robust assessment of the likely costs and benefits. On that basis, although the Government do not enter lightly into any expenditure, as I am sure you will understand, Madam Deputy Speaker, the expenditure in this case is justified and I commend the motion to the House.

Employment Opportunities Bill

Debate between Peter Bone and Mark Prisk

Friday 17th June 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Prisk]

Absolutely. The vast majority of decent employers are keen to ensure that they get the brightest and best, and are willing to pay for that. We should not allow any characterisation of employers in this country as always wanting to do down their employees. That is not my experience, and I hope Opposition Members will not tolerate such a characterisation in future.



Clause 3 seeks to exempt a person from the minimum wage as long as they receive a training wage. We have had a constructive discussion on apprenticeships, training and the importance of helping young people, to which the clause is relevant. Ever since the Low Pay Commission’s first report in 1998, it has been argued that young people should be treated differently from their older counterparts. The rationale is that the threat of unemployment because of too-high wages is greater for younger people than it is for older people. Clearly, young people often lack experience in the workplace, and are therefore more likely to be both on lower earnings than older workers, and to work in lower-paying sectors.

Young people are therefore more likely to be more vulnerable in the labour market. We have seen that, sadly, in the last couple of years. If I may say, it is encouraging that since May of last year, there has been an improvement in youth unemployment. I am pleased that I can confirm today that youth unemployment is lower than that which we inherited. I hope that Opposition Members will acknowledge that, because it is an important issue on which we agree.

The current rate for workers aged 16 to 17 is £3.64 an hour, and the rate for those aged 18 to 20 is £4.92 an hour. That contrasts with the adult rate for those aged 21 or above, which is currently £5.93. In recommending minimum wages for young people, the commission aims to ensure that the rates neither provide an incentive for young people to leave education or training—that is an important balancing act—nor harm the employment prospects for those who decide to work. As well as the minimum wage rates for young workers, we last year accepted the commission’s recommendations to end the exemption from the minimum wage for apprentices under the age of 19, or those aged 19 and over in the first year of their apprenticeship.

We have hence introduced a new minimum pay rate for those people within that framework, which has ensured—for the first time, I believe—that all apprentices in the UK get the protection of the minimum wage. It gives them a fair deal, and therefore protects them from exploitation, but it does not deter businesses from taking them on. As we have heard, that apprentice rate is currently £2.50 an hour.

[Mr Bone]

The Minister is making a well-constructed argument, but on that specific point, the Government have accepted that there should be a different minimum wage for apprentices, like a training wage. Why cannot we extend that differentiation to the travel industry, which I mentioned in my speech, and other industries?

[Mr Prisk]

My hon. Friend is a few inches ahead of me, but he is right that that is the kernel of the argument on clause 3.

Let me give a little background, and then I shall address specifically how we expand our provisions and encourage young people in training and apprenticeships. The point about the apprenticeship rate is that it recognises that employers invest significantly in apprenticeships, and that apprentices—quite naturally, given where they are in their working cycle—are less productive than other skilled employees. In addition, young people who complete an apprenticeship derive significant long-term advantages. They know that by accepting a lower wage when training, they will enjoy future higher earnings and better job security. That fits into another Government policy, namely the significant expansion of apprenticeship places—we have increased spending by £250 million to encourage 75,000 extra places.

Is a training wage such as the one in clause 3 feasible? The clause states that someone who is contractually entitled to a training wage, and to training in skills relevant to their employment, does not qualify for the national minimum wage. However, the Bill does not specify what would be an appropriate training wage level. As the Bill stands—that is all we have to debate—employers would therefore be free to pay a training wage at any rate. In addition, individuals receiving those low wages would, as workers, be carrying out work or services for the employer.

The danger is that the provisions could be open to widespread abuse by unscrupulous employers—that small minority that look to pay exploitatively low wages.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Prisk]

I can understand that frustration, but the moment we make law on the basis of one instance, we create difficulties for the scrupulous. That is the risk we are talking about.

I turn to work experience and interns. I understand the frustration and concerns of my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough. Work experience, whether as a paid or unpaid intern, can be a valuable way for young people to get the experience, skills and confidence they need to start up. The Government want as many internship opportunities as possible to be made available, but we are clear that those who are entitled to the national minimum wage should get it. The example he gave of how he works as an employer accurately describes exactly that position.

[Mr Bone]

This seems to be an announcement of new Government policy.

[Mr Prisk]

No.

[Mr Bone]

May I finish my point before the Minister says no? Is he saying that all interns should have to be paid the minimum wage? Is that what the Government are now saying?

[Mr Prisk]

No. Let me spell out exactly what I said—and put it back on the record for a second time. We are clear that those who are entitled to the national minimum wage should receive it. That is the point; that is how the law stands.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Prisk]

My hon. Friend has made a powerful point about those working longer term. We want to ensure that the law is upheld.

Before I return to clause 1, which deals with the unlawful prevention of employment, let me turn to the four clauses at the back end of the Bill, namely clauses 4 to 8. These relate to the regional minimum wage, the idea being that we should move away from a national rate, towards a more flexible, regional structure. It is worth looking briefly at how the existing law works. Under the National Minimum Wage Act 1998, workers of compulsory school age are entitled to be paid at least the national minimum wage, although there are some exceptions. Different treatment may be permitted in relation to different sectors of employment and for people of different occupations. However, having different areas poses practical problems.

Clause 4 sets out the role of the Low Pay Commission. It provides that the commission

“must consider and take evidence on the availability of employment opportunities and the impact of the national minimum wage on job creation and access to employment in…areas where the average level of unemployment in the preceding year has been above the national average”.

The commission must then

“consider in the light of that assessment whether to recommend that the minimum wage in any such area should be set at a level below the national minimum wage.”

It is not clear from clause 4 what happens if a lower minimum wage is applied to a travel-to-work area and the unemployment level of that area subsequently falls below the national average. We presume—although it is unclear from the Bill—that the lower minimum wage could no longer apply, and that the national minimum wage would therefore apply. It is also not clear whether the Bill envisages more than one lower minimum wage rate. For example, would the same lower rate apply regardless of the extent to which average unemployment in an area was greater than the national average?

Clause 5 sets out the duties of the Secretary of State in the event of the Low Pay Commission recommending that the minimum wage in a particular area should be set at a level below the national minimum wage. Perhaps peculiarly, clause 5 provides that the Secretary of State has no discretion in the matter, but must make regulations to bring the commission’s recommendations into force. I note that this is different from the Secretary of State’s position in respect of the national minimum wage, where it is for him to decide on the appropriate rate, based on the Low Pay Commission’s recommendations. It is unclear why the Secretary of State should have the discretion to implement the commission’s recommendations on the national minimum wage, which would affect around 1 million people, but not where its recommendations could affect a far smaller number of people.

Clause 6 provides that a change to the minimum wage in an area to a level below the national minimum wage would not affect existing contracts of employment. I will come to the issue of fairness later; I merely note now that this provision is another instance of allowing an employer to pay two workers different wages for doing the same job. It could also encourage employers to get rid of workers who were being paid at the national minimum wage and replace them with people paid at a lower rate.

Clause 7 presents significant practical challenges. It provides that a travel-to-work area is

“an area so defined by the Office for National Statistics.”

This point is crucial, because it affects the way in which the final four clauses operate. Ideally, a self-contained labour market is one in which all the commuting occurs within the boundary of that area. However, in practice it is not possible to divide the UK neatly into separate labour markets based on commuting patterns. They are just too diffuse. Our concern is that the opportunity for complexity and continuous change would make the operation of the proposed system significantly more challenging than at present. Speaking as an employer—which I continue to be—I am concerned about how this would work within and on the edges of those regions.

There are currently 243 travel-to-work areas. They were defined in 2007 using the old 2001 census data, so there is already a problem of time delay. The areas vary considerably in size. For example, Anglesey has two such areas, while Greater London has only one. I hope that no one will ask me why, because I do not have the answer. If we moved to a system of regional rates based on travel-to-work areas, the real problem would be the complexity that that would generate for employers. As someone who wants to see less regulation, I would be very much opposed to that. I hope that the House will acknowledge the specific practical problems associated with each of the clauses, especially relating to the way in which this part of the Bill would operate.

Clause 1 deals not with the minimum wage but with the question of unlawful prevention in relation to foreign nationals. It relates to foreign nationals above compulsory school age who are legally residing in the UK, and provides that such individuals shall not be prevented from undertaking paid employment unless certain conditions apply. The first condition is where the foreign national has only a visitor’s visa. The second is where the foreign national’s most recent application for entry into the UK has been refused. The third is that the foreign national’s most recent application to stay in the UK has been refused. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch, I noticed the typo in subsection (4), for which he has graciously apologised. The effect of the subsection as drafted would be to exempt foreign nationals who were not in detention. The problem that that would create is self-evident.

The Government support the principle that everyone of working age who has the legal right to work in this country should have the opportunity to gain a living by work which they freely accept. That is set out in article 6 of the international convention on economic, social and cultural rights, and the Government are committed to fulfilling our obligations under the convention. The problem is that the provisions in the Bill are contrary to the Immigration Act 1971. The fact that the Bill does not provide for the repeal of the relevant provisions of the Act raises an important technical issue. When we debate these Bills, we are debating whether they should become the law of the land. While I understand that points of principle are involved, we also need to ensure that we get the legislation right.

[Mr Bone]

This is a Second Reading debate. The Minister knows full well that an amendment to that effect could be tabled in Committee. This is about the principle of the Bill, not about the detailed technicalities.

[Mr Prisk]

The problem is that the practicalities affect the principle. That is an important point for my hon. Friend to bear in mind.

Section 3 of the Immigration Act provides for a foreign national’s lawful stay to be subject to conditions preventing his employment or occupation in this country. That is the basis of the UK’s controls on access to the labour market. Foreign nationals who are admitted specifically for the purpose of employment may be subject to conditions of stay which require them to seek authorisation to change their employment. Those who enter for another purpose—study, for example—may be subject to conditions which require them to seek a variation of their conditions of stay if they wish to remain for the purpose of work. The provisions in the Bill are the basis for arrangements for determining the circumstances in which an individual would be allowed to take employment or not, depending on their skills.

My hon. Friend’s proposal appears to remove any legal basis for the operation of an effective control on migrants’ access to the labour market, including the operation of a labour market test in respect of a migrant’s employment, except at the point at which they initially seek entry to the UK. The Bill would therefore significantly undermine the Government’s ability to regulate the entry and stay of foreign nationals, other than at the point at which they seek entry, or to protect the interests of resident labour.

My hon. Friend might well have intended the provisions in clause 1, in respect of recent refusals of applications to enter or stay, to protect against such issues. However, they would not satisfactorily achieve that effect. It is also difficult to see how such provision could be reconciled with the effective operation of transitional restrictions, to which the Government are committed, on labour market access to nationals of new member states of the European Union who are not subject to immigration control but, as foreign nationals, would be covered by the Bill.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Peter Bone and Mark Prisk

Thursday 31st March 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Prisk]

My hon. Friend is an outstanding champion in this field, and I was pleased that we were able to support Norwich research park in that context, for which he has fought and argued for many months. Our plan is about accelerating innovation, investing in the way collaboration takes place and ensuring that we retain this country’s world-class role in life sciences and biotechnology.

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

10. What recent discussions he has had with the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change on the effects on businesses of trends in the cost of fuel.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Peter Bone and Mark Prisk

Thursday 3rd June 2010 Commons Chamber

[The Minister of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (Mr Mark Prisk)]

While no official estimate currently exists, British Chambers of Commerce calculates that, since 1998, the additional regulatory costs introduced by the previous Labour Government have equated to approximately £11 billion every year.

[Mr Bone]

I thank the Minister for that response and welcome him to the Dispatch Box; I can think of nobody in the House better qualified to occupy his role. The cost that regulation has imposed is staggering. Can he estimate how much of that regulation emanates from the European Union, and what can he do to minimise that?

[Mr Prisk]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for those kind opening remarks, and I hope to be able to satisfy my colleagues’ desire to make sure that we make a real change in how we help small businesses. My hon. Friend is absolutely right to say that Europe is a key source of many of the regulatory problems that we have, but we gold-plate the situation. That is why the Government are determined to adopt a different approach. Let me briefly say what that is. There are two simple principles: first, we will ensure that the timing of implementation does not disadvantage British business, when compared to its European counterparts; and secondly, when introducing regulation, we shall do so in a way that does not substantially increase either the cost or the scope. That is a crucial commitment to small businesses, and I hope that it will stem the tide.