Oral Answers to Questions
John Bercow Excerpts(11 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Michael Gove
The hon. Lady has made a good case for the continuation of Department for Education provision at Mowden hall in Darlington. It is important for us all to recognise that the work of civil servants engaged in the DfE review has been typical of the committed work they do across the Department to ensure that we have better services for less money. I am looking forward to working with her to ensure that we examine the case for either Darlington or another location in the north-east providing an even better service for all children in the future.
Examination Reform
John Bercow Excerpts(11 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Speaker
Order. I will take the hon. Gentleman’s point of order in a moment. Just before I call the Minister for Schools, the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr Laws) to respond from the Government Front Bench, I should say that in order to try and accommodate the level of interest, I have decided to impose an eight-minute limit on each Back-Bench contribution. Mr Brennan, I could never forget you and I was in no danger of doing so.
Kevin Brennan
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Given that, unusually, the Secretary of State has decided to wind up the debate rather than to respond to the opening speech and has intervened on the shadow Secretary of State on five occasions, is there any means by which the time could be extended to allow the Opposition Front Bench the opportunity to intervene on him the same number of times without him being able to cry shortage of time?
Mr Speaker
The short answer is no, and I should emphasise, for the avoidance of doubt, that nothing disorderly has occurred.
Mr Speaker
The hon. Gentleman, as he rightly says, did not say that. The order in which Ministers appear at the Dispatch Box is exclusively a matter for the Government. It may be unusual, but there is nothing improper about it whatsoever. The House will now wish to hear Mr David Laws.
Oral Answers to Questions
John Bercow Excerpts(12 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Speaker
Order. We have already heard from the hon. Gentleman in substantive questions and it is not long before we will have the delight—I hope—of hearing from him again in topical questions. Members cannot, I am afraid, have two goes at substantives. One can almost have too much of a good thing.
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
16. What recent assessment he has made of his changes to higher education and to the level of student tuition fees; and if he will make a statement.
Mr Willetts
For the first time, we have required that key information sets contain the information that prospective students want about, for example, employment outcomes from particular courses at particular universities. People are entitled to that information—it was not available before, but now it is.
Shabana Mahmood (Birmingham, Ladywood) (Lab)
I am afraid the Minister is trying to gloss over the facts of his record. The reality is that two years on from the Government’s decision to treble tuition fees to £9,000 a year, applications have dropped by 54,000, which is 11%; acceptances are down, as are the numbers of mature learners and part-time learners; his core and margin policy has caused nothing but chaos and confusion; his AAB policy has been a dramatic failure; and to top it all off, legitimate international students are choosing to go to our competitor countries to study as a result of Home Office policies. Is not the truth that the past two years under this Government have been a disaster for students and universities alike?
Vince Cable
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that this episode reveals wider possible failures in the system. There may well be better ways to handle insolvency—although it is fair to say that in general the British insolvency regime is regarded as one of the best internationally—and we should be open-minded about other approaches. The American chapter 11 system may well be better and I want to have a proper look at that. We are specifically going to have a look initially at a narrow issue concerning insolvency practitioners and their fees. The Insolvency Service is being looked at as part of the red tape challenge, which is examining the regulatory system and how it can be improved. I also want to review more broadly whether we can adopt better practices across the piece.
Mr Speaker
I call Richard Graham. Not here. That is the second time this has happened in a few days. The fellow has got to get himself sorted.
John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)
I recently met Phil Downer, who runs a recruitment business, and he took me through the 14 pages of the new agency workers regulations that he has to fill in every time he recruits somebody for a few weeks. Will the Minister explain whether the red tape challenge is addressing this unnecessary regulation, which is a massive burden on a small business man who is trying to get on in my constituency?
Jo Swinson
At this time of year, when we remember the Christmas story, we can be thankful that in the past 2,000 years not only has maternity care improved somewhat, but so has the recognition in society of the positive role that women, and mothers in particular, can play in the workplace. I recognise that it can be difficult for employers when an excellent employee is away for a year. That is why I hope that, as a strong champion for small business and as a father, my hon. Friend will welcome the Government’s plans to introduce shared parental leave, which will let mums and dads choose how they care for their children. Of course, that will mean that many mums will return to work in under a year, which will help to deal with the problem he outlines, as well as help dads to spend more time with their child in the early weeks of their child’s life.
On the specific issue, approximately 1.5 million people become parents every year, and we would not want that talent pool to be dissuaded from applying to work for small businesses.
Mr Speaker
I think on the strength of that answer there is plenty of scope for an Adjournment debate in which, no doubt, we will hear about the Nordic nostrums and views about neanderthals from the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr Sheerman), who was scarcely able to contain himself a moment ago.
Nic Dakin (Scunthorpe) (Lab)
T6. Sadly, people can be vulnerable to getting a Christmas debt hangover. The National Audit Office reported this week that debt management companies are making £0.3 billion a year. Will the Government take robust action in the new year to regulate debt management companies?
Oral Answers to Questions
John Bercow Excerpts(12 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Speaker
Order. I am sorry to disappoint the hon. Member for Cannock Chase (Mr Burley). I would have called him to ask a question if that oration had concluded earlier, but it did not, so I cannot. I will, however, look kindly on him in topical questions. We shall see.
John Pugh (Southport) (LD)
T1. If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.
The Secretary of State for Education (Michael Gove)
With your permission, Mr Speaker—
Mr Speaker
Order. On this occasion, an answer rather than a speech will suffice. I must also say that I richly enjoyed the Secretary of State’s Oxford Union oration.
Michael Gove
Thank you, Mr Speaker. I have had lots of meetings today and they have all been fun. Getting advice from you is the most fun of all.
Michael Gove
On previous occasions I have observed that the hon. Gentleman has never yet said anything in Education questions with which I have disagreed. This is a first, therefore. It is miraculous that there should be any gap between us, but I look forward perhaps to talking to the hon. Gentleman to see what we can do.
Mr Speaker
Certainly there is very rarely any Question Time in which the hon. Member for Colchester (Sir Bob Russell) does not say something. We are accustomed to that by now, and we are grateful to him for it.
Mr Gerry Sutcliffe (Bradford South) (Lab)
Why do free schools not have to provide sports facilities, and how will that help the Olympic legacy?
Autism
John Bercow Excerpts(12 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Speaker
Order. Just before that intervention is answered by the hon. Member for South Swindon (Mr Buckland), to whom I always listen with huge interest and respect, I know that he will not mind if I point out to him and the House that nine Back Benchers and a couple of Front Benchers are still to contribute. I am keen to accommodate as many people as possible, consistent with hearing the continuation and conclusion of his excellent speech.
Mr Buckland
I can assure you, Mr Speaker, that I am watching the clock anxiously, and I will now make progress. I am grateful to hon. Members for their interventions.
The hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith (Mark Lazarowicz) is right about the problem he illustrated: diagnosis is one thing but provision for older people with autism is another. Many older people to whom I speak tell me that, having had the diagnosis, they turn around and say, “Well, what now?” Very little happens after a diagnosis. Other speakers will deal with the point about assessment for benefits, but the message has to go out loud and clear that more training must be given to those responsible for conducting benefit assessments, so that what I call invisible conditions, such as autism, are fully understood by those conducting the assessments. I am sure that he, like me, will have had cases where that invisible condition was not recognised.
I am grateful that the Under-Secretary of State for Education, my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mr Timpson), who has responsibility for the draft Children and Families Bill, is in his place. I want to highlight a report prepared last year by the all-party group on autism, which I have the honour of chairing. I know that he has been listening carefully to the points and recommendations made in the report, and I welcome his approach in listening to the points made and already making changes to some of the provisions in the Bill—for example, the inclusion of apprenticeships as part of the future education, health and social care plans. I approach my remarks today in that spirit of engagement and listening.
I mentioned the all-party group’s report. Our inquiry included an online survey in which nearly 1,000 respondents took part. It is, I believe, an authoritative and useful source of information when it comes to the development of policy. Among other things, we recommended that local authorities establish local training needs for special needs and identify where specialist autism knowledge is available to local schools. The funding for specialist training programmes for teachers has to be an important part of that, and we look to the Government for their continued support.
We were concerned about the exclusion of children and young people with autism. They often result, sadly, in lives that turn into criminal justice issues, huge wasted opportunities and expensive mistakes that cost our country dear. We are concerned that schools with a high number of exclusions, permanent or fixed-term, should not be graded as outstanding or good in terms of behaviour, because we regard exclusions as a badge of failure. I say that with respect to all the professionals involved. I understand that it is often difficult to manage young people with autism and other conditions, but exclusions are not the way to deal with the problem. All they do is push the problem on to another agency. It is the equivalent of kicking the can down the road. That is a phrase we often here in this place, but it is what is happening to young people with these conditions far too often.
The all-party group also emphasised that the new system should ensure that all children with autism, whether they have a statement or not, have access to the necessary support, and that there be a lead teacher for autism in every school. We must not forget that children currently in receipt of help under the school action or school action plus schemes might not have needs that are acute enough to merit a statement or an education, health and social care plan, but their needs will remain none the less. I would be interested to hear the Minister’s observations about children in that category.
Oral Answers to Questions
John Bercow Excerpts(12 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Vince Cable
I had an opportunity recently to meet my hon. Friend and his local enterprise partnership, which is one of the most dynamic and is dominated by small business, most of it focused on the tourism industry. He is absolutely right that one of the key legacies of the Olympics is attracting people to come to the UK, and I am happy to talk to him even more frequently than I do at the moment about tourism.
Jenny Chapman (Darlington) (Lab)
The Minister of State has been to Darlington and should be, but probably is not, embarrassed by the decision he made to decline the regional growth fund bid for Durham Tees Valley airport. Is he as shocked and frustrated as we in the north-east are to learn that there is now £1 billion of unallocated RGF money in his Department’s coffers?
Oral Answers to Questions
John Bercow Excerpts(12 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Stephen Twigg
A significant part of that extra money is actually the money for two-year-olds which the Government said was additional money. The figures in the Government’s own consultation showed that the cut would be from the £2.3 billion figure, which the Secretary of State has just given us, to £1.72 billion next year, which is a cut of 27%. Should not the Secretary of State be honest and listen to Merrick Cockell, the leader of Conservative local government, who made a clear point last week:
“this move…will force local authorities to cut early intervention services even further”?
Is that not what is really going on?
Mr Speaker
Order. Just before the Secretary of State responds, I am sure that the shadow Secretary of State would accept that the Secretary of State would always be honest with the House. There is no need to ask for a commitment to honesty; that is implicit.
Michael Gove
I am never surprised when I hear a kind word from the Chair. It is no more than I have come to expect.
Implicit in the hon. Gentleman’s question was the idea that we should reduce funding to extend early education to two-year-olds. I do not believe that is right. I believe it is right that we increase the amount we spend on early intervention from £2.2 billion to £2.3 billion, to £2.4 billion and then to £2.5 billion. That is an increase in anyone’s money.
Matthew Hancock
Yes. I am delighted to say that I have already taken some action, but there is more to do. The first round of the employer ownership pilots included funding for a bid by engineering companies across the country specifically to support engineering apprenticeships and engineering training. I entirely accept the size of the challenge in engineering and ICT. If we say that engineering is not for half of our population, we are never going to have enough high-quality engineers. [Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
The hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr Sheerman) has been chuntering from a sedentary position, to no obvious benefit or purpose—[Interruption.] Order. He was making his point sitting down. Would he like to make it standing up?
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
20. Indeed. Would the Minister accept that the withdrawal of funding for the Women into Science and Engineering campaign is not a good idea if we are to be serious about getting more women into engineering and science?
Michael Gove
That was a three-part question, and I shall use both sides of the paper. Yesterday was, in fact, a sad day for me: I was in mourning because, sadly, Queens Park Rangers lost to Arsenal, who, with 10 minutes to go, scored a goal that I can only conclude was offside. It was a day of mourning for the Gove household. The Schools Minister, however, is fully involved in all discussions in the Department for Education in every policy area. The two of us are singing from the same hymn sheet, which is, of course, what we should be doing every Sunday, whether or not the clocks go back.
Mr Speaker
The Arsenal result was extremely satisfactory and I was there to observe it.
Justin Tomlinson (North Swindon) (Con)
15. What steps he is taking to improve the quality of mathematics teaching in schools.
Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)
I am interested in the logic of the Secretary of State’s position. If he believes it is right that academies and free schools should be able to take on whoever they like on the strength of the opinion of the head teacher, why is that not right for local authority schools? And if he believes it is right that we make the teachers’ training qualification more difficult, why is it right that academies can opt out of that?
Mr Speaker
Order. The hon. Gentleman is supposed to be an egalitarian. One question will do—an equal distribution of the available fruits.
Michael Gove
I, too, am an egalitarian, which is why I believe that academy status should be extended to every school that believes in improving outcomes for its children.
Educational Funding Gap
John Bercow Excerpts(12 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Speaker
Order. In thanking everyone who has taken part in, or witnessed, this evening’s debate, may I appeal to right hon. and hon. Members who, unaccountably, might be leaving the Chamber and not wishing to stay to hear the hon. Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis), to do so quickly and quietly, affording the hon. Gentleman the same courtesy that they would wish to be extended to them in similar circumstances?
Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Bill
John Bercow Excerpts(12 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills (Jo Swinson)
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
Mr Speaker
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
New clause 1—Removal of requirement for protected disclosures to be made in good faith—
‘The Employment Rights Act 1996 is amended as follows:
‘(1) Omit “in good faith”—
(a) in section 43C (Disclosures qualifying for protection), in subsection (1),
(b) in section 43E (Disclosure to Minister of the Crown), in paragraph (b), and
(c) in section 43F (Disclosure to prescribed person), in subsection (1)(a).
(2) Omit “makes the disclosure in good faith,
(b) he”—
(a) in section 43G (Disclosure in other cases), in subsection (1), and
(b) in section 43H (Disclosure of exceptionally serious failure), in subsection (1).’.
New clause 2—Duty on employers to prevent detriment caused by others to workers who have made protected disclosures—
‘(1) The Secretary of State shall make regulations requiring an employer, where a worker has made a protected disclosure under section 43A of the Employment Rights Act 1996, to take reasonable steps to ensure that the worker is not subjected to any detriment by any act, or any deliberate failure to act, by a person other than his employer done on the ground that worker has made the disclosure.
(2) Regulations under this section—
(a) are to be made by statutory instrument, and
(b) are not to be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament.’.
Amendment 80, in clause 7, page 4, line 13, at end insert—
‘(1) Prior to the commencement of this section, the Secretary of State shall carry out an impact assessment into the effect of the introduction of proposed fees for the employment tribunal system and the impact this will have on the effectiveness of ACAS conciliation proceedings.’.
Government amendments 6 and 7.
Amendment 51, page 5, line 43, at end insert—
‘(e) preventing an employer or ex-employer of a prospective Claimant from applying for costs against the prospective Claimant under the Employment Tribunal Rules or other measures to provide an incentive to employers or ex-employers to take part in the conciliation process.’.
Amendment 52, in clause 11, page 7, line 27, after (2) insert
‘With the consent of the parties but not otherwise.’.
Amendment 53, page 7, leave out lines 29 to 38.
Amendment 54, page 8, leave out lines 1 to 10.
Amendment 81, leave out clause 12.
Government amendments 8 to 10.
Amendment 82, leave out clause 13.
Government amendments 11 to 13.
Amendment 70, in clause 13, page 9, leave out line 15.
Government amendment 14.
Amendment 71, page 9, line 32, leave out
‘in whatever way the Secretary of State thinks fit’
and insert
‘by the Secretary of State following consultation with the TUC and CBI’.
Government amendment 15.
Amendment 58, leave out clause 14.
Amendment 59, in clause 14, page 10, line 11, at end insert—
‘(c) and where the employer employs in excess of 10 employees at the time of the claim first being submitted to ACAS as per section 18A of this Act,’.
Amendment 92, page 10, line 14, at end insert—
‘(1A) The Secretary of State shall by regulations provide for an employer to pay a penalty to the Secretary of State for each period of time (as specified in those regulations) that passes during which an award of compensation under Part X of the Employment Rights Act 1996 has not yet been paid by the employer.’.
Amendment 72, page 10, line 17, leave out from ‘£5,000’ until end of line 4 on page 11.
Amendment 83, page 10, leave out lines 20 to 25.
Amendment 73, page 11, line 47, after ‘Fund’, insert
‘to be spent with the objective of promoting awareness of employment rights and promoting training for employment.’.
Amendment 94, in clause 15, page 12, line 4, leave out from ‘(protection),’ to end of line 5, and insert ‘after subsection (2), insert—
‘(2A) The disclosure of information relating to a private contractual matter to which the person making the disclosure is party is not a qualifying disclosure unless the worker making the disclosure reasonably believes it to be made in the public interest.”.’.
Government amendments 16, 17 and 31.
Amendment 57, in schedule 2, page 65, line 22, leave out ‘one month’ and insert ‘six months’.
Jo Swinson
New clause 8 will introduce sensible changes to the employment tribunal rules of procedure recommended by Mr Justice Underhill. I shall say more about the effect of those changes shortly. A number of other new clauses and amendments have been tabled both by the Government and by other Members, and I shall attempt to address them—as well as new clause 8—as comprehensively but as succinctly as possible. As Members will know, part 2 was subjected to thorough scrutiny by the hon. Member for Edinburgh South (Ian Murray) and his Committee colleagues, and all the clauses were accepted unamended.
Contrary to some of the views expressed in Committee, these measures do nothing to affect an individual’s employment rights. Instead, they deliver on the Government’s commitment to giving businesses more confidence to take on new staff and grow. We know that employment tribunals are a continuing cause of concern for businesses and, indeed, employees, and I should be surprised if Opposition Front-Benchers tried to argue that all is working swimmingly at present. The measures in part 2 are designed to alleviate the fears and problems by encouraging the earliest possible resolution of disputes, facilitating settlement agreements to help businesses to manage their staff more effectively, and ensuring that the tribunal system itself operates efficiently for all users.
Julian Smith
We are hearing a load of bluster and rubbish from Opposition Members. This is a balanced measure that puts a bit more power in the hands of those who will create new jobs in this country. The shadow Minister was an employment lawyer; every member of the Opposition Front-Bench team was a business owner. They are being hypocrites about the clause.
Mr Speaker
Order. The hon. Gentleman must withdraw his use of the word “hypocrites” in relation to Members of the House. Perhaps he will be good enough to withdraw the remark and apologise.
Jo Swinson
Thank you, Mr Speaker. I think it is fair of my hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon (Julian Smith) to point out that many business owners are genuinely concerned about how employment law currently works.
Jo Swinson
I think that it will do what the Government intend it to do—basically what it says on the tin. It is about making sure that the public interest disclosure regime has to have a public interest test. That is what was meant when the legislation was initially framed and formed. The case law that has come up since then has showed that there was a loophole, and I think, to be fair, that the Opposition have accepted that it needs to be closed.
Following my discussions with the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran, the House may wish to be aware of the steps that the Government are taking in the NHS to encourage whistleblowers. As I said during the recent debate on the issue, the Government fully support the rights of NHS staff to raise concerns in the public interest. That right has been enshrined in the NHS constitution and further strengthened through changes made to the constitution and the handbook in March this year. The Department of Health is continuing to build on the rights set out in the Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998 further to highlight the statutory protections available for those who raise concerns. I want to stress that the Government fully support genuine whistleblowers and want to encourage individuals to bring issues to light, but we need to ensure that the balance of protection for employers and individuals is correct. We believe that the current clause achieves this, and I am therefore unable to support the hon. Lady’s amendment. However, I welcome the constructive work that she, among others, has been doing on the issue.
The hon. Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams) asked about the level of £5,000 and penalties. The provision is intended to mirror the national minimum wage compliance regime, so there is method behind it, but it will be possible to amend it if necessary.
I turn now to our amendments 16, 17 and 31 to clause 17. Members who followed the progress of the Bill through Committee will recall that the original clause, then clause 16, was accepted into the Bill without debate. The purpose of the clause then, as now, was to amend specified primary legislation to replace all references to “compromise agreements”, “compromise contracts” and “compromises”, where they occur in an employment context, with the terms “settlement agreement” or “settlement”. By renaming compromise agreements, we are addressing any conscious or sub-conscious reluctance by a party to use these agreements arising from the perception that they are conceding or “giving in” on some or all of their arguments. The original drafting of the clause—with the agreement of the Under-Secretary of State for Skills, the hon. Member for West Suffolk (Matthew Hancock)—extended the change of name to Northern Ireland in so far as it related to the National Minimum Wage Act 1998. Having since considered matters further, my Northern Ireland colleagues have concluded that such a change should not be made in isolation and should form part of the wider review of employment law that they have recently launched. As a consequence, it is necessary make minor amendments to restrict the effect of the name change to England, Scotland and Wales in only that Act.
I commend the Government amendments to the House and hope that I have fully explained why we are unable to support the other amendments in the group.
Mr Speaker
Before I call Mr Murray to speak to the new clause from the Opposition Front Bench, I have a short statement to make. Nominations for the Chair of the Procedure Committee closed yesterday, and an election was held by secret ballot earlier today. The following candidate was elected: Mr Charles Walker. The full breakdown of voting is set out in a paper which will be available from the Vote Office. I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his election.
Mr James Gray (North Wiltshire) (Con)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I would be most grateful if you could point me to the procedurally correct way of congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Mr Walker) on an outstanding victory, wishing him well in chairing an extremely important Committee of this House, and committing myself to serving under him loyally as an ordinary member of the Committee in future.
Mr Speaker
I am extremely grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his point of order, and the reaction of the House shows that Members as a whole are as well. I thank him for what he said and for his participation in the election.
Ian Murray
I congratulate the hon. Member for Broxbourne (Mr Walker) on his election to the Procedure Committee.
Let me, too, start with an affair of state by saying happy birthday to the shadow Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, my hon. Friend the Member for Streatham (Mr Umunna). I will not lead the House in a chorus of “Happy Birthday”, but we wish him many happy returns.
While I warmly welcome the new Minister to her place, I have to say, with a tinge of disappointment, that I will miss her predecessor, the hon. Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb), for two reasons. First, we incessantly used his book, “How to maximise compensation at an employment tribunal”, in Committee. [Interruption.] For the information of the hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Julian Smith), the then Minister was formerly an employment lawyer. Secondly, at the end of Committee proceedings we bought him a small gift, “Fifty Shades of Grey”, relating to his other passion in life, and I was looking forward to questioning him on that. I hope that the hon. Lady has read the book, because then some of the references in my speech might make more sense.
It is an indictment of how uncomfortable the Minister is with this part of the Bill that the Government have restricted the time available on Report to deal with the complicated issues within it. Let me be clear from the outset. It does not matter how much the Secretary of State stamps his feet or the Liberal Democrat Minister denies it, this Bill is delivering Beecroft by the back door. It is not just Labour Members who are saying that. I am delighted that the hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon is in his place, because he said the same in Committee, much to the disdain of the former Minister. As is consistent with most of the clauses in this hotch-potch of an enterprise Bill, these changes to rights at work are not about enterprise and are not a panacea for a Government with no strategy for growth.
I cannot emphasise enough that the hard-fought-for rights of employees up and down this country are not the reason we are in a double-dip recession; the failed economic policies of this Government are the reason.
Mr Speaker
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
New clause 4—Town and country planning: Amendment of the Town and Country Planning (Control of Advertisements) (England) Regulations 2007—
‘(1) Class 3 of Schedule 3 to the Town and Country Planning (Control of Advertisements) (England) Regulations 2007, (Classes of advertisements for which deemed consent is granted) is amended as follows.
(2) In item 3A, after “sale”, leave out “or letting”.
(3) In item 3A(2), after both uses of “sold”, leave out “or let”.
(4) In item 3A(2), after “sale”, leave out “or letting”.
(5) In item 3A(8), after “sale”, leave out “or letting”.’.
New clause 5—Town and country planning: responsibilities of housing authorities—
‘(1) Local authorities in England which enjoy day-to-day responsibility for housing policy within their local authority area may make by-laws regulating for all or part of the authority the display of external advertisements concerning property lettings.
(2) If a housing authority has not specifically provided for the display of external notices advertising a property to let then such a notice is not permitted.’.
New clause 6—Town and country planning: offences—
‘(1) It shall be an offence to display an external notice prohibited by subsection (2) of section (Town and country planning: responsibilities of housing authorities).
(2) A person guilty of an offence under subsection (1) is liable, on summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding level 4 on the standard scale.
(3) A person guilty of a second or subsequent offence under subsection (1) is liable, on summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard for each seperate such offence.’.
New clause 7—Town and country planning: commencement and extent—
‘(1) Sections (Town and country planning: Amendment of the Town and Country Planning (Control of Advertisements) (England) Regulations 2007, Town and country planning: responsibilities of housing authorities, and Town and country planning: offences) come into force two months after the day on which this Act is passed.
(2) Sections (Town and country planning: Amendment of the Town and Country Planning (Control of Advertisements) (England) Regulations 2007, Town and country planning: responsibilities of housing authorities, and Town and country planning: offences) extend to England only.’.
New clause 20—Local authorities: powers relating to deemed consent—
‘(1) Part 2 Regulation 7 of the Town and Country Planning (Control of Advertisements) (England) Regulations 2007 is amended as follows.
(2) In item (1) delete “Secretary of State” and insert “local authority”.
(3) In item (1) delete “upon a proposal made to her by the local planning authority”.
(4) In item (1) delete “she” and insert “the local authority”.
(5) In item (2) delete “ Secretary of State” and insert “local authority”.
(6) In item (2b) delete “her” and insert “the local authority’s”.
(7) In item (3) delete “Secretary of State” and insert “local authority”.
(8) In item (4) delete “Secretary of State” and insert “local authority”.
(9) In item (5) delete “ Secretary of State” and insert “local authority”.
(10) In item (5b) delete “the local planning authority and to any other” and insert “any”.
(11) In item (5) delete part (c).
(12) In item (5b) delete “her” and insert “the local authority”.
(13) In item (5c(i)) delete “she” and insert “the local authority”.
(14) In item (5c(i)) delete “her” and insert “the local authority’s”.
(15) In item (6) delete from “Where” to end and insert “Where the local authority makes a direction it shall send a copy of its reasons to every person who has made a paragraph (3) representation.”.
(16) In item (7) delete “unless the Secretary of State otherwise directs”.
New clause 21—Restriction of advertisement relating to property lettings—
‘(1) Local authorities in England which enjoy day-to-day responsibility for housing policy within their local authority area may make by-laws restricting for all or part of the authority the display of external advertisements concerning property lettings.
(2) It shall be an offence to display an external advertisement concerning property letting in areas or cases where the Local Planning Authority has, under subsection (1), passed a by-law prohibiting external advertisements concerning property letting.
(3) A person found guilty of an offence under subsection (2) is liable, on summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding level 4 on the standard scale.
(4) A person found guilty of a second or subsequent offence under subsection (2) is liable, on summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale for each such offence.’.
Amendment 91, line 7 after ‘directors;’, insert
‘to make provision about advertisements concerning property lettings;’.
Mr Brown
New clause 21 is subsidiary to new clause 20, as are amendments 91 and 69. I will not speak to new clauses 4 to 7, which offer an alternative way of dealing with the same problem. I believe that new clause 20 offers the better of the two routes forward, and I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn), the Front-Bench spokesman on these matters for the parliamentary Labour party, for suggesting it to me. New clause 21 sets out the offences; amendment 69 sets the date of enactment, which will be the same as for the rest of the Bill. I have been advised by the Public Bill Office that amendment 91 is a technical necessity for my principal proposal.
I wish to amend regulation 7 of the Town and Country Planning (Control of Advertisements) (England) Regulations 2007, so that matters relating to the control of estate agents’ “To let” signs are under the control of the local authorities that make byelaws about such matters, rather than being governed by primary legislation and the central regulation that currently applies. The proposals do not abolish the central regulation of the original enactment; they merely give local government the right and ability to supplement it. That could mean extending the use of “To let” signs, but it is far more likely to mean restricting it.
This is a moderate proposition, and when I introduced a ten-minute rule Bill on the subject it had all-party support and its First Reading was not opposed. The problem is that the “To let” sign regime is widely abused in urban areas, and properties with short-term leases find that the signs are left up all year round. Why would an estate agent or landlord want to do that? Because the sign serves as a form of advertisement for the lettings agent. In the modern era, the signs do not facilitate the search for flats; they just advertise the estate agent.
Matthew Hancock
I beg to move amendment 21, page 42, line 38, leave out ‘, other than the Scottish Ministers,’.
Mr Speaker
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Government amendment 22.
Amendment 63, page 43, line 1, leave out ‘may’ and insert ‘must’.
Amendment 64, page 43, line 4, after ‘specified period’, insert ‘, or’.
Amendment 65, page 43, line 6, after ‘specified period’, insert ‘, or’.
Amendment 66, page 43, line 10, leave out line 10 and insert ‘If the provision is made by virtue of subsection (2)(a), it includes’.
Amendment 67, page 43, line 19, leave out ‘may’ and insert ‘must if necessary’.
New clause 26—Review of legislation relating to health and safety at work and application of sunset and review provisions to this legislation—
‘(1) The Secretary of State must—
(a) carry out a review of the effectiveness of all existing legislation relating to health and safety at work, and
(b) prepare and publish a report setting out the conclusions of the review.
(2) The review and report must quantify, in particular—
(a) the effectiveness of the legislation in terms of reducing deaths, injuries and sickness in the workplace,
(b) the human cost, and full societal costs of work-related injuries, deaths and ill-health in terms of pain and suffering, injuries, sickness and years of life lost, and
(c) the full societal costs of the impact of the legislation including those costs resulting from welfare and healthcare spending, and resulting from the number of days lost in the workplace due to ill-health.
(3) Subordinate legislation under section 14A of the Interpretation Act 1978 in respect of any provision relating to health and safety at work may not be made until after the report has been published.’.
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.
Mr Speaker
We will come to the hon. Gentleman’s point of order. I am saving him up. It would be a pity to waste him prematurely.
Clause 40
Cartel Offence
Amendments made: 18, page 37, line 20, at end insert—
‘(6) After section 188A (as inserted by subsection (5) above) insert—
“188B Defences to commission of cartel offence
(1) In a case where the arrangements would (operating as the parties intend) affect the supply in the United Kingdom of a product or service, it is a defence for an individual charged with an offence under section 188(1) to show that, at the time of the making of the agreement, he or she did not intend that the nature of the arrangements would be concealed from customers at all times before they enter into agreements for the supply to them of the product or service.
(2) It is a defence for an individual charged with an offence under section 188(1) to show that, at the time of the making of the agreement, he or she did not intend that the nature of the arrangements would be concealed from the CMA.
(3) It is a defence for an individual charged with an offence under section 188(1) to show that, before the making of the agreement, he or she took reasonable steps to ensure that the nature of the arrangements would be disclosed to professional legal advisers for the purposes of obtaining advice about them before their making or (as the case may be) their implementation.”’.
Amendment 19, page 37, line 20, at end insert—
‘( ) After section 190 of the 2002 Act insert—
“190A Cartel offence: prosecution guidance
(1) The CMA must prepare and publish guidance on the principles to be applied in determining, in any case, whether proceedings for an offence under section 188(1) should be instituted.
(2) The CMA may at any time issue revised or new guidance.
(3) Guidance published by the CMA under this section is to be published in such manner as it considers appropriate.
(4) In preparing guidance under this section the CMA must consult—
(a) the Director of the Serious Fraud Office;
(b) the Lord Advocate; and
(c) such other persons as it considers appropriate.”’.
Amendment 20, page 37, line 21, leave out ‘this section’ and insert ‘subsections (1) to (6)’.—(Jo Swinson.)
Chris Bryant
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I am not sure how to describe my relationship with the Prime Minister, but it is quite on and off. On 25 June, he said that he was going to refuse to answer any of my questions until I apologised to the House—even though I had already apologised to the House. On 27 June, just two days later, he did reply to a question, and he did the same in September, but today he is back to not replying to questions.
I fully understand the ruling that you gave this afternoon, Mr Speaker, as you are not in charge of the quality of answers, but I do not think that there has ever in the history of the House been an occasion when a Prime Minister has said that he or she would—full stop—not reply to any question. I think you have ruled, and previous Speakers have ruled on many occasions previously, that when a Minister refuses to reply to a written question, they must answer it, not least because the ministerial code, written by the Prime Minister, says:
“Ministers should be as open as possible with Parliament and the public, refusing to provide information only when disclosure would not be in the public interest”.
That, of course, is incorporated in a motion of the House, resolved on 19 March 1997. I would have thought that expressly saying that one will not reply to an individual Member of the House is an affront to the House; in particular, it is an affront to my constituents. It should not be countenanced, surely.
Mr Speaker
I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his point of order, to which I make two points in response. First, with reference to the ministerial code, I simply remind the House that responsibility for it rests with the Prime Minister, and it seems unlikely that the Prime Minister will be minded to investigate himself. I say that not in a spirit of levity, but because I think it is a pertinent observation in practical terms. Secondly, I am sorry to disappoint the hon. Gentleman, and I do not intend any discourtesy to him, as I take the hon. Gentleman very seriously—almost as seriously as he takes himself. [Laughter.] I do take him extremely seriously and I have a very high respect for him, as he knows. What I would say at this stage is that this is clearly a highly controversial matter, on which I do not feel I can rule off the cuff now. That is not to duck it; I will reflect on the very important point that he has made and I will come back to him and, if appropriate, to the House. I hope that that is helpful.
Third Reading
Queen’s consent signified.
Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Bill
John Bercow Excerpts(12 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Jo Swinson
New clause 15 amends the definition of “estate agency work”, which determines the application of the Estate Agents Act 1979. This fulfils our commitment to introduce a measure on this issue following our recent targeted consultation, which was developed as part of the disruptive business models/challenger businesses theme of the red tape challenge.
New clause 15 extends a current exemption to that definition of estate agency work. Intermediaries, such as internet portals for private sales, will be out of the scope of the Estate Agents Act if they merely enable private sellers to advertise their properties and provide a means for sellers and buyers to contact and communicate with one another. Such intermediary businesses will therefore not be obliged to comply with requirements that are relevant to full service estate agency businesses, such as the disclosure of any self-interest in a property transaction and membership of a redress scheme for residential estate agents. These private sales businesses are not actively involved in property transactions, but offer a lower-cost alternative of enabling individuals to market their own property and buy and sell privately.
Those intermediary businesses will be able to provide a means for the seller and prospective buyer to contact one another, for example online; to provide a branded for sale board to the seller to assist this process; and to pass on to a prospective buyer solely the information provided by the seller in their advertisement, by whatever channel of communication. If, however, the intermediary offers any personal advice to a seller or a buyer, or other ancillary services, such as preparing property particulars or photographs or an energy performance certificate, the intermediary will be in the scope of the Estate Agents Act and bound by its obligations. The Estate Agents Act will therefore continue to apply to businesses that are involved in or have scope to influence property transactions.
The Government have found uncertainty and a range of views among stakeholders as to the application of the Estate Agents Act to intermediary businesses, particularly online. This is unhelpful to consumers who might wish to use an intermediary, and unhelpful to businesses, whether intermediaries or more traditional estate agents, or those interested in entering the market. Stakeholders are also concerned that consumers should be protected where they rely on a service provider in relation to a transaction as valuable and important as a house sale or purchase. Clearly, for most people it is the highest value and most important purchase they will make. The Estate Agents Act will continue to apply to businesses providing personal advice about a potential sale or other ancillary services.
For those reasons, this is a limited deregulation. It addresses the perceived uncertainty as to the scope of the Estate Agents Act and it brings benefits to consumers and to the industry, but, crucially, it does not unduly reduce consumer protection in relation to services that involve the service provider in the property transaction.
Mr Speaker
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Government new clause 10—Listed buildings in England: certificates of lawfulness.
Government new schedule 1—‘Local listed Building consent orders: procedure.
Government amendments 38 to 40, 42, 43, and 48 to 50.
Matthew Hancock
I shall speak to new clause 9 and new schedule 1 in the first instance. Those provisions are intended to improve the effectiveness of the listed building consent regime and they follow the Penfold review of non-planning consents. They introduce a new system of national and local class consents, and received broad support during consultation. The new system is designed to reduce the number of listed building consent applications for works that have neither a harmful nor significant impact on a building’s special interest. It will be possible to grant consent automatically for certain categories of work or buildings—where the extent of the special interest is well understood—without the need to make an additional application. Thus, the new provisions will protect listed buildings. I, like many others in this House, have a special adoration for the heritage of our listed buildings in this country, not least the one in which we are standing. Our approach will also improve the operation of the regime. [Interruption.] I suppose that I should declare an interest, although it is not the one that the hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr Wright) thinks; I work in a wonderful listed building and I want to ensure that it is protected.
The changes will also reduce burdens on applicants and free up local planning authority resources to focus on the listed building consent applications that really matter. The Secretary of State will be required to consult English Heritage before making a national order and will be able to apply conditions to consent granted by an order, as with listed building consent at the moment. Both the Secretary of State and any local planning authority will be able to direct that an order does not apply to a specified building, or to buildings of a specified type or in a specified area. The Secretary of State will have the power, at any time, to revoke a listed building consent order, having first served notice on the local planning authority and given it an opportunity to make representations.
The Secretary of State or the local planning authority must have special regard to the desirability of preserving the listed buildings to which the order applies, as well as their setting and any features of special architectural or historic merit that might be affected. We envisage that the processes leading to a class consent will involve the same level of public notice, engagement and consultation as applies to listed building consent currently. These provisions will reduce regulatory burdens without diminishing protection for important heritage sites and buildings. New clause 9 also restates, with minor technical changes in some of the consequential Government amendments, provisions on heritage partnership agreements which were already in the Bill.
New clause 10 introduces a new certificate of lawfulness of proposed works to listed buildings, which will provide certainty to owners and developers of listed buildings—this proposal also received support during consultation. Works to a listed building that do not affect its character as a building of special architectural or historic interest do not require listed building consent. However, interpretations of whether or not consent is needed can vary, and local planning authorities are often reluctant to give a view because it is ultimately a matter for the courts to determine. That means that those seeking to make changes to listed buildings are sometimes required to submit a formal application for listed building consent in order to gain certainty as to whether or not proposed works would affect the special interest. We hope that certificates of lawfulness of proposed works will provide a simple, straightforward mechanism for owners and developers of listed buildings to gain the certainty they require, while reducing the number of unnecessary consent applications. I therefore trust, not least given the widespread support we had in the consultation, that hon. Members will support these new provisions, and I commend them to the House.
Mr Speaker
Order. I remind the House that there is no protected time for a ministerial response. I would like the Minister to be able to respond to a number of points raised by hon. Members, but we are working to the Government’s timetable, approved by the House. Therefore, if the Minister is to reply, a certain self-discipline will hereafter be required.
John Mann (Bassetlaw) (Lab)
I am Mr Self-Discipline, but someone needs to break this ridiculous, cosy consensus over the tax grab that is being proposed, and I suggest that the House should get into the real world. I live in a listed building and deal with local authorities, and week by week, across the country, pre-planning advice from those local authorities is being charged for.
At the moment, if I want to splice one little piece of wood in one window in my house, I require planning permission costing £400. The Government’s new clause means that, if I want to splice one little bit of rotten wood, I will be charged £400 for pre-planning advice by my authority. That is happening with authorities all over the country. It is total nonsense.
Authorities are finding new ways of making money and new taxes. It might not be the Government’s intention, but that is what happening. Authorities are finding new ways that they never bothered about before to say, “You’d better seek some advice before doing things.” My neighbour has been told that a slight change in the colour of his paint requires planning consent. My house is 400 years old and I have a brick wall that is 30-years-old. I was told this week that if I want to add a brick to it, I will need planning consent. Where is the heritage in a 30-year-old 1970s brick wall in a 400-year-old house? There is none.
This is a tax grab by local authorities. Added to the affordable housing tax grab and the community infrastructure levy tax grab, it means that those who live in listed properties will not be able to afford to do anything with them. It is about time someone spoke up against the additional taxes that this evil coalition is bringing in.
Mr Speaker
Order. I fear I must now call the Minister—I am sorry to disappoint the hon. Gentleman.
Matthew Hancock
In the very short time available, I shall first deal with the previous two speeches. I agree with every word spoken by my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (John Penrose) and am grateful for his intervention, but I disagree with almost everything that the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann) said, not least because the Government’s measures will make his situation easier, and because changes other than where there is a special interest will no longer require consent in the same way. That will make his life easier.