Leaseholders and Cladding

Kevin Hollinrake Excerpts

Tuesday 24th November 2020 Commons Chamber

[Christopher Pincher]

The leasehold system and its reform will form part of a Government White Paper and separate debates in this Chamber, and I am sure that the hon. Lady will play her part in those.[Official Report, 26 November 2020, Vol. 684, c. 10MC.] It is not true to say that developers and others are not funding remediation. As I have described, firms such as Pemberstone, Mace, Peabody, Barratt and, I think, Legal and General are all stepping forward with funds to remediate buildings for which they are responsible, resulting in something like 50% of ACM-clad buildings being remediated by the private sector. I do not know the specific issues of the buildings in her constituency to which she refers, but I am happy to talk to her separately about them. I am confident that the £1 billion of public money that we will set aside through the Building Safety Bill will be allocated by the end of this financial year, as we said it would be, and that remediation of those non-ACM buildings will begin.

[Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)]

I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. In many cases there are insurmountable legal problems involved in trying to charge building owners and freeholders for these sums, and developers will often point the finger elsewhere. We know that responsibility lies with the developers and installers, with the manufacturers of insulation and cladding in many cases, and, let us be honest, with successive Governments for their approach to building regulations, which must be described as ambiguous. This cannot be left at the door of the leaseholders. Is it not right that the Government should now step in, increase the building safety fund, get the work done and claim back the moneys wherever possible and from whoever possible, and where they cannot, do so by means of a cross-sector levy?

[Christopher Pincher]

My hon. Friend is an expert in this field and I pay tribute to him for the work that he has undertaken. Mr Wade, our adviser, is working hard with us and with the sector to develop solutions that will provide help and support to leaseholders. In the meantime, as I say, the Government have stepped up and provided a significant amount of public money to remediate the buildings that are most in need of it where there is no other means of paying, but it must be right that we ask developers and those responsible for these buildings to pay. To signal that the state will simply step in and sub them will not encourage them to do the right thing, and it is for developers, owners and warranty suppliers in the first instance to ensure that the buildings for which they are responsible are remediated.

DRAFT STATE AID (REVOCATIONS AND AMENDMENTS) (EU EXIT) REGULATIONS 2020

Kevin Hollinrake Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd November 2020 General Committees

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Paul Scully)]

I beg to move,

That the Committee has considered the draft State Aid (Revocations and Amendments) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Davies.

I hope that the Committee will support the draft regulations and their objectives. The regulations were laid before the House on 29 September of this year. They were made under the powers in the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018, as amended by the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Act 2020, which I will refer to as the “Withdrawal Act”.

The draft regulations remove redundant EU state aid law from the domestic statute book after the end of the transition period. However, it may help if I set out a little context. State aid, which is an EU concept, is support in any form from any level of Government that gives a business or another entity an advantage that could not be obtained in the normal course of business. The disadvantage is the potential to distort competition within the internal market, affecting trade between EU member states, when state aid is present.

The rules relating to state aid ensure that EU member states operate in a way that is compatible with the internal market. The European Union establishes the rules, and the European Commission enforces them. The rules, together with case law, set out the details on how and when aid can be granted. However, we are no longer members of the European Union or the single market and, after the transition period, we will no longer be bound by those rules. If we did nothing, therefore, after the end of the transition period, EU state aid law would become part of UK law as retained EU law under the Withdrawal Act, but it would contain fundamental deficiencies making such retained EU law for state aid inoperable in the UK.

The objective of this statutory instrument, therefore, is to revoke the redundant law. That is both appropriate and necessary to provide legal certainty for UK businesses and public authorities that EU state aid rules no longer apply in the UK, except where they apply directly under the Northern Ireland protocol. That clarity is essential for businesses. The Government have long been clear that the UK will not follow EU state aid rules after the transition period, and will not align with EU state aid rules in any trade agreement with the EU. Instead, the UK will have its own subsidy arrangements to support its competitive, dynamic market economy.

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced in a written statement to Parliament on 9 September 2020 that, from 1 January, the Government will follow World Trade Organisation rules on subsidies and other international commitments agreed in free trade agreements, and that we will consult on whether to go further, including on whether to legislate.

[Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)]

Some of the provisions of the coronavirus business interruption loans and bounce back loans were restricted because of EU state aid rules, which the Government had to work alongside. In future, will we be more fleet of foot in drawing up our own schemes for such loans and, potentially, might we be able to extend them a bit further into the distance? At the moment, they only extend to the end of January. Will the Minister look at extending those schemes perhaps to the middle of the year, because we can determine the rules ourselves? Is that correct?

[Paul Scully]

I thank my hon. Friend for an apposite intervention. I will not be drawn too much into what we will do in future, but I will say that being fleet of foot is exactly the reason for switching off the state aid rules at this point and having our own sovereign approach.

Over the coming months, we will work closely with businesses and public authorities across all parts of the United Kingdom to ensure that we consider how best to design an approach to subsidy control that works, as my hon. Friend said, for the UK economy.

I now turn to the detail of this draft statutory instrument. The SI will disapply and revoke retained EU state aid rules, which are preserved by sections 3 and 4 of the Withdrawal Act. Articles 107 to 109 of the treaty on the functioning of the European Union, together with the EU regulations and decisions made under that treaty, govern the state aid regime. Article 107(1), for example, defines state aid and sets out the general prohibition on giving aid. That prohibition operates by providing that aid is incompatible with the EU internal market, insofar as it affects trade between member states, unless that aid has been approved by the European Commission. Article 107(2) and (3) set out where the Commission must give approval and where the Commission has discretion over whether to approve aid. Article 108 sets out the Commission’s role in monitoring state aid and obliges member states to notify the awarding of aid to the Commission in advance.

Aid cannot be awarded until approved by the European Commission. This is known as the standstill obligation. While the Commission has the exclusive competence to decide whether aid is compatible with the internal market, national courts can enforce the standstill obligation. In effect, national courts can suspend an aid measure until the Commission has considered whether that measure is compatible with the internal market. However, after the transition period, the UK will no longer be bound by EU state aid rules, so the rights and obligations I have just described will no longer be relevant. This SI ensures that they are not retained in UK law by the withdrawal Act.

Furthermore, several EU regulations are in place to enable the EU state aid regime to operate across the member states. These broadly consist of procedural and exemption regulations. The procedural regulations set out how the state aid regime operates and make clear the roles and responsibilities of the Commission and the member states. They set out the procedures to be followed on notification and investigation, and give the Commission information-gathering powers. The exemption regulations set out the conditions under which an aid measure is exempt from the requirement to notify the Commission in advance. After the transition period, these provisions will become retained EU law through the withdrawal Act, but they will have no practical application, because the Commission will not have a role in the UK’s domestic subsidy control arrangements. The SI will therefore revoke these redundant provisions. Removing retained EU law that is both deficient and no longer relevant from UK statute books avoids any possible confusion about whether state aid laws must be complied with or not. The instrument also makes consequential amendments to other retained EU law and UK domestic legislation that refer to state aid rules, ensuring that this legislation can continue to operate appropriately beyond the transition period, when EU state aid rules will not form part of domestic law.

Hon. Members will recall that I mentioned that the regulations do not prejudice the Northern Ireland protocol. Article 10 of the Northern Ireland protocol will apply at the end of the transition period. The protocol will apply the EU state aid rules for measures relating to goods and wholesale electricity, affecting trade between Northern Ireland and the EU. The protocol is given effect in the UK by the withdrawal Act. The regulations will not affect the application of the Northern Ireland protocol. The regulations only make amendments to UK domestic law. The Government seek powers through the United Kingdom Internal Market Bill to ensure, if necessary, that there is no confusion or ambiguity in UK law about the interpretation of the state aid elements of the Northern Ireland protocol.

In conclusion, it is a fact that, from 1 January, EU state aid rules will no longer apply to the UK. The purpose of this statutory instrument is simply to revoke retained EU law on state aid from the UK statute book, and to fix any technical deficiencies in other retained EU law and UK domestic legislation that refers to state aid rules. I think we agree that clarity on the UK statute books about which rules do and do not apply after the transition period comes to an end is in the best interests of all. The instrument will ensure legal certainty for businesses, aid-granting authorities and courts. I therefore commend the regulations to the Committee.

[Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)]

It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Davies. I am glad to be on the Committee considering the regulations.

I am particularly pleased that a Conservative Government recognise the role that state aid can play in the development of key sectors in a nation’s economy. If deployed as part of a robust industrial strategy, it can help to create decent jobs, kick-start businesses and rebalance regional inequalities. State aid, public ownership and workers’ rights are important building blocks of our nation’s economic model, and getting them right will be crucial to our future prosperity and the nature of any post-Brexit settlement. EU state aid rules on innovation clusters, broadband, culture and heritage, as well as on small and medium-sized enterprises, general economic interest and local infrastructure projects, have allowed member states lots of room to invest in and pursue their domestic priorities.

I should declare an interest here. When I worked for Ofcom I worked on state aid rules with particular regard to investment in broadband—for many years and in quite a lot of detail, although I shall not indulge myself by going into that during this debate, Members will be glad to know. However, I can say that state aid rules allow for support for industries of general economic interest. It is true that they prohibit heavy-handed state aid when it distorts competition, but there have always been ways to strengthen and support industries without falling foul of EU guidance.

State aid rules are a critical concern in providing the right level of financial and other support, but even within the EU different countries have interpreted state aid rules in different ways. Other countries within the European Union have always, shall we say, been far more innovative, creative and supportive with their strategic industrial capacity than the UK, despite the same state aid rules environment. The UK did not keep up with strategic investments. For example, the Government provided just 0.38% of GDP in state aid in 2018, compared with France’s 0.79%, Germany’s 1.45% and Denmark’s 1.55%.

I give those figures to emphasise to the Minister that the Government cannot continue to hide behind the false excuse that it was the EU regime that was the reason for the lack of strategic investment. Further, it is strange that the state aid regulations should cause such an impasse in the negotiations, given the lack of support from the Conservative Government over many years for strategic investment and subsidy. While the Minister says that state aid is an EU concept, it is certainly recognised in the WTO subsidy regimes, which are essentially the same thing. When I asked the Secretary of State for International Trade in the House on 14 September, at column 35, what the difference was between the European Union state aid rules, which had been rejected, and the Japan trade deal state aid rules, which were being accepted, I did not get an answer. I hope that the Minister will perhaps give us some clarity on that.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

Is not the difference the fact that we would be able to make our own rules unilaterally; but if we remained part of the jurisdiction of EU state aid we would have to go to the European Court of Justice, potentially, or to the European Commission, to determine what support we might offer to business? Does the hon. Lady propose that should still be the case once we have left the European Union?

[Chi Onwurah]

I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman has entirely misunderstood me. We are leaving the European Union, as I said. In fact, we have left the European Union and the transition period is coming to an end. My question, like my question to the International Trade Secretary, was very specific. It was about the difference between state aid rules. In the case of what was agreed with Japan it is not something unilateral. In the Japanese trade deal state aid rules were agreed—as they are in all trade deals; it is difficult to agree them unilaterally with another country. My question was about the difference between those rules and those that were rejected as part of the European Union trade negotiations.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

The European Union position in the negotiations is that it wants us to be accountable to the European Union. That is exactly what it is saying, and that is what is different. Whereas in the Japan deal that was not the case, with the EU it is. There would be a requirement for us to agree our measures with the European Union. Is that what the hon. Lady wants? That is what the EU wants. That is its position.

[Chi Onwurah]

What I wanted to understand was the difference—comparing the rules agreed with Japan and the existing rules within the European Union state aid agreement. The way in which they are managed in the future is obviously part of the negotiations, but I wanted to understand the difference. I still do not understand what the difference is, and am not sure whether it has been set out clearly anyway; but I am sure the Minister will explain it to me.

As has been said, we have left the European Union, and the end of the transition period is fast approaching, so we call on the Government to protect British jobs and support regional communities that have been held back after 10 years of austerity. State aid can and should play an important role in that. Labour does not want a return to top-down subsidies and command-and-control intervention in the economy. Instead, we want to build an economy where public bodies work with the private sector to promote innovation and drive economic growth. The Government have had over four years to put together a replacement state aid regime. We were promised a framework way back in March 2020 and we are still waiting to see it. We agree with the need for this statutory instrument and will not be opposing it, but we believe it important for businesses and, indeed, for all of us, to have greater clarity.

With less than two months to go, there is regrettably no time left to carry out a meaningful consultation on a new, ambitious plan for state aid before the end of the transition period. Businesses that I am talking to are understandably frustrated. As we have discussed, negotiations with the European Union broke down earlier this month and Lord Frost confirmed that the UK would be operating under WTO rules from January 2021. While this gives a modicum of clarity to stakeholders—which is to be welcomed—we know that WTO rules are suboptimal, lacking in important detail on state aid. They also do not include provisions on services, which is a critical part of the UK economy.

On 11 March, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster told the Committee on the Future Relationship with the European Union that Great Britain-based businesses trading with Northern Ireland would categorically not be subject to European Union state aid rules come January 2021. Many experts say that WTO do not operate effectively as a subsidy control regime, and that a reliance on WTO rules should only be a stopgap. Does the Minister agree? Will he give an indication of what a future state aid regime built on the proposed WTO framework would look like?

We hope the Government will improve on the WTO baseline quickly and get this implemented, not only because that would that give further clarity to UK businesses, but because it would improve free trade negotiations with the EU and other countries.

Businesses have raised concerns that under the Government’s current proposals, subsidies made outside of Northern Ireland might still be regarded to have a potential effect on trade between the European Union and Northern Ireland. The Minister talked about the impact of these rules on Northern Ireland, but these outside subsidies could necessitate a European Union state aid assessment. What is the Minister’s view and can he allay those concerns by confirming that the Government will prevent EU state aid rules from reaching back into the UK for trade between Great Britain and Northern Ireland, which is covered by the Northern Ireland protocol?

Before I conclude, I wish to say that we have long been concerned about how the Government’s flagship shared prosperity fund might interact with a UK state aid regime. The Government have promised that details regarding would come with a comprehensive spending review, but the CSR has been curtailed to just one year and the consultation has not even started yet. Can the Minister assure us that we will have some details of the framework before the end of the transition period? Will that framework ensure that regional leaders and devolved Administrations are consulted and included in decision making?

We should remember that the structural funds received from the European Union were always allocated based on where they were most needed according to relative deprivation. Will a future state aid regime reflect that? Given the controversy around allocations from the towns fund, how can the Government assure us that the appropriate safeguards will be in place to prevent cronyism arising from Ministers’ own “qualitative analysis”? Finally, I would like to hear from the Minister the ways in which the Government intend to allocate state aid funding other than via the shared prosperity fund.

Oral Answers to Questions

Kevin Hollinrake Excerpts

Monday 5th October 2020 Commons Chamber

[Luke Hall]

I absolutely agree with the hon. Lady. I pay extreme tribute to the residents, businesses and charitable organisations in New Ferry who have worked so hard to recover and get the town back on its feet over the past three years. I know that she is meeting one of my ministerial colleagues later this week, but as a Local Government Minister I am also at her disposal to discuss this hugely important matter in her constituency.

[Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that we need to address the inherent unfairness in the operation of the housing infrastructure fund, which allocates 80% of its budget to London and the south-east and only 20% of it to the rest of us?

[Robert Jenrick]

My hon. Friend and I have agreed on this point for some time. The housing infrastructure fund directs funding to those areas where there is the greatest affordability challenge. That is important, in some respects, but any Government who want to level up must also direct infrastructure investment for housing to other parts of the country as well. I will certainly bear that in mind as we design the successor to the housing infrastructure fund later this year.

CCRC Decision on 44 Post Office Prosecutions

Kevin Hollinrake Excerpts

Monday 5th October 2020 Commons Chamber

[Paul Scully]

The Prime Minister promised an independent inquiry, and that is what we have announced. We want to make sure that postmasters engage with it. The Post Office and Fujitsu have also said they will engage with it. It is now for Sir Wyn Williams to instigate the inquiry and get it under way, and he can always report back if he finds he is not getting the support he needs.

[Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)]

When you have caught and removed the fox from the henhouse, it is never a good idea to put it back in there to compensate the rest of the chickens. We did exactly that with Lloyds, and I fear we are doing exactly that with the Post Office. There is no obvious means of compensation for those with criminal convictions. The jury is out on the historic shortfall scheme, and those who are employed as sub-postmasters through McColl’s or the Co-op have no direct means of compensation. Will my hon. Friend confirm that the Government are committed to making sure that every single person who was disadvantaged is fairly compensated?

[Paul Scully]

There is a separate director within Post Office Ltd who is looking specifically at the historic shortfall scheme to make sure that the rest of Post Office Ltd has the capacity to reset its relationship with postmasters, but we will of course look at Sir Wyn Williams’s findings. Postmasters who have had wrongful convictions have other methods of compensation, as I outlined in my original statement.

Non-Domestic Rating (Lists) (No. 2) Bill

Kevin Hollinrake Excerpts

2nd reading & 2nd reading: House of Commons & Programme motion & Programme motion: House of Commons & Ways and Means resolution & Ways and Means resolution: House of Commons
Wednesday 30th September 2020 Commons Chamber

[Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)]

I understand the reasons why we have postponed revaluations on a number of occasions since 2010. Does that not illustrate the changing nature of the commercial world and the need to move to a different system that is more responsive to the realities of trading on our high streets?

[Luke Hall]

I thank my hon. Friend for his point. We are currently undertaking a fundamental review of business rates, and as part of that exercise we are considering the frequency of future revaluations. When deciding whether to have more frequent revaluations, we need to strike the right balance between more up-to-date assessments, which would flow from such a reform, and the uncertainty it could create, with more regular changes to bills, while also taking into account the time it currently takes to process changes and the impact that any changes that might be required would have on the current system. I certainly understand, however, the point that he has continually made about annual revaluations and how that could further improve the system. I am sure that will be considered.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kevin Hollinrake]

That kind of change to the multiplier would probably cost around £12 billion a year. Does the hon. Lady have any idea of where she would get the money to fill that gap?

[Sarah Olney]

That is an important point and I very much hope that the business rates review will look at it. There is no doubt that online retailers are not currently paying their fair share. Lots of solutions to that problem have been proposed, although I do not think this is the right forum to debate them. There are pros and cons in respect of proposed digital sales taxes, but nevertheless it is a policy area that seriously demands to be looked at. I am sure the hon. Gentleman would agree that high street retail businesses having to bear the brunt of property taxes when they no longer get the lion’s share of the retail market is a situation that cannot continue.

Finally, I just wanted to make the point that we are all expecting a major economic dislocation as a result of the unwind of the furlough scheme and the other measures that the Government have put in place. We are anticipating high levels of unemployment, but one way to mitigate that is through people starting up their own businesses. There are opportunities in the retail sector for those who are looking to start up their own businesses, particularly in constituencies such as mine. We have seen a rise in home working, which has meant that, for the high streets in Richmond Park, there has been a rise in footfall, as people are now at home during the day, instead of perhaps travelling into the city, which is what they would have done previously.

Certainly, speaking to local retailers, I have been quite surprised to find how many of them have thrived over the past few months. They have diversified and found new ways to get their goods to customers. Certainly, the trading conditions are quite strong on our local high streets and, as I say, I believe that that represents opportunities for those who may find themselves out of work in the near future, but I urge the Government to do what they can to lower the barriers to new entrants to the retail markets, so that we can really make the most of these opportunities for new retail businesses on our high streets. That is why I urge the Government to do what they can to address the current rate structure for new businesses.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)]

I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I have quite significant interests in the business rates system, in terms of my own business, so hon. Members should take that into account.

To touch on the comments from the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron), I absolutely agree with his point about the business rates loophole for holiday cottages, and I hope that the Treasury is listening to that. It is an obvious loophole to close, and it affects North Yorkshire like it affects the Lake District.

I very much support the Bill. I sat on the joint Treasury Committee and Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee inquiry into business rates. We looked very carefully at the frequency of revaluation. We took evidence from a number of different sources. Some nations do the revaluation annually, not three yearly, and that would be better from a business perspective. It would give a more current perspective on the trading environment, although we should bear in mind that all business rates revaluations are fiscally neutral. Some people would benefit from a reduction in their business rates valuation, but that would have to be made up elsewhere by the multiplier changing to come back to the £30 billion a year that business rates raise.

I do not know whether hon. Members have a solution to that problem— I have heard a couple of speeches from Opposition Members who say that the business rates system is not fit for purpose, yet only one solution, from the hon. Gentleman. He suggested, potentially, a land value tax, but that has other inherent difficulties because it is, again, a value-based tax. Business rates are a valued-based tax. It has a correlation with the rental value of a property, which is, of course, inherently tied to the capital value of the premises. As Ronald Reagan once said, “There are simple solutions, but there are no easy solutions.” We might all want reform, but finding reform that works and is fair is difficult—I will, however, suggest something before I sit down. The other issue with the current system is that reliefs and changes brought in as a transitional phase mean that those who should benefit from the revaluations do not do so for some time, in order to try to help with people who are “going up in value”. It is far from a perfect system at the moment.

My first hustings took place in the village I have lived near all my life. One question from the audience was about a local retailer where many of us had shopped—Craggs electrical, a good local white goods retailer selling TVs and the like. It had just closed down after many years in that community. Mrs Craggs was in the audience and the questioner said, “Mrs Craggs’ business has just had to close down because of the situation. She cannot pay her business rates. It is just unaffordable. What are the Government going to do about it?” The reality is that Mrs Craggs’ business was closing down not because of Government business rates, but because of the different shopping trends of all the people in that room; all those people were applauding and saying we should take some action, but the reality is that fewer and fewer of us are buying that kind of stuff from shops. So it is not about what the Government are or are not doing; it is about shopping trends.

As my hon. Friend the Member for North Norfolk (Duncan Baker) mentioned, before the crisis, 20% of shopping was done online but that figure has risen rapidly to 35%, which is making the whole system difficult. Most businesses look at the rent and the business rates when they first take on a premises, and then plug that into their cash flow and decide what they can afford to pay. That is what a good businessperson should do. It is not that the business rates system is anachronistic; the pace of change is the problem. At some point in future, when all this has settled down, businesses will say, “We can afford to pay this rent and these rates”, but the difficulty is being caused by the pace of change.

[Sarah Olney]

I am listening carefully, and I bow to the hon. Gentleman’s expertise on this subject, as I know he has studied it long and hard. We have talked a bit about the divide between digital and high street retail. Does he agree that there is a social good to be achieved in supporting high street retail and that the Government should perhaps express a preference for it over digital through the tax system?

[Kevin Hollinrake]

Yes, I absolutely agree with that. Community is very important to me and our shops are part of those communities. It is dangerous when the Government start picking winners—I do not think that should happen. The forces of free markets and a market economy are the best things to ensure that prices are kept low and levels of services are high for consumers. That is what is most effective. So what we have to try to do, of course, is create a fair and level playing field, and let businesses come in to fill that gap and provide services that people want. That is what we should be looking to do.

In its review of business rates, the Treasury talks about different options, including an increase in VAT, changes to corporation tax and an online sales tax. It seems to land on the online sales tax as the solution, so let me talk about a couple of things that it sets out in that consultation. It sets out not that an online sales tax will replace business rates, but that it will exist alongside them—that is a key thing to understand—and that it will potentially lead to a reduction for retail. So there will be two systems coming together.

I have heard a few Members talk about retail in this debate, but the changes in consumer behaviour are not just about retail. Uber Eats and Deliveroo, for example, deliver to people’s houses often not from takeaway premises on the high street but from mini-establishments off the high street. Travel agents, insurance brokers, banking—all those things are changing because of consumer habits; people do not visit shops anything like as much as they used to. Looking at the problem purely from a retail perspective is wrong; doing so does not understand the problem.

Another issue is what is online? One of my fantastic local butchers in Thirsk is Johnson’s, an order-in butcher’s, which has wonderful meats, but does not seem particularly the type of business that would go online. I visited them during the crisis, because they had set up a delivery service and offer click and collect, as well as traditional shopping. They have even set up a little bot from which you can order, which talks to you using artificial intelligence—very clever stuff and really innovative, which was great; but how would you assign an online sales tax to those different categories? It would be hugely complex for a business to work out what was bought purely online, what was bought on click and collect and what was bought by customers walking into the store. It would make the system more complicated. The more we try to simplify the tax system, of course, the more complicated we make it. There are some inherent flaws in an online sales tax; it is so very difficult. The problem of distinguishing between online, click and collect and physical shopping is inherent in lots of different businesses, John Lewis being an obvious example. It is not clear how such a tax would operate without making the system more complex.

Simple and easy are two different things. The simple solution, which will not be universally popular, is to look at sales tax. We already have a sales tax; it is called VAT. The simplest thing to do would be to raise VAT. We could not just put a hole in the business rates system—some 30 billion quid—without replacing it with something, certainly not given where the public finances are today. Putting 2p on VAT, would raise £12 billion a year; 4p on VAT would raise £24 billion a year. We could also look at the threshold system of VAT, which is a real deterrent for businesses to grow. If we want a simple solution that is effective and crosses all the different sectors, it is there. It is fair and would keep the tax system as simple as possible.

I urge my very good friend the Minister on duty, the Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, my hon. Friend the Member for Rochester and Strood (Kelly Tolhurst), and the Treasury to think about the full extent of the problems, as well as the potential quick wins. When compared with an online sales tax, VAT is a much better system to operate.

--- Later in debate ---

[David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)]

The reform of business rates and revaluation has been in a holding pattern for many years, and those of us who have spent time in local government will be conscious that the expected impact of that reform on local authority finance has been hotly debated. I think that we are still of the view that business rates in their current form are the worst possible solution to financing local government, with the exception of all other available choices. My hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake) made that point strongly in describing the hard choices we need to make in identifying alternative sources of finance. It seems clear that, in the Treasury, the business rates billions remain a key building block of our national budget. As a consequence, there has been a long-held reluctance to tinker with them, for fear of the wider impact on the bigger fiscal picture.

Business rates have been in existence for a long time. For many of our citizens, they used to walk in lockstep with residential rates, long abolished. Even today, the variation in business rates income at local authority level is reflected in the grant funding—the traditional revenue support grant that was the basis of most local authority funding—and in things such as school funding. When schools were first set up as a local authority responsibility, local authorities funded them according to their incomes from business rates and domestic rates, and that differential has been carried forward into the funding rates of our schools today. That long-standing impact and the fiscal picture across government of linking day-to-day expenditure on these services to the income we can rely upon coming through business rates remain in place. That goes to the heart of the point that a number of colleagues have made about the need for reform, but we need to address it as part of that complex formula.

I would like to add my voice to the request from many colleagues for greater flexibility in the way that business rates are deployed. I am fortunate to represent a constituency that has a great diversity of local businesses and very vibrant high streets. Many of those new businesses have grown up to take the place of more traditional activities, some of which have seen their departure mourned by local residents, and others perhaps less so. For example, a sports club has closed and been replaced by a children’s soft play area, because the baby boom means that there is now a much greater market for that kind of activity. The bank that I used to be responsible for is now a bookshop and coffee shop on Pinner High Street, reflecting the fact that our high streets can remain vibrant.

This is not about saying that the Government or the local authority need to pick the businesses that they think should be winners on the high street. It is about reflecting the fact that the challenge of online versus bricks and mortar retailing, the changing nature of the high street and our ability to keep it vibrant on behalf of our communities means that we need flexibility.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

My hon. Friend makes a good point. He alluded to the point I made earlier. If we had a business rates system that purely provided discounts for retail premises, what would we do with premises that were not retail and became retail or were retail and became another business category?

[David Simmonds]

My hon. Friend reinforces the point robustly. I declare an interest, as a father of young children. The development on our high streets of more community-focused business opportunities, due to there now being many more young children in my part of the world looking to access soft play, clothing retail and other things, is a reflection of the fact that our communities change—they are vibrant. That is what their nature should be, and those market forces are a welcome part of responding to the changes in our communities.

When we see challenges that come along, whether they reflect the national economic position or indeed wider issues on a local level, we need to be able to respond effectively. A really good illustration of that is the impact on the local authority that serves most of my residents and Heathrow airport—the London Borough of Hillingdon. Heathrow is the largest single payer of business rates within the Greater London area, but the challenge for the local authority that collects those business rates is that the revenue it collects and the proportion retained locally is far less than the cost to the local authority of dealing with the consequences of having the airport in its local area.

That brings me on to my final plea to Ministers as we begin to look to what the future of business rates may be beyond this revaluation. Too often, there is little or no upside for local authorities in supporting the development and growth of businesses, because so much of the money goes into the central pool and the community sees the disbenefits such as congestion and pollution—sometimes, in the case of airports, in the form of air pollution—and needing to provide services to people such as refugees and those who find themselves stranded at the airport. All those are direct costs to local taxpayers as part of the statutory frameworks; they simply are not met by the share of the income that lands locally.

We need to have a much broader discussion about how we ensure that local authorities that see these opportunities to develop local businesses, jobs and a vibrant local economic strategy can see the benefit of doing that coming directly into their local community. In the United States, for example, it is a very common part of considerations of any infrastructure development that local politicians can say to the local community, “Yes, you will have to put up with a downside, but you will see this enormous benefit as a consequence of this development or this project going ahead.”

We need to see this as part of a much broader and more strategic review of the way in which we fund public services in this country. The hon. Member for Blackburn (Kate Hollern) pointed to the impact on local authorities of a reduction in revenue support grant. That is part of this complex picture, but over the same period, we have seen significant growth in levels of business rate income that have been retained by local authorities. When the Ministry makes its calculation of spending power, the reduction in spending power does not simply reflect a reduction in the revenue support grant: it then needs adding back into it the additional revenue that is coming from other sources.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton explained so clearly, this is not simply a matter of being able to offer everyone out there who would like to see a reduction in their business rates such a reduction, because if we do that, we need to decide which other taxes will go up to pay for it. We must make sure that we consider that decision fully in this House before it is made, because we have a responsibility to local authorities and residents to make sure that the services we commit to provide for them are financially sustainable.

[Kate Hollern (Blackburn) (Lab)]

It is wonderful to hear so many Members recognise the need for reform of business rates—and of course, in fairness, right across the patch. I want to return to two points very briefly.

There are many ways that the Government can support businesses, and making the next business rates valuation a smoother transition for them, as this Bill does, is one way to do it. However, as the Government know all too well—the shadow Chancellor, my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford East (Anneliese Dodds), has spoken about it at length from this Dispatch Box—they have consigned businesses and jobs to the scrapheap. The Government are failing to give businesses that could be viable, although they have been closed for a few months, the support they need. If we are to rescue businesses, there is an urgent need for the Government to support them through this difficult time. Tens of thousands of jobs are at risk. We are talking about rates and how people pay into the system. If people are unemployed, of course there is a cost to that as well, not only financially but emotionally and socially.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

The hon. Member makes a very good point. On the jobs at risk and the Government support she is criticising, if this is such a big issue for her party, why are no Labour Back Benchers willing to speak on this very important issue that affects millions of businesses around the UK?

[Kate Hollern]

I am sorry that the hon. Member does not understand that this debate is for today. There have been a number of debates on the lack of support for businesses from this Government, and quite a few Conservative Members have recognised that some businesses have had absolutely no support at all, so perhaps we do need another debate on that subject.

On local government funding, councils face a multimillion- pound funding gap. Of course, local government works hand in hand with local businesses to create a sense of place to create vibrant town centres, as well as to encourage community sites and economic growth. I do recognise that the Government are covering 75% of the income loss incurred by councils, but that still leaves them hugely out of pocket and less able to support businesses.

The Bill is a first step to supporting businesses and local authorities, but everyone who has spoken agrees that business rate reforms need to be an urgent priority for the Government. If we are to protect jobs in high streets, this must be dealt with fairly and quickly. I hope that Ministers and their Department will keep these comments in mind as we look ahead to the comprehensive spending review.

Town and Country Planning

Kevin Hollinrake Excerpts

Wednesday 30th September 2020 Commons Chamber

[Mike Amesbury]

I thank the Minister for finding the time for this debate in response to the prayer motions that Her Majesty’s official Opposition have laid against these regulations.

I will start by telling Members a story, one that is real and with which some across the Chamber will be familiar. It does not have a happy ending, and given the Secretary of State’s radical extension of permitted development, it is about to get a whole lot worse for many people in many of communities up and down this nation.

Over the weekend, the Minister may have read an article in The Observer about permitted development. It began by talking about the experience of a woman, Katya, who lives in a block of flats created under the existing permitted development regulations. All Katya wants, like many of us, is a place to call home, to bring up a young family and to feel secure, space for her children to play safely, somewhere to shelter during this pandemic and to be able to travel to work from, and some communal green space. Yet Katya is one of thousands of residents who are crammed into former offices and industrial units that were not built for human habitation. Some have no or few windows, some are as small as 10 square metres—the average car parking space is 11 square metres—and many are on the outskirts of towns, with few amenities such as shops and schools.

Katya is not alone. Up to 60,000 units have been built under the previous extension to permitted development, many of which are unfit for human habitation. I am certain that neither the Housing Minister nor the Secretary of State would like to find themselves or their families in them.

This debate is about three further ways in which the Government want to create poor-quality housing by bypassing the local community, local democracy and local control: by adding new units on top of flats; by allowing developers to demolish and rebuild empty buildings; and by allowing people to add multiple floors to their homes in a village, town and city near you.

Let me take Members on a visual journey up north to Leeds, where Abbey, a young professional, bought her leasehold flat only to discover that it had been cladded with flammable material. She is one of many thousands affected. She cannot sell it. It is zero-rated for a mortgage and she has to pay thousands in waking watch and insurance fees. There are also massive problems, with which the Minister and the Secretary of State are very familiar, with the EWS1—external wall survey—forms.

What is the Government’s solution? Instead of building back better, safer, healthier and greener for Katya and communities up and down our nation, the Secretary of State will go down in history not only for his unlawful planning direction in Tower Hamlets, with the Westferry affair, but as Bob the bad builder, coming to wreck a village, town and city near you.

Instead of having a relentless focus on making people like Abbey safe in a cladded building, he has rammed through a negative statutory instrument to lob an extra two storeys on blocks of flats, overnight giving some freeholders and overseas investors a multi-million pound windfall of up to £42 billion.

At the same time, this very SI has added an additional cost for leaseholders who may want to buy the freehold. No need for donors to attend the Carlton Club dinner circuit anymore and exchange chummy texts—just sneak the windfall through Parliament via an undebated instrument. What does that instrument deliver a year? Just 800 flats per year; that is 8,000 over a decade.

To make matters worse, because permitted development bypasses the planning system, we could have a ludicrous situation where high-rise buildings extended by two floors do not go through gateway 1 of the draft building safety Bill. Have the Government learned nothing just three years on from Grenfell? Oversight, regulation and rules protect lives.

[Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mike Amesbury]

In a moment.

In the spirit of cross-party co-operation, I happily quote the hon. Member for Worthing West (Sir Peter Bottomley), who strongly advised the Prime Minister to get a “better housing adviser”. I find it difficult to disagree. Permitted development has been disastrous for our towns and cities since its introduction by the coalition Government in 2013 and things are about to get a whole lot worse. That is not me saying that—it comes from the Government’s own advisers. In fact, on the day that the Secretary of State laid two of the three statutory instruments that we have prayed against, his own commission’s review of permitted development was published—and it was damning.

The review found that only 22% of permitted development dwellings met the Government’s own space standards, fewer than 4% have access to a private amenity space and a vast majority have only single-aspect windows. These are not beautiful homes—in the words of another Government commission report—these are the slums of now, the slums of the future.

The Royal Institute of British Architects president, Alan Jones, put it like this:

“The arrogance and lack of understanding is breathtaking.”

It is not just RIBA that think the extensions to permitted development are a bad idea; they are opposed by the Royal Town Planning Institute, the Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors, the Chartered Institute of Building, the Chartered Institute of Housing, the Town and Country Planning Association and many more. Aside from some developers looking to make a quick buck out of shoddy housing, who supports these pieces of legislation?

With a slight nod to the fact that windows for people in flats might be a step forward, all three SIs allow councils to challenge developers if there is inadequate lighting provision.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I am surprised at the hon. Gentleman’s tone. He and I got on very well as co-members of the Select Committee, and he will know from his experience on that Committee that the problems with Grenfell, which he lays at the Government’s door, were decades old in the building regulations system. This is not something he can lay at the door of this Government—there were decades of failure. The issue in relation to the £40 million Westferry windfall for the developer is factually incorrect; there would simply have been a reduction in the amount of affordable housing on that development. On the space standards, as the hon. Gentleman will be aware, today the Government set out clearly that space standards will be included in future permitted development rights.

[Mike Amesbury]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. In terms of Grenfell, I referred to the draft building safety Bill and gateway 1. Certainly in terms of planning permitted development, there is an issue there—it is an issue that we will undoubtedly discuss beyond the debate today. With regard to the concession to the rebels, and the fact that we have laid the motions today, of course we welcome baby steps forward—finally, there is a concession that actually people deserve space as well as windows. That is a step forward, undoubtedly, but major problems remain with permitted development.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)]

I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.

The hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh) made some very fair points on space standards that we looked at in the Select Committee when I was a member. She will be aware that the Government have brought forward these new proposals to make sure that there are space standards in permitted developments. That is why I support the proposals in principle, although there are one or two points of detail that I would like to raise.

The hon. Lady painted one side of the picture, but I have seen many developments in my constituency and just outside it that are conversions of redundant office buildings that are not being used any more into perfectly adequate, nice apartment blocks for young first-time buyers. Clearly there is a lot of merit behind permitted development, which has delivered 60,000 homes in the past few years in terms of additional stock. That is partly how this Government have doubled housing delivery since the lows of 2009. There is a lot to commend in the Government’s action on this.

Statutory Instrument No. 755 seems to say that any two-storey property, pretty much anywhere in the country —there is no geographic restriction, as I understand it—be it a three-bed semi in Thirsk, Malton, Harrogate or wherever else, can have two more storeys put on top of it as long as it is no more than 3.5 metres higher than the neighbouring property. I worry about the street scene in that situation. It is the same for terraced houses as well. It may be appropriate in some parts of London where it would not impact adversely on the local street scene, but I wonder whether it would be appropriate in some parts of the country. I urge Ministers to consider whether more controls should be put in place in relation to certain parts of the country where that would not be appropriate.

Similarly, paragraph AB.2 allows a commercial property such as a takeaway or shop of two storeys to have two more storeys put on top of it, with, again, the 3.5 metre height restriction. Again, that could impact the street scene in certain parts of our towns, cities and suburbs. Another point is that lot of these kinds of properties are owned in self-invested personal pensions. They are commercial properties. Ministers will be aware, as I have raised this on a number of occasions, that residential property, even a rented property, cannot be put as a separate dwelling on top of a commercial property if it is owned in a personal pension and held in a pension wrapper, which is restricting supply in many towns and cities. We should change that to allow it to be the case as long as the properties were delivered for social rent at half market value to encourage development of such properties on their upper floors. If I look down the streets in Thirsk, I will see lots of instances where this is the case. This is a real opportunity to deliver more housing above shops in our city centres.

On the other planning reforms that are being brought forward, I very much support the zoning element. I do worry about some of the underlying assumptions, though, which are driving the high number of properties in certain locations with low affordability, and therefore expensive house prices. I am not convinced that simply building lots of houses in expensive areas is going to lower prices to the degree that Ministers obviously want.

Public Interest Disclosure (Protection) Bill

Kevin Hollinrake Excerpts

2nd reading & 2nd reading: House of Commons
Friday 25th September 2020 Commons Chamber

[Dr Whitford]

Absolutely; I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, and I will come to some of those issues later. This issue, as has been said, is in part one of culture, of being open, of realising that it should be about learning and fixing rather than trying to shut someone up. The more that downward pressure is put on people—like a pressure cooker—the more that builds, and there is more and more unhappiness. The problem is that in something such as health and social care, it actually affects patients.

That is why I am proposing the Public Interest Disclosure (Protection) Bill. The key thing that I seek to achieve is to remove whistleblowing from employment law and create free-standing protection legislation. If we really value whistleblowing, it should not be tucked away in some corner. It should be something that stands by itself—that sends the message that, in whatever sector, if someone sees wrongdoing and damage, they should come forward.

[Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)]

I pledge my support on a cross-party basis, and I am delighted to associate my name with the Bill. The hon. Member talks about valuing whistleblowers. Does she agree that we should value them not only for the risk they take and the individual issues they raise, but for the wider cultural issues they raise within a system—particularly, as she says, in financial services—which allows this House to put the measures in place to clamp down on that adverse culture?

[Dr Whitford]

I welcome that intervention, but whistleblowing should not have to be a risk. It should be a normal part of someone’s work or their duty as a citizen to come forward and report something.

The Bill defines whistleblowing disclosures, but it also widens the definition of “relevant authorities” to include not just employers, but public authorities and regulators, as many whistleblowers report that when they have involved regulators, they have been intimidated in exactly the same way and have made no progress. It places a duty on all relevant authorities not to subject whistleblowers to any form of detriment, and indeed, to protect them from detriment, but particularly—I cannot reiterate this more strongly—to investigate the concern and take action to prevent a recurrence.

The Bill widens the list of professions in which a disclosure may be made to include those previously excluded, such as religious ministers and police officers. Let us consider the cases of child abuse that might have been prevented had priests and ministers been able to speak up, or how much earlier the families of the Hillsborough victims could have been told the truth and given closure.

The Bill also includes those who were not previously defined as employees, such as trainees, interns and volunteers. I am sure that all of us who have taken an interest in this topic are well aware of the four-year persecution of Dr Chris Day, who warned about unsafe staffing in his intensive care unit, only to be told that junior doctors were not classed as NHS employees and that he had no protection. Although that anomaly has been resolved, it highlights the traps that unsuspecting whistleblowers can fall into.

The Bill seeks to establish an independent body with statutory powers to oversee whistleblowing. I have called it a commission in the Bill, but I do not care what it is called. After his report into the deaths in Mid Staffordshire NHS Foundation Trust, Sir Robert Francis established the “freedom to speak up system”, but the national guardian is not a statutory role and the local guardians are trust employees who themselves may be put under pressure when investigating a case. That comes back to the point raised in an intervention earlier: there needs to be absolute objectivity and a determination to deal with an issue locally, rather than it becoming a festering sore. By contrast, the Scottish Independent National Whistleblowing Office was established as a statutory body in 2018. It published its draft standards for the NHS and social care last year.

Devolved Governments will develop whistleblower-support systems for their public services, but PIDA is the underpinning legislation for all sectors—including businesses and financial services—and it no longer serves its purpose. The commission’s duty would be to protect whistleblowers and promote the principle of whistleblowing in the public interest. Such a body would develop standards of practice for whistleblowing policies and procedures and monitor the compliance of organisations with those standards. Such standards would include how issues should be investigated, and organisations would be expected to show what action they had taken to address cases. The standards would stipulate prospective protection of the whistleblower from detriment, from the point of their making a disclosure, including by preserving their anonymity and confidentiality—many whistleblowers suddenly find themselves splattered across the local paper.

The commission would also seek to resolve cases and reduce litigation, which is wasteful of public funds and both expensive and traumatic for the whistleblower. It could provide advice to whistleblowers who do not have any other route to report an issue or who are not making progress locally. It would be able to issue redress orders to try to repair detriment suffered by a whistleblower, rather than just making financial awards, and it would include the banning of non-disclosure agreements, which whistleblowers are often intimidated into signing. When staff have been subject to deliberate detriment, there would be the ability for civil action. As in Australia, criminal charges would be available for the most egregious cases of whistleblower persecution.

There are different ways to improve the quality of a service, and whistleblowing should not be the main method of detecting poor practice, the squandering of public funds or fraud. Just as audit is critical to ensure probity in the financial sector, it is also essential to detect poor clinical practice. In Scotland, we have had regular reporting against quality improvement standards for the most common cancers for many years. In the case of my specialty, breast cancer, I was involved in leading the development of the standards almost 20 years ago. The process identifies outliers, who can then be supported to update their practice, but it also creates peer pressure to drive clinical improvement, as people know that their performance is going to be shared at a conference, openly and transparently, every single year.

It is important to normalise incident reporting and encourage a culture of routinely raising issues without the sense of conflict and pressure associated with whistleblowing. That is the aim of systems such as Datix in the NHS, through which staff record, review and seek to learn from all incidents, from minor to major, including near misses. There will, however, always be cases that cannot be detected by audit, such as alcohol or drug misuse, bullying or racism. For that, whistleblowers are essential.

For whistleblowers to speak up early and reduce harm, they must be valued, supported and protected. In the NHS, that is about patient safety, which is literally a matter of life and death.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)]

I will be brief, to let the Front-Bench spokespeople conclude. In the parliamentary briefing for this debate, there is a question posed to the Minister: do sufficient protections for whistleblowers already exist in current legislation? I hope his answer to that will be no. I hope that the Bill is successful today, but if not, it will be passed on a future occasion. My hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle (Mary Robinson) and I are meeting the Minister on Monday to discuss this, because we need reform. The proper protections are not in place at the moment.

I want to give one example, which I have spoken about before in this place, and that is the case of Sally Masterton. She was not a whistleblower. In 2013, she worked for HBOS, and she wrote a report about a fairly low-level fraud in the company. She was discredited by Lloyds to the regulator—it simply said that she was not a credible witness. The Financial Conduct Authority did not investigate. She was effectively suspended by Lloyds, through constructive dismissal. Five years later, the FCA decided that she actually was a cogent witness and said to Lloyds, “You need to do something about this. You need to compensate her and apologise,” which it did. The terrible fact about the case is that nobody at Lloyds or HBOS has been sanctioned for that disgraceful mistreatment of a whistleblower for five years. This was part of a disgraceful 13-year fraud of small and medium-sized enterprises within the bank, and still to this day that scandal has not been resolved.

[Dr Whitford]

The hon. Member highlights that the regulator—the FCA—also let that whistleblower down, and that is another thing that needs change.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

The hon. Lady is absolutely right. As I said in my earlier intervention, it is not just about the relatively small issues that the whistleblowers highlight. It is about the wider cultural issue. It shows the mismatch of power between the whistleblower, these big, powerful organisations and their customers, which we know we need to tackle, but we would not know that without people like Sally Masterton. I commend the hon. Lady for bringing forward this legislation. I hope she is successful; she will be sooner or later.

End of Eviction Moratorium

Kevin Hollinrake Excerpts

Wednesday 23rd September 2020 Commons Chamber

[Christopher Pincher]

We have provided a great deal of resources for local authorities and charities to support people through this emergency. We will continue to keep those policies and programmes under review. If the hon. Gentleman has specific ideas that he wishes to suggest, I am happy to hear them.

[Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)]

I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. It is absolutely right that we should be fair to tenants affected by the covid crisis, and the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron), who secured the urgent question, is right to say that we might consider giving the courts discretion over the nature of arrears. But it also has to be right that we should be fair to the neighbours of those guilty of antisocial behaviour, fair to those affected by domestic abuse and fair to landlords who were affected by arrears pre-covid, and that should be the immediate focus of the courts’ attentions.

[Christopher Pincher]

My hon. Friend, as ever, puts the point eloquently, and I am sure that Her Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service will have listened to him carefully.

United Kingdom Internal Market Bill

Kevin Hollinrake Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd September 2020 Commons Chamber

[Paul Scully]

I must bring my response to a close. The amendment risks undermining the independence of the CMA and its global reputation for producing credible, impartial and expert analysis.

[Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Paul Scully]

I cannot at the moment, I am afraid. I hope that hon. Members will not press their amendments to a Division, for the reasons that I have given, and that they will support the Government’s amendments.

My hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst talked about amendment 66, and I assure him that we will be moving it. I thank him for his work on resolving this issue.

The hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Apsana Begum), who is not in her place, talked about the concerns over the Belfast agreement. The Bill does not interact directly with the Belfast agreement. It does interact clearly with the withdrawal agreement and the Northern Ireland protocol, but it seeks to make the Belfast agreement work in certain given circumstances.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

Earlier, my hon. Friend mentioned the Sewel convention. Could he set out exactly what influence it has on legislation that is made in Brussels?

[Paul Scully]

Exactly. As my hon. Friend knows, it has none. Importantly, as we bring back power from the EU to the UK Government, we will work to pass on many, many powers to the devolved legislatures, whether it is the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh Assembly or the Northern Ireland Assembly. They will be getting powers, and we will all work together as the UK to give businesses the continuity that they need with our UK internal market.

Unpaid Work Experience (Prohibition) (No. 2) Bill

Kevin Hollinrake Excerpts

2nd reading & 2nd reading: House of Commons
Friday 11th September 2020 Commons Chamber

[Alex Cunningham]

I most certainly do welcome it, but, sadly, it has got off to such a chaotic start that I really worry about how those job creations will actually happen. Yes, let us make it happen, but the Government need to look very carefully at the very poor start that we have made with that particular programme.,

I am pleased to put forward this Bill to tackle one area of employment that can be exploitative and unjust. This Bill seeks to ban unpaid work experience that lasts more than four weeks. Before I continue, let me thank those who have helped me get this far with the Bill: the Sutton Trust for its insight and support in providing me with the guidance and information that I needed to confidently bring this Bill forward; the right hon. Member for Elmet and Rothwell (Alec Shelbrooke) for having brought an almost identical Bill to the Commons during an earlier Session: and, finally, the Conservative Lord Holmes, who currently has a parallel version of this Bill laid in the other place. Much work has been done on this issue in the past, and I am grateful for the support and perseverance of those who have been long-term campaigners for this cause.

We often hear today, from young people in particular, of those applying for jobs being told that they do not have enough experience, yet the opportunities to get that experience are often closed off. Jobs are either unadvertised, given to friends of the organisation, or somebody who knows somebody else’s dad, or advertised as unpaid roles, which means that only those with existing wealth to pay for the cost of living can apply.

[Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)]

The hon. Gentleman is outlining some circumstances that he is right to address, but there is another side of the coin. In our business, we have often advertised a job and had a number of applicants, some of whom, despite being unsuccessful, have then contacted us—not through their father or another contact—to ask whether they can do some work experience to understand more what the job is about. We have done that, and those people have ended up getting jobs in our organisation. Are not some types of work experience a route into work?

[Alex Cunningham]

The hon. Member is totally correct, but people do not need to work for six months, 12 months or longer to get work experience. Four weeks will be sufficient in the organisation that he once ran to get that experience and build towards a new job.

Every party in this House claims to be the party of social mobility. Today Members have an opportunity to stand up and prove that theirs is the one that believes in that area of activity. If they are advocates for social mobility, I hope they will stand up to organisations that exclude those from poorer backgrounds from opportunities because they cannot afford to live without pay.

But this is not just about exclusive opportunities for those who can afford to take unpaid roles. Having people work for months on end without pay is exploitative, even when they are prepared to work for nothing. I am aware that some Members have argued that banning unpaid work experience would simply mean that organisations would stop offering opportunities altogether. First, for me, organisations not offering unpaid roles at all is preferable to them offering them exclusively to a distinct group of people. Secondly, if there is a real job to be done, organisations will find the money to pay someone to do it. Just because there are plenty of young and eager people, that does not mean that organisations should choose to save money by bringing in someone to do a job unpaid under the guise of work experience. Surely a young person does not need to work for six months or a year to get experience of a workplace or to learn a little of how a particular field operates.

But what does the employer or the organisation get out of it? It is quite clear: they get free labour, expecting a full day’s work without a full day’s pay. They save themselves a salary. They also save themselves national insurance and pension contributions. Surely it would be fairer for everyone if we limited such work experience placements to a month. Even the Exchequer could benefit. Such a move would ensure that living costs do not stack up, putting people further in debt, and would enable those opportunities to be offered to more people. A six-month unpaid placement could instead be offered to six people instead of one.