Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Bill

Richard Fuller Excerpts

Wednesday 17th October 2012 Commons Chamber

[Jo Swinson]

This is not about making it easier to sack people. This is about making it easier for people to come to a mutual agreement, which is, by definition, not sacking.

[Richard Fuller (Bedford) (Con)]

May I offer my hon. Friend some reassurance that she is charting a middle course? She has heard the concerns of the lawyers on the Opposition Benches who, instead of recognising that our business leaders are going out every day to do the best they can for their employees, assume that they need to be corralled and controlled. There are Members of the House who would like to see the Minister go further in her measures in the Bill to make it easier for business leaders to hire more people so that the current recession becomes a job-filled rather than a jobless recession.

[Jo Swinson]

I think I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. The fact that there is criticism from both sides shows that a balanced approach is being taken. I shall make progress as I know that other Members want to speak.

[Jo Swinson]

The fact remains that there is a massive backlog of employment tribunal claims, there are massive problems with the way the system is working, and there is significant concern in the business community, which has been expressed in the House and in Committee. I shall move on to the other amendments before allowing other Members to have their say.

Government amendments 11 to 15 to clause 13 will ensure that the power in the Bill to amend the unfair dismissal cap cannot be used to introduce a cap based on an individual’s pay without there also being a specified upper limit. My hon. Friend the Member for North West Leicestershire (Andrew Bridgen) raised a concern in Committee that, as it stands, the power in clause 13 could be used to introduce a pay-based cap with no upper limit. Clearly, such a step would increase potential compensation for the very highly paid and could thereby increase risks and uncertainty for employers. As my hon. Friend the Member for North Norfolk who is now the Minister of State, Department of Health, made clear at the time, this is not the Government’s intention. On the contrary, we are seeking to give employers greater confidence in dealing with disputes and to ensure greater realism about the level of awards in order to encourage settlement.

We launched a consultation on proposals to change the cap on compensation for unfair dismissal on 14 September, alongside our consultation on settlement agreements. The consultation includes looking at the overall level of the cap and also the option of introducing a pay-based cap alongside a specified upper limit. We therefore seek to make these amendments to ensure that the power in clause 13 reflects the Government’s policy intentions.

Opposition Members have proposed three amendments to this clause, the first of which, amendment 82, would delete the clause in its entirety. It has been a matter of common agreement for many years that the compensatory award should be subject to an upper limit. What that limit should be is the issue in question. This clause recognises the agreement that exists about the need for an upper limit, but provides a power for the Secretary of State to vary that limit subject to specific considerations. As I have said, we are consulting on what the appropriate limit should be. I am therefore unable to accept the amendment.

Amendment 70, tabled by the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell), seeks to remove the upper limit of three times median salary. The effect of this would be to allow the cap to be set at any amount. This would clearly run counter to the objectives that I set out a moment ago of greater confidence for business and greater realism for claimants. The hon. Gentleman tabled a further amendment to the clause, amendment 71, which would require the Secretary of State to consult the TUC and the CBI before deciding on a figure for median annual earnings where the figure published by the Statistics Board is more than two years old. I cannot envisage a situation in which such information would not be produced by the ONS in any two-year period but, should such an eventuality ever arise, the Secretary of State will be under a duty to act reasonably and rely upon relevant information. The Secretary of State and other Ministers meet the TUC and CBI regularly to discuss a range of matters, so there is little to be gained from placing a requirement to consult the TUC and the CBI on the face of the Bill. I am therefore unable to support either of the hon. Gentleman’s amendments.

I turn now to the amendments to clause 14 tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Bedford (Richard Fuller). Amendment 58 would delete clause 14 in its entirety. Amendment 59 seeks to restrict the imposition of a financial penalty to those businesses employing more than 10 people—that is, to exempt micro-businesses. I want to make it clear, as did my predecessor in Committee, that the introduction of this discretionary power for tribunals is not intended to penalise employers indiscriminately. It will be used only when an employer has breached an individual’s employment rights, and when that breach has been accompanied by aggravating features—for example, where there has been a deliberate decision to act in a way that breaches the employee’s rights, or where the same employer repeatedly acts in an unlawful manner.

When we first proposed the introduction of financial penalties, we had thought to make the imposition of the penalty automatic when there was a finding in favour of the claimant, but we listened to the concerns expressed by business during the resolving workplace disputes consultation last year and revised our proposals to give the tribunal discretion to decide when a penalty was appropriate. Good employers—those who try to do right by their employees—have nothing to fear, regardless of their size. A genuine mistake will not be grounds for the imposition of a penalty. However, those businesses which the tribunal considers have acted deliberately or maliciously will rightly, I believe, face the prospect of a financial penalty. They will no longer be able to gain a competitive advantage over businesses that abide by their obligations.

I cannot stand here and defend bad employers. I recognise the good work that my hon. Friend the Member for Bedford has done to support the interests of small businesses, and I am sure he does not want to defend bad employers either. I hope he will not press his amendments, as the Government are unable to support them.

[Richard Fuller]

Of course I do not wish to defend bad employers but as the Minister knows, almost all employers are good employers who do the right thing. Will she address the general principle, which is not so much about the points that she mentioned? Why are the Government trying to get in on the financial action? This is about money that will go to the Government. It is nothing to do with the relationship between the employer and the employee. The money will not go to the employee. Why is it so important that the Government get their take?

[Jo Swinson]

My hon. Friend is right to point out that the majority of employers are good employers. I am sure hon. Members in all parts of the House find that to be so when they visit local businesses in their constituencies. Even in the case of good employers, a mistake will occasionally be made and they will end up at a tribunal. That is why, in response to the consultation, we removed the automatic imposition of a penalty. Any penalty will be based on the circumstances of the case and will be imposed by the people who have heard all the facts—the tribunal. It will be imposed only on employers who have deliberately flouted the law or done so in a malicious or aggravated way.

On the point about financial penalties, this is not some kind of revenue-raising scheme; it is about ensuring that the right incentive structure is in place by creating a further penalty for businesses that deliberately flout the law. That will incentivise the right kind of behaviour. For the reasons I have just outlined, that will be fairer on the vast majority of businesses that are good employers and that should not lose out to those employers that gain some kind of advantage by treating their employees badly.

[Richard Fuller]

The Minister again mentions an additional penalty for those employers. Is she aware that the Law Society has stated:

“Uplifts on compensation of up to 25% are already available in cases of unreasonable breach of the Acas Code on Disciplinary and Grievance Procedures”?

Is that not a sufficient additional penalty?

[Jo Swinson]

I do not believe that what we have at present is sufficient. Although they make up a small portion, there are clearly too many employers who do not comply properly with their obligations. I think that it is quite right that we send a clear signal and make it clear that those employers can expect to face a bigger consequence at a tribunal than those well-intentioned employers who try to do the right thing but fall foul of the law because of an error—after all, we are all human.

Opposition Members also seek to amend clause 14. Amendment 92 seeks to address the issue of non-payment of employment tribunal awards by proposing that an employer should pay a penalty for each period that an award made in an unfair dismissal case goes unpaid. I recognise, and indeed sympathise with, the amendment’s aims, but I am afraid that it would not have the intended effect. When I took over this brief, I was genuinely shocked by the level of employment tribunal awards that are unpaid. The figures for 2009 show that six months after an employment tribunal makes an award as many as 40% of claimants had not received the money they were rightly due, which is clearly unacceptable.

Whatever people’s views on the rights and wrongs of the employment tribunal process and how it could be improved, when an employment tribunal grants an award and the case has been heard properly, the claimant should be able to get their money. Like my predecessor, I am very concerned at the figures for non-payment. When a tribunal finds in favour of a claimant, it cannot be right that they are unable to get the money they are owed.

We are consulting on two changes that I believe might have some effect on the number of awards paid promptly. They include proposals to put a date on a tribunal’s judgment specifying when payment should be made and to charge interest from the date of judgment where an award is unpaid after 14 days. These charges will apply to all cases, not just to unfair dismissal cases. Importantly, in that scenario the interest will be added to the award and paid to the claimant. That consultation closes on 23 November and I encourage the hon. Members who have tabled amendments to take part and feed in their views.

I want to consider what more we can do on this issue. I have already discussed it with my colleague and fellow Minister for Equalities, the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Mrs Grant). We are both clear that action is necessary, but we cannot take action without first understanding the underlying problem properly. The previous Government attempted to resolve the problem by introducing a fast-track enforcement process, but it still persists. The process had some success, but not enough people have been accessing it and, even for those who have, it has not been successful in all cases.

I have therefore commissioned research from the Department on the reasons why so many awards go unpaid. Once we have that information, which I anticipate will be early next year, we will be able to take whatever steps we can to ensure that claimants receive the award they are entitled to. Therefore, I ask my hon. Friend not to press the amendment and I commit to taking the proposal away and considering it further to see what we could do in the light of the research findings.

--- Later in debate ---

He went on to say, “It’s crazy”. The Bill has the potential to choke off access to justice for people who have been wronged in the workplace and deserve justice. It also has the potential to damage growth. I challenge the Minister and the Government to prove once and for all that this is not Beecroft by the back door by joining us in the Lobby this afternoon.

[Richard Fuller]

I will speak in favour of the two amendments relating to clause 14 that stand in my name. We have heard many legal arguments today. I am not a lawyer by training, so I have listened as intently as I can. My background is in business, and I draw the House’s attention to my continuing interests.

The Minister did an excellent job of portraying the middle path that she is taking with the legislation. I intervened on her to say that many business people feel that Parliament and politicians are out of touch with the realities of their day-to-day business. In some cases, their voice is not heard loudly enough. My amendments deal with one area where there is further that the Minister could go.

[Julian Smith]

My hon. Friend says that the public feel that this place is sometimes out of touch. From what he has heard from Opposition Members, would he say that Labour is anti-business and completely out of touch with entrepreneurs?

[Richard Fuller]

My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. All of us are aware that the Labour party has trouble understanding aspiration and even more trouble in rewarding aspiration. I am sure that Opposition Members will reflect deeply on the point that he has made.

[Mr Iain Wright (Hartlepool) (Lab)]

indicated dissent.

[Richard Fuller]

The shadow Minister does not agree with me, but let me point out to him the way in which the hon. Members for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy) and for Edinburgh South (Ian Murray) have spoken about Mr Beecroft. Somehow, a person becomes a word, which becomes something to be thrown around and handled in the most insulting of ways. There is no understanding of what Adrian Beecroft has done.

[John Cryer]

Did the hon. Gentleman read the evidence that Mr Beecroft gave to the Public Bill Committee? When he was asked, repeatedly, what the basis of his assertions was on a whole range of subjects, and what evidence he was bringing to bear, he more or less said, “Well, it’s something I’ve just dreamed up.” He did not present any particular evidence that I can pinpoint in the Hansard report.

[Richard Fuller]

The hon. Gentleman makes a good point, but—[Interruption.] I am serious, and this is a serious point. I do not know much about football, but I understand that the idea is to play the ball, not the man. That is also important in debates, which was why I did not feel it was correct when the Secretary of State dismissed Adrian Beecroft’s proposals out of hand and called them “bonkers” on Second Reading. It is important that we should debate those proposals. If, as the hon. Gentleman says, there is not sufficient evidence for them, let us look forward and move on to other issues.

My point is that Opposition Members too often harangue business people or try to portray them in a particular light. I refer particularly to the comments of the hon. Member for Walthamstow, who I believe discussed how Mr Beecroft made his money. I gently urge her to recognise that Mr Beecroft’s boss at the time—they were in the same company, making the same money—was an adviser to the former Prime Minister, and that the Labour party received millions of pounds in donations from that gentleman. If she wishes to make such points about one individual, I look forward to being copied in on her letter to the Leader of the Opposition suggesting that the Labour party should return that money.

[Gregg McClymont (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (Lab)]

The hon. Gentleman has mentioned some adjectives used about Beecroft that he thinks were less than precise. Surely a simpler way to put it is that the plural of “anecdote” is not “evidence”. Beecroft presented a series of anecdotes about business that he could not back up with any facts. I know the hon. Gentleman well enough to know that he is in the facts business, so surely he will reflect on that when considering Mr Beecroft’s report.

[Richard Fuller]

The hon. Gentleman, too, makes a good point. I have read the evidence given to the Public Bill Committee, and it was not sufficiently evidentiary to move Mr Beecroft’s point forward. However, the hon. Gentleman will know that developed economies are currently having trouble with how to increase employment as they come out of recession. In the United States and the United Kingdom, it is taking us longer to create jobs as the economy recovers. It is therefore imperative that we look at the evidence, to see whether we wish to promote the Beecroft proposals. That is why we need a deeper and more serious debate than just talking about poor evidence in a Public Bill Committee or anecdotal evidence somewhere else, and one without name-calling.

[Mr David Anderson (Blaydon) (Lab)]

The hon. Gentleman makes the exact point that we constantly made in the Public Bill Committee. Given what he is saying, surely we should stop this debate and then take a view one way or another when we have got the evidence. At the moment, everything that the Government are doing is based on views that are not evidence-based.

--- Later in debate ---

[Richard Fuller]

I appreciate the hon. Gentleman’s perspective, but the Minister made quite clear her belief that there is sufficient evidence and support for the Government’s measures. Many of us think that they will go quite some way towards providing what businesses and employees would see as a reasonable and fair way to make efficient changes in the procedures for dismissal, dealing with unfair dismissal and tribunals.

I wish to focus on clause 14 and my amendments to it. Amendment 58 would delete the clause entirely, and amendment 59 would apply its principles only to businesses outside the micro-business sector—those that have more than 10 employees. The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Edinburgh South, has given a number of the justifications for doing that both in Committee and today. First, there is the principle that involving the Government in a dispute between an employer and an employee may complicate the achievement of a settlement between those two parties. It is difficult to understand the a priori reason why a Government should try to achieve a take, because as he made clear, we should be trying to ensure that employers pay the amount for which they are responsible to an employee who has been aggrieved by a dismissal. I listened to the Minister’s comments, but my concern is that the clause will provide additional complexity in the process.

As the Minister indicated, the clause will also create an imbalance between the employee and the employer, and we are not sure how that will play out under the new regime. I hope that if the Minister will not accept my amendments today, she will at least agree to examine how the changes play out, and perhaps consider whether the issue of financial penalties should be reviewed in future.

[Julian Smith]

It is worth recording that every business representative group in Britain is concerned about the clause, for many of the reasons that my hon. Friend has given.

[Richard Fuller]

I thank my hon. Friend very much for that intervention.

[Julie Hilling (Bolton West) (Lab)]

I can understand why businesses do not want to face the reality of their actions, but we know that many businesses flout employment law, whether deliberately or innocently. If anybody breaks the law in any other walk of life, whether through a driving offence, robbing a shop or whatever, there is a penalty to be paid. Clause 14 is not about innocent omissions; it is about employers doing something deliberately. From many years of representing people, I know that employers often deliberately go against what is written in legislation. Surely they should have to pay some penalty for doing that, just as anybody would in any other walk of life. If someone breaks the law, they pay a cost.

[Richard Fuller]

The hon. Lady makes some good points from her experience, but my view is that we should focus our attention on ensuring that the aggrieved employee is in the best possible position to receive the maximum amount of the settlement that has been made in their favour. As was shown in evidence to the Public Bill Committee, in a large proportion of cases the employee does not get that amount. I do not see how it will help to add an additional burden on top of that, with the Government trying to take money as well. There seems to be a discord between that and our trying to do the best by employees. That is why I would rather the clause be completely removed.

I believe the shadow Minister said in the Public Bill Committee that in 59% of cases, employees do not receive the full settlement, and I would like the Government’s focus to be on reducing that figure. I believe that the clause is unhelpful, and as my hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon (Julian Smith) said, business representatives also believe that.

[Julie Hilling]

What, then, do we do with employers who continue to flout the law? I absolutely agree that the claimant should get the compensation to which they are entitled, but some employers continuously flout the law and just pay a small amount. Often, employees get a small award at tribunal anyway, depending on their age, length of service and income. What do we do with those employers?

[Richard Fuller]

That is an interesting question. My amateur response is that there are better ways to solve the problem than the method in clause 14. Imposing an additional burden in the form of money going to a different party, the Government, is not the optimum path to reach the resolution and outcome that both the hon. Lady and I would like to see when an employer has acted inappropriately and is not paying the bill that he or she should to the aggrieved employee. In general, as I have said a number of times, I would rather have the law presume that the employer is doing the right thing and will make the right payments. If he or she does not, there should be other measures, which perhaps the Minister can mention in her response.

As we have heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon, both the Federation of Small Businesses and the Institute of Directors have made representations to the Government that it would be better to remove the penalty on businesses imposed by clause 14. I have mentioned some of the representations made to the Government by the Law Society—that the benefits of imposing financial penalties on employers are not convincing—and, perhaps for slightly different reasons, from Opposition Members we have heard why the clause may not be good. I would rather leave those comments for the Minister to reflect on than push the amendments to a vote. I appreciate the hearing from the House.

--- Later in debate ---

Amendments 95 and 96 would effectively require a 75% shareholder vote. We mentioned this issue in Committee, and I reiterate the powerful arguments put forward by Dominic Rossi, the chief investment officer of equities for Fidelity Worldwide Investment, who has argued that directors’ pay is over-generous and over-complex.

[Richard Fuller]

The hon. Gentleman is arguing for things he would like to see, but as he is well aware, it is already within the purview of corporations to put an employee on their boards, and shareholder votes can already be held on compensation and can influence that compensation even if they fall short of the 50% hurdle. What compels him to want to make it a legal requirement, rather than to use the market to make these decisions itself?

[Mr Wright]

It is because, as I tried to explain in my opening remarks, over the past 30 years we have seen market failure and a huge disconnect in the level of remuneration paid to top executives, but that has not ensured commensurate performance among the companies they lead, which is what we need. I think that the Government are onside on this. The shareholder spring and activism that we have seen, including at Trinity Mirror, has largely been the result of initiatives put in place by the previous Labour Government on annual advisory votes on directors’ pay and so on. I know that the hon. Gentleman is very familiar with these issues and will support us in ensuring that shareholders—the people who own these companies—have a proper say.

[Richard Fuller]

I appreciate the shadow Minister’s point, but unfortunately, as is often the case, the Opposition are like the ambulance that turns up two days too late and to the wrong address. The market is already responding to these issues, and measures are being taken to change how compensation is made, as he said. The Opposition always rush to legislate restrictive control and put a hand down on aspiration, when the market itself will solve, and is solving, these problems. I fully accept that there is an issue about employee representation in companies and about the historical lack of alignment between compensation on boards, but he is going the wrong way about resolving it.

[Mr Wright]

The purpose of the amendments, which have buy-in from Mr Rossi, Fidelity and elsewhere, is not to seek the death of aspiration, but to encourage, incentivise and try to ensure that companies achieve as much consensus as possible on directors’ pay policy—that was also the position of the Secretary of State earlier in the year—ensuring that companies start early in the process and avoid the use of what is a somewhat blunt and brittle tool, whereby the issue is discussed only at the annual general meeting or what-have-you, which can cause tension. Getting in early and talking to shareholders means that the owners and managers of a business can reach some sort of consensus. That is the purpose that amendments 95 and 96 seek to achieve. I quoted Mr Rossi in Committee, and I will do so again:

“Companies have nothing to fear if what they propose is fair and reasonable and clearly aligned to what is good for long-term shareholders.”

The hon. Member for Bedford (Richard Fuller) is a strong and experienced Member of this House and a good champion of businesses. I disagree with what he says about regulation and employment legislation, but he will recognise that getting good consensus on directors’ pay and ensuring that shareholders have the tools at their disposal to hold managers to account is in all our interests.

Amendment 86 would have the effect of creating an annual binding vote on pay policy, an issue that, again, was much deliberated in Committee. I still firmly believe that an annual vote is hardly disproportionately onerous or somehow unduly bureaucratic. Shareholders are used to, and expect, annual corporate reporting on matters such as the annual accounts—whether they are a true and fair view—and the reappointment of auditors. I reiterate the point that I mentioned in Committee and throughout the passage of the Bill: I fail to see how such a proposal can be seen as onerous. In Committee I had a well-thumbed Financial Times editorial from June 2012, which said that

“the business secretary has missed a trick in not going for annual pay votes…His worthy hope is that this might encourage more medium-term thinking about pay. But an obvious worry is that such votes may degenerate into another exercise in box-ticking, with shareholders voting on boilerplate policies rather than specific deals.”

It went on:

“Executives will restrain their demands only when they perceive a real risk in flouting social norms on pay. Fund managers, who naturally shy from conflict with companies, still need to be encouraged to challenge bosses more—especially on this sensitive topic. Annual votes would at least put them firmly on the spot. Mr Cable’s triennial polls, however well-meaning and thoughtful, may not.”

That point was echoed by the head of the High Pay Commission, Deborah Hargreaves, who stated in evidence to the Committee:

“If you vote every three years on pay policy, it is important that that policy is detailed enough for you to have an effect. The danger is that it could turn into a box-ticking exercise, where you vote on general boilerplate policy recommendations, rather than nitty-gritty details and figures. I felt that an annual vote would include more figures and more detail, and give shareholders more power to make informed decisions about what is going on in relation to pay at the company. If it happened every three years, the fear is that they may be voting on something vaguer and more bland.”––[Official Report, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Public Bill Committee, 21 June 2012; c. 137, Q294.]

Again, I cannot see how our proposal would be onerous, and I think Ministers should think again.

The final amendment in this group is new clause 27, the purpose of which is to improve transparency in the disclosure of information relating to remuneration consultants and the manner in which they are paid by companies. Evidence suggests that remuneration consultants have played a key part in hiking up directors’ pay. Work undertaken by Professor Martin Conyon found a direct correlation between higher-than-average directors’ remuneration and the use of remuneration consultants. Further studies have shown that, on average, pay for chief executive officers is 26% higher in companies that use remuneration consultants. As I mentioned in Committee, across the Atlantic the Congress inquiry led by chairman Henry Waxman concluded that remuneration consultants to Fortune 250 companies were paid almost 11 times as much for providing other services to those companies.

[Richard Fuller]

The shadow Minister is making some good points. Does he believe that the Government should provide guidelines to remuneration committees on how they should set directors’ pay, and on how they should ensure that the correlation with average earnings and with shareholder value growth is maintained?

[Mr Wright]

That is a fair point. There are already guidelines in place, including discretionary guidance from the industry. We also have the combined code on corporate governance, which provides a degree of guidance. We need to determine whether the issue is sufficiently serious that it requires legislation to provide firm guidance. I shall be interested to hear the Minister’s view on that, given that there is agreement across the House on the disconnect between pay and performance, and the link—which acts almost as a catalyst—between remuneration consultants.

Speaking as a chartered accountant who used to work for a “big four” accounting firm, I see a close correlation between these problems and the crisis in the auditing profession a decade ago. That led to the disclosure of fees and to greater transparency on the audit services and non-audit services provided by the accounting firms. The perception was that in corporate scandals involving firms such as Enron, the thoroughness and accuracy of the auditors’ opinion was called into question when audit firms secured additional, often more lucrative, work away from the statutory audit.

New clause 27 would therefore increase disclosure of information relating to payments to remuneration consultants, ensuring that the Secretary of State should make a provision by regulation of notes to a company’s accounts about payments made to the consultants, including information specifying fees that have been paid as a proportion of the total remuneration package of a director. My concern is that, if a contract is so designed, a consultant has an inherent desire to inflate the package to secure a larger fee. If that is the case, shareholders should be made fully aware of it via a disclosure in the annual accounts. As I have said, we applaud the Government’s general direction of travel, but we believe that they could go further, and I will be interested to hear what the Minister has to say about this.

--- Later in debate ---

[Matthew Hancock]

Amendments 21 and 22 are technical amendments, the effect of which I hope will be straightforward and non-controversial. The changes proposed in Clause 50 will support the implementation of the Government’s policy on reducing the burden of regulation by allowing a sunset and review provision to be included in any future secondary legislation. They will enable the Government to put in place a robust and enduring system for tackling obsolete, burdensome or ineffective regulation, in line with the principles set out in the sunsetting guidance first published in March 2011.

I am pleased to say that those principles and the proposed change in the clause are widely supported and received detailed scrutiny in Committee before the summer. The changes proposed in clause 50 are permissive, broad in scope—intentionally so—and apply to powers to make subordinate legislation falling within the scope of the Interpretation Act 1978. Without qualification, this would include powers in a UK Act of Parliament exercisable by Scottish Ministers, whether in relation to matters devolved to the Scottish Parliament or in relation to matters reserved to Westminster.

Following earlier consultation with Scottish Ministers, however, agreement was reached to exclude powers exercised by Scottish Ministers from the effect of the changes. Among other things, that is consistent with the convention, under the present devolution settlement, which has cross-party support, that the Westminster Parliament will not normally legislate on matters devolved to the Scottish Parliament, without the consent of the Scottish Parliament. That seems reasonable to me.

Following further consultation with interested parties, it has become apparent that a further change is required to address the related issue of the powers of non-ministerial Scottish bodies and other persons under UK legislation. For example, the Registration of Births, Deaths and Marriages (Scotland) Act 1965 provides the registrar with various powers to make subordinate legislation in areas of devolved competence. Equally, the Court of Session has powers under successive UK Acts, most recently the Court of Session Act 1988. Because these are powers to make subordinate legislation within the meaning of the Interpretation Act 1978, they would also be in the scope of the changes proposed in clause 50. The effect of the Government’s amendments is to ensure that the powers exercised by non-ministerial Scottish bodies and other persons that fall within areas of devolved competence are excluded.

[Richard Fuller]

I appreciate the Minister’s giving way. I am enthralled to learn about births, deaths and marriages in Scotland—all things Scottish are important at the moment—but for businesses in my constituency of Bedford, the key question on the sunset provisions is why the Government have proposed only a “may” rather than a “must”. What business leaders in my constituency want to see is a clear indication from the Government that they intend to seek a requirement to sunset all new legislation, rather than this “maybe, maybe not.” In the remaining time, will the Minister please address the question of why he has chosen “may” rather than “must”?

[Matthew Hancock]

One reason is that it would be unreasonable to include a requirement to sunset all legislation, including primary legislation, when some of it is intended to set a long-term framework. For instance, when we set the structures in which our energy market operates, it is important to show clarity and long-term decision making, and we can deliver that, especially where there is cross-party consent. Therefore, although we want to ensure that sunsetting is the norm, especially in secondary legislation, there is a purpose in not doing so for primary legislation where businesses want the certainty of a long-term legislative proposal, rather than having a requirement that all legislation of this House—including, for instance, constitutional legislation—be sunsetted after a period of time. Notwithstanding the fact that income tax remains sunsetted every year, requiring a Finance Bill, it would not be appropriate to have a sunset on every single piece of legislation.

[Richard Fuller]

I appreciate the Minister’s giving way again. I know that in his solid free-market hands businesses should have no fears about the way in which legislation will be imposed further upon them, but he will know, just as I do, that eventually, in the long-distant future, there may be a change of Government—[Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”]—although maybe not in my lifetime. Does he not agree that, just as night follows day, so sunsets should be applied to all clauses?

[Matthew Hancock]

I think that businesses would hope that legislation put in place for the long term will remain for the long term. The sunsetting in this Bill—as amended by the technical amendments that we are debating—is a major step forward, and the way in which it will be implemented is the right way forward. We are taking an ambitious and strong approach to secondary legislation that will ensure that Ministers and the Government have to check that legislation is working in the way it ought to. Therefore, I would resist the Opposition and non-Government amendments in the group, and I hope we have cross-party support for amendments 21 and 22.

--- Later in debate ---

[Richard Fuller]

Enterprise and regulatory reform, part of the title of the Bill, are words to bring succour to those who work in the engine room of the British economy—words that can take a thousand ideas for a new business, which have been discussed over a pint or sketched out on paper, and transform them into job-making, wealth-creating vehicles of growth.

The anticipation for the Bill is almost tangible, but I fear that it will fall short of fulfilling the hopeful expectations. Where is the rolling back of the myriad fees and charges that are blithely imposed on businesses; where is the relief for shopkeepers from the sky-high rateable values set at the peak of Labour’s boom-cum-bust; and where is the implementation of our policy to roll back job-destroying EU regulation?

The Bill’s proceedings should have started with a rallying call to our businesses that this Government are unambiguously on their side; a statement cherishing the principles of the free market as the most liberating force for social good; a determination to embrace, defend and expand the global free market that has lifted hundreds of millions of people from poverty, to which too many were consigned by the misguided socialist policies of the past; a rebuttal of the insidious assumption, which too often underlies Government intervention, that, left to their own devices, people who run their own business cannot be trusted. That assumption should be replaced by a presumption of trust that in starting and growing businesses, people are doing the essential work of a grateful nation, burdened by its debts and seeking the wealth to maintain its cherished public services.

Capitalism delivers by its results what all rival systems can only promise on paper. That is a truth that the Bill should have heralded as clearly and unequivocally as President Obama did just last night:

“I believe the free enterprise system is the greatest engine of prosperity the world has ever known.”

We need to spread access to capital for people to start their own businesses, so that it is as available in Bradford, Burnley, Bath and Bedford as it is in London, Oxford, Cambridge and Edinburgh. We need to create a front-foot nation, a nation of entrepreneurs. It must be as much a part of our culture for people to want to own their own business as to want to own their own home. We need a people with the willingness to start, the ambition to grow and the courage to try again. We need a local community spirit that expects, encourages and supports those endeavours.