Turn on thread page Beta

B863 - Worker Cooperative Grants Bill 2015 (Second Reading) watch

    • Wiki Support Team
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    B863 - Worker Cooperative Grants Bill 2015 (Second Reading), TSR Labour Party


    Worker Cooperative Grants Bill 2015
    An act to encourage the creation of Worker Cooperatives.

    BE IT ENACTED by the Queen's most excellent Majesty, in accordance with the provisions of the Parliament Acts 1911 and 1949, and by the authority of the same, as follows:-

    SECTION 1: DEFINITIONS
    (1) “Worker Cooperative” is here defined as a business entity which is owned and controlled by the employees of the business.

    SECTION 2: WORKER COOPERATIVE GRANTS
    (1) £20 million shall be made available in grants for new Worker Cooperatives.
    i. This shall be called the 'Worker Cooperative Grant Fund'.
    ii. The Secretary of State with responsibility for business shall be able to increase the Fund to up to £50 million at their discretion.
    (2) The Department for Business, Innovation and Skills shall be responsible for selecting the successful grant applicants.
    (3) The maximum grant available to each firm shall be capped at £250,000.

    SECTION 3: ELIGIBILITY
    (1) To be eligible for the a grant under the provisions of this Act a firm must register or be registered as "a co-operative society" under the Co-operative and Community Benefits Act 2014.

    SECTION 4: COMMENCEMENT, SHORT TITLE AND EXTENT
    (1) This Act may be cited as the Worker Cooperative Grant Act 2015.
    (2) This Act shall extend to the United Kingdom;
    and
    (3) Shall come into force on 1st April 2016.


    Notes Worker Cooperatives are a method of offering employees more control over decision making within their business and an effective way of increasing productivity as each worker owns a portion of the business. This will also aid the economic recovery by encouraging the creation of sustainable businesses.

    Useful Links:
    http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2014/14/contents


    Changes made for 2nd ReadingSection 3 added. Name of fund added. Minor changes to wording that don't affect the bill function.


    Speaker's Note: Please note the revised name of this bill from the first reading.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    No. The bill only helps a maximum of 200 businesses grow, and there is no criteria for a business to be selected by the Department for Business, Innovation, and Skills. The criteria set out in the Co-operative and Community Benefits Act 2014 is a start, but that Act does not determine what a decent investment will be, and it does not determine what the best businesses are to receive the grant.
    • Wiki Support Team
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    Worker's Cooperatives are a great example of a fundamentally left-wing idea that can transcend simple left vs right ideology and be something that people from all sides who want to see efficient business models can support. This is good, sensible economics.

    Of course, Aye!


    We have made changes based on the issue raised by this House in first reading leading to a new version that I think has met those concerns.
    • Wiki Support Team
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    Aye.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    Aye!
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Aye. A very good bill that will lead to a better society.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Nigel Farage MEP)
    No. The bill only helps a maximum of 200 businesses grow, and there is no criteria for a business to be selected by the Department for Business, Innovation, and Skills. The criteria set out in the Co-operative and Community Benefits Act 2014 is a start, but that Act does not determine what a decent investment will be, and it does not determine what the best businesses are to receive the grant. The £250,000 is not large enough to set up a business if it involves sourcing products from abroad, advertising, and investing in equipment; this bill is political gesture to fulfil a commitment to co-operatives, it is not a useful bill.
    It can help more on the basis of the £250,000 being the maximum grant. The idea behind the lack of criteria is to allow them to make their choice. Naturally these are men with expertise who should be able to choose the correct businesses. That limit could potentially be increased should it be neccesary although we felt it a fair amount.
    • Community Assistant
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    Political Ambassador
    You have put it to a second reading and made no real changes of substance and failed to do what many asked for. Did the Greens oversee the writing and rewriting of this bill?

    Still a nay.
    • Wiki Support Team
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    You have put it to a second reading and made no real changes of substance and failed to do what many asked for. Did the Greens oversee the writing and rewriting of this bill?

    Still a nay.
    Please reiterate what the 'changes of substance' asked for by the 'many' were.
    • Very Important Poster
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    Very Important Poster
    I must remind the authors of Actaeon's comments, this doesn't prevent people creating a cooperative, taking the cash and then scarpering. I also want more information on the size that they Have to be, turnover ect. I want this to pass but it isn't good enough yet.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aph)
    I must remind the authors of Actaeon's comments, this doesn't prevent people creating a cooperative, taking the cash and then scarpering. I also want more information on the size that they Have to be, turnover ect. I want this to pass but it isn't good enough yet.
    I'm pretty sure the Department with responsibility for business who control the grants wouldn't let that happen.
    • Community Assistant
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by RayApparently)
    Please reiterate what the 'changes of substance' asked for by the 'many' were.
    Actual criteria as to who gets stuff.
    DJKL asked for criteria
    I did
    TheDefiniteArticle asked for it fleshing out
    Wellzi echoed my thoughts
    Kay_Winters agreed that it was sparse on detail, although expeced it to be sorted out
    Aph wanted some criteria, even if he did butcher his Latin
    barnetlad wanted more detail
    nebelbon wanted it fleshing out
    as did PetrosAC
    Actaeon wanted targeting to be clear
    Andy98 wanted the details from the first reading discussion adding to the bill

    So that's 11 of us wanting it fleshing out a bit, I cannot speak for the others, but I am not impressed, nor appeased, by this "fleshing out".

    Might I add that that is, bar Joe, EVERYBODY who isn't in Labour who commented.
    • Community Assistant
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by United1892)
    I'm pretty sure the Department with responsibility for business who control the grants wouldn't let that happen.
    But what the law would be does not stop them. How would the Department know they planned to split and take the cash? There is no penalty for doing this.
    • Very Important Poster
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    Very Important Poster
    (Original post by United1892)
    I'm pretty sure the Department with responsibility for business who control the grants wouldn't let that happen.
    Need I point the Rt. Hon. Member to the recent liquidation of a famous children's charity after getting £300m in government money?
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    But what the law would be does not stop them. How would the Department know they planned to split and take the cash? There is no penalty for doing this.
    Only good business plans would be accepted so it would likely be no more profitable for the person to run off with the money. I agree that a penalty for doing that would be a good idea.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aph)
    Need I point the Rt. Hon. Member to the recent liquidation of a famous children's charity after getting £300m in government money?
    Good point.
    Offline

    11
    (Original post by United1892)
    I'm pretty sure the Department with responsibility for business who control the grants wouldn't let that happen.
    While I appreciate that detailed eligibility criteria are a bit of an ask, I do think this bill needs some basic attempt at them. If the response is always going to be that the relevant Department will tackle all the actual detail, then this idea would have been much better submitted as a motion.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Actaeon)
    While I appreciate that detailed eligibility criteria are a bit of an ask, I do think this bill needs some basic attempt at them. If the response is always going to be that the relevant Department will tackle all the actual detail, then this idea would have been much better submitted as a motion.
    I will try to add some eligibility criteria for what will have to be a third reading.

    Are there any particular points you would suggest?
    • Wiki Support Team
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    Actual criteria as to who gets stuff.
    DJKL asked for criteria
    I did
    TheDefiniteArticle asked for it fleshing out
    Wellzi echoed my thoughts
    Kay_Winters agreed that it was sparse on detail, although expeced it to be sorted out
    Aph wanted some criteria, even if he did butcher his Latin
    barnetlad wanted more detail
    nebelbon wanted it fleshing out
    as did PetrosAC
    Actaeon wanted targeting to be clear
    Andy98 wanted the details from the first reading discussion adding to the bill

    So that's 11 of us wanting it fleshing out a bit, I cannot speak for the others, but I am not impressed, nor appeased, by this "fleshing out".

    Might I add that that is, bar Joe, EVERYBODY who isn't in Labour who commented.
    The criteria established in Section 3 does, I feel, cover many of those concerns. It did not seem efficient to rewrite the criteria as it already appears in law. And whilst it is unfortunate that you remain unimpressed/appeased I'm sure we will be able to make changes that you'll support - given how open minded you are.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    I'm going with an aye, I think for the final vote we should add a little bit more which perhaps we are taking for common sense just to make sure it is followed, but that's about it
 
 
 
Turn on thread page Beta
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: September 20, 2015
Poll
How are you feeling in the run-up to Results Day 2018?

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.