UN Climate Change Conference: Government Response

Alex Sobel Excerpts

Wednesday 16th January 2019 Westminster Hall

[Alex Sobel (Leeds North West) (Lab/Co-op)]

Thank you, Mr Betts. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff North (Anna McMorrin) for securing this debate. She is not just an excellent constituency MP; she is a leading voice on this issue, here and for the people of Wales, so it is great that she was able to secure this debate and make her speech. As my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mary Creagh) said, the IPCC has told us that we have 12 years to restrict global warming to 1.5°. It has already risen by 1° from pre-industrial levels. This nation was the first to industrialise, which we should be proud of; it was also the first nation to de-industrialise. Many of the comments the Minister made in her intervention relate to our early de-industrialisation and, obviously, our early industrialisation.

The Centre for Industrial Energy, Materials and Products—which includes researchers from the great University of Leeds—has shown that the UK will miss the fourth and fifth carbon budget targets, which are binding on us under law and are part of our agreements under the conference of the parties process. Those carbon budgets take us to 2032, and CIE-MAP has found that one of the five sectors of most concern was construction. What has happened in housing? When the Government came in in 2010, they scrapped the code for sustainable homes—something that would have kept us on track to meet our carbon budgets for housing. As my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff Central (Jo Stevens) said, the feed-in tariff proposals take us further away from that target. We need to build low-carbon modular housing, and we need to take control of that process and not listen to the siren voices of the volume housing developers.

We need to look at vehicles—an area in which we are way behind. The Norwegians are talking about phasing out petrol and diesel by 2025, just six years from now. We are talking about a target of 2040, and we cannot even give a clear answer on whether we are going to ban hybrids; we can imagine lots of gaming of the rules if we allow hybrids to continue. On food and drink, the Germans have a plan for resource efficiency. We have no such plan; we are way behind. On clothing and textiles, the Government need to look at the Environmental Audit Committee’s report—its Chair, my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield, is here, as are several other members of our Committee. That report arose from our sustainable fashion inquiry, and we found so much that could be done within the UK fashion industry and its main production facilities, which are abroad, to make fashion more sustainable. In electronics and appliances, we are not doing enough to drive down electricity use. There is no catching up here; there are no second chances. The Government have said that we will be net carbon zero by 2050, but if we do not do the right thing over the 12 or 13 years to 2032, we will not be able to catch up in the 18 years between 2032 and 2050. It will be game over for our global climate. Who wants that legacy hung around their neck?

Lastly, we are on track in energy production because coal-fired power stations are being scrapped. The industry itself has seen the future, and has already decommissioned or moved into biomass and other forms of energy production. However, if we think the solution is continued gas production—undertaking shale gas extraction in the United Kingdom—we will again fall behind our targets when we move into the fifth carbon budget. We cannot allow that to happen. We need to look at alternatives, including domestic solar, onshore and offshore wind, hydrogen, hydro, and obviously tidal lagoons, for which my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff North is a great champion. If we do not do that, we will again be behind, and will not meet the legally binding targets that we must meet as a nation. The Government must do better. In the main Chamber, Members are debating confidence in the Government, and part of the reason for my lack of confidence in this Government is their failure to tackle the catastrophic climate change that we will face if we do not meet this challenge.

Fireworks: Public Sales

Alex Sobel Excerpts

Monday 26th November 2018 Westminster Hall

[Helen Jones]

If hon. Members will forgive me, I need to make some progress, because a lot of Members are waiting to speak.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley East (Stephanie Peacock) mentioned, the problem is partly one of enforcement. For instance, an 11 pm curfew on fireworks is in place most of the time, with exceptions for new year and other occasions. Breaching the curfew can result in a fine, imprisonment or, if offenders are over 18, a £90 fixed penalty notice from the police. But the police have to be there to catch the perpetrators, and we have lost so many officers—21,000 since 2010—that chief constables are having to make very difficult decisions about where to deploy their personnel. Likewise, although a fixed penalty notice of £80 can be given to anyone under 18 in possession of adult fireworks, community policing has been so hollowed out that we have lost not only police officers but 40% of the police community support officers who might have been able to catch and report on offenders. It is therefore very difficult to enforce the regulations.

Trading standards officers in local authorities face the same problem. Councils have been hit so hard by cuts that have they have had to pull back and carry out only their statutory duties. Trading standards officers have been cut and cut, which makes it very difficult to enforce the licensing system, prevent the sale of adult fireworks to anyone under 16 or prevent the sale of more powerful fireworks to anyone under 18. Trading standards officers do a great job, but there are simply not enough of them. For the same reason, many councils have cut back on organised displays because they can simply no longer afford to put them on.

The Government need to be very clear about what is happening. In January, the last time we debated the issue, the then Minister, the hon. Member for Burton (Andrew Griffiths), said in answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Jim Fitzpatrick) that he did not have statistics on the prosecution of fireworks offences because the Home Office did not collect them in that way. We do not know the trends, and we do not know about enforcement or whether it is working. One contributor to our forum wrote:

“So here we are 11 days after the official date and we are still getting fireworks being used.”

Many people have come to believe that the regulations are not being enforced. If the Government contend that the regulations are sufficient, they must ensure that the means to enforce them are in place.

Others have said clearly that they think it is time for greater regulation. One contributor said that the fireworks regulations need to be tightened, as there is enough evidence to prove that fireworks are being used inappropriately by persons willing to cause harm to people.

I have had many emails from people, as well as contributions to our Facebook page. Some have made the point that they use fireworks responsibly and without harm, which is true of many people. Some have told me, “It’s a tradition”—the good old British tradition of burning effigies of Catholics on a bonfire every 5 November, which some of us might find a little problematic, to say the least. We have even had people talking about the nanny state, and the classic, “It’s political correctness gone mad.”

I know the Government do not like regulations. Ministers always tell us how many regulations they have got rid of, but sometimes regulations are necessary for protecting the public. There is a balance to be struck in any society between the right of people to do as they wish and the harm caused to others. Let us be clear: even fireworks on sale to the public can cause significant harm. A fireworks professional said in a Facebook post that he had known even F2 and F3 fireworks to go wrong on displays, and that there would have been a serious injury had he not been wearing protective clothing. There is no such thing as a safe firework. Let us be clear: the harm they cause can be considerable.

[Alex Sobel (Leeds North West) (Lab/Co-op)]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Helen Jones]

I will take one more intervention and then I must press on.

[Alex Sobel]

My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. My constituents the Snell family had a dog, Queenie, who became increasingly sensitive to fireworks. A firework went off right by their house on the Wednesday after bonfire night, and Queenie became so inconsolable that she had to be euthanised. Does my hon. Friend agree that we should be licensing individuals to operate fireworks, and that only they should be allowed to buy them?

[Helen Jones]

The effect on animals has been raised with me, and I shall come to that in a moment.

Let us also remember the effect on people. Last year in England alone there were 4,436 visits to A&E by people with firework injuries. That is more than double the figure of 2,141 in 2009-10. There were 168 admissions for firework injuries in 2015-16 and 184 last year. Admissions had been going down but they are now going up again. Let us remember that some of those will be catastrophic, life-changing injuries. The cost to the person concerned is incalculable, but there is also a cost to the NHS, through the strain on our A&E departments as more people are admitted. I know that family members who work in the NHS dread 5 November as much as firefighters do, because they worry about the injuries that they will see. Some are so bad that the British Association of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgeons has called for fireworks to be sold in boxes displaying pictures of injuries, rather than in what looks like packaging for sweets. It is certainly right about the packaging.

As well as injuring people, fireworks are a problem for animals, as several hon. Members have mentioned. I have been contacted by a number of people who say that their pets have to be sedated when fireworks are going off. They are supported by a number of charities, including the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, the Kennel Club and the Dogs Trust. It is fair to say that not all these charities are asking us to move to public displays only. The RSPCA wants the decibel limit reduced to 97 and would like the use of fireworks, not simply their sale, restricted to certain times of the year. It also calls for all public displays to be licensed and for residents to be able to object to the licence—something I will return to later. By contrast, the Dogs Trust would like us to move to public displays only.

Noise has an effect not just on animals, but on people. It particularly has an effect on elderly people and those with mental health problems such as post-traumatic stress disorder. Shoulder to Soldier is a charity that originated in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Jo Platt), and which also has an office in Howley in my constituency. It has campaigned vigorously to make people aware of the effect on some veterans of having fireworks let off near them and has been supported in that campaign by the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents.

With the noise goes pollution. For the five days around 5 November, particulate pollution was very high in this country. On 5 November itself, towns and cities across Britain, such as Stockton, Leeds and Sheffield, reached level 10, the maximum level of pollution.

Green GB Week and Clean Growth

Alex Sobel Excerpts

Monday 15th October 2018 Commons Chamber

[Claire Perry]

I thank my hon. Friend and the other MPs for that challenge and their support. Ultimately—forget the political banter—we are the House that will have to agree these policy decisions, justify the spending to our constituents and help to communicate to them the opportunities that are there. I urge him to look at the Green GB website. There are masses of events in his area over the week, for students, businesses, local authorities and the like. There is lots of good stuff we can use to spread this important message.

[Alex Sobel (Leeds North West) (Lab/Co-op)]

The Minister has written to the UK Committee on Climate Change, but that committee has written to her twice saying she is failing to meet our Paris commitments, which it is important that we meet. When I was on Leeds City Council, we put 1,000 solar roofs on council housing. We cannot do that now without the subsidies. On cars, again she has cut the subsidies. Why not consider changes to subsidies for new hydrogen technologies for both heating and transport?

[Claire Perry]

The hon. Gentleman, in his former role as a councillor—and, indeed, Leeds City Council—did amazing work on one of the really big challenges, which is decarbonising heat. As he will know, some of those heat projects are proceeding thanks to Government investment. In fact, a project up in the north-west involving Keele University is going live, blending hydrogen into the heat network. We are innovating, and are doing so in a way that could completely change the methods through which we heat our homes over the next 20 years. However, this is not just about subsidy. The Government cannot do this all on their own, while putting the burden on taxpayers. We must leverage in private industry, and we must work out the most cost-effective way to deliver our aim so that we can keep bills down.

Space Policy

Alex Sobel Excerpts

Wednesday 18th July 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mr Gyimah]

There is a huge amount of investment. I have mentioned the space sector deal and other investment in R&D that companies across the country with the expertise to benefit our space sector could do well out of.

[Alex Sobel (Leeds North West) (Lab/Co-op)]

More than 50% of UK satellite exports go into the European single market. How will the Taxation (Cross-border Trade) Bill and the Trade Bill, both of which we discussed this week, affect the free-flowing movement of components into and out of the single market?

[Mr Gyimah]

I have been speaking to lots of companies in the UK that deal in the satellite market. It is a global market, and there are huge global opportunities, including in the EU. The sector will continue to succeed, even when we leave the EU.

Carillion

Alex Sobel Excerpts

Thursday 12th July 2018 Commons Chamber

[Alex Sobel (Leeds North West) (Lab/Co-op)]

I should start by putting on the record a mistake that I made in my speech in the previous debate, when I said that it was my 100th contribution to the House. It was actually my 99th contribution, so this is my 100th contribution to the House. I made a slight miscalculation.

As my hon. Friend and neighbour the Member for Leeds West (Rachel Reeves) said, the collapse of Carillion happened six months ago. I was here in the House on that day, six months on from my maiden speech. It is quite apt that a year on, we are back here to review the collapse of Carillion.

Let us make no mistake: the collapse of Carillion as a company was a complete disaster, putting at risk 420 public sector contracts, more than 1,400 jobs and tens of thousands of subcontractor jobs. It had contracts with Network Rail, the Ministry of Defence, the Ministry of Justice, HS2 and more. The Local Government Association counted 30 councils as being directly affected, and 220 schools. The ripple effects could be seen in every town, city and county in this country, and in such diverse areas as construction, maintenance, the armed forces and the NHS.

How can we restore public values in public procurement? We must use public money not only wisely but strategically, in the interest of communities and regions. UK plc commissions over £250 billion of goods and services, and we can use that to get the best deal for the country. There are lessons and recommendations for the future from the collapse. We should insist on in-house options being considered alongside outsourcing and commissioning, particularly within local government. When a service cannot feasibly be provided in-house, we should look at working together with local authorities. In Leeds, we set up Civic Enterprise Leeds, which uses municipal staff in areas like catering, cleaning and plant nurseries. We can use our £250 billion of buying power to ensure that every worker who is employed with a company using a Government contract receives the real living wage—as independently calculated by the Living Wage Foundation, not the supposed living wage brought forward by the Government.

Speaking as chair of the all-party parliamentary group on social enterprise, I know that there is some unfinished business on the Public Sector (Social Value) Act 2012. That is an Act without teeth. It asks for public bodies only to consider social value in commissioning. Instead, it should compel social value in commissioning. If we had that compulsion, then perhaps instances of commissioning risky businesses such as Carillion would never have happened. We can also look at how we score contracts and measure their social value so that we have the same standards across the piece. We cannot allow the risky behaviour that led to the collapse of Carillion to happen again.

Insecure Work and the Gig Economy

Alex Sobel Excerpts

Wednesday 20th June 2018 Westminster Hall

[Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)]

It is a pleasure to see you in the chair, Mr McCabe. I congratulate the hon. Member for Barnsley East (Stephanie Peacock) on securing this debate and on her private Member’s Bill, of which I am a sponsor. I also want to take the opportunity to commend the work of Better Than Zero, an organisation primarily organised through the Scottish Trades Union Congress youth committee, which continues to expose rogue employers in Scotland.

Mr McCabe, you and I sit on the Select Committee on Work and Pensions. You will know that there are 4,504 full-time equivalent posts chasing social security fraud estimated at £1.2 billion. There are 400 workers from the state who are employed to chase minimum wage compliance. If the minimum wage compliance unit had 4,504 full-time equivalent posts, I just wonder whether there would be 200,000 workers in the United Kingdom not being paid the national minimum wage.

Another piece of legislation, in addition to the hon. Lady’s, is the Workers (Definitions and Rights) Bill. It is in my name, and it proposes a number of key things as solutions for workers in the gig economy. First, it looks at zero-hour contracts. I think they should only be in place where there is a collective agreement with a recognised trade union. That will be the test of whether the claim that people like zero-hour contracts is actually true or not. Mainly people tell us that people like zero-hour contracts, but I have never met anyone who went to a careers adviser at school and said, “I want wan o yon zero-hour contracts.” It just does not happen.

[Alex Sobel (Leeds North West) (Lab/Co-op)]

Has the hon. Gentleman considered alternative contracts such as they have in other countries? In Holland, for instance, they have contracts by agreement, which are fixed-term agreements paid by the hour with a legal route to permanent contracts. Is that something that he would consider in his legislation?

[Steve McCabe (in the Chair)]

Order. Just before the hon. Gentleman replies, I would point out that if people keep taking interventions, some people are going to drop off the end.

Nuclear Safeguards Bill

Alex Sobel Excerpts

Ping Pong: House of Commons
Tuesday 8th May 2018 Commons Chamber

The amendment in lieu creates a two-part test, in respect of international agreements and other arrangements, for existing Euratom arrangements to continue to apply after exit day. Amendment 3 was tabled before the agreement with the EU on the terms of an implementation period, whereas the amendment in lieu is capable of taking account of such a period. That implementation period, by meeting hon. Members’ wish for assurance of continuity in nuclear safeguards arrangements, would satisfy the second part of the test in this amendment in lieu.

[Alex Sobel (Leeds North West) (Lab/Co-op)]

The Minister has talked about the implementation period and our ongoing relations with Euratom. What discussions has he had with the European Commission to determine whether our membership of Euratom will continue during the transition period?

[Richard Harrington]

My officials have had a lot of discussions with the EU on Euratom, as the hon. Gentleman might imagine, and I am very satisfied with the stage we have reached. If he will excuse me, I will try to cover that in the rest of my contribution.

Domestic Gas and Electricity (Tariff Cap) Bill

Alex Sobel Excerpts

3rd reading: House of Commons & Report stage: House of Commons
Monday 30th April 2018 Commons Chamber

[Rachel Reeves (Leeds West) (Lab)]

It is a privilege to follow the hon. Member for Eddisbury (Antoinette Sandbach) in this debate. I want to speak to amendment 9, which is in my name and those of hon. Members from across the House who are members of the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee. As the Minister knows, the Committee did a large amount of work on the prelegislative scrutiny of the Bill, and we are all pleased that it has reached Report and Third Reading in time to ensure that the energy price cap is in place for next winter.

During prelegislative scrutiny, the Select Committee proposed several changes, all of which were either accepted by means of amendments to the Bill or accepted in principle. We welcome the collaborative approach of the Minister and her team. Amendment 9 addresses an outstanding concern relating to vulnerable customers that I know the Minister shares. As she knows, 83% of people in social housing, 75% of people on low incomes and 74% of disabled customers are on standard variable tariffs. The aim of the Bill is to ensure not only that everybody has a price cap, but that it will help the most vulnerable, who are predominantly on the standard variable tariffs.

One million vulnerable customers are already on Ofgem’s safeguarding tariff. The Select Committee’s first recommendation, as part of its prelegislative scrutiny, was for the Government to provide details on plans to protect vulnerable customers from overcharging when Ofgem’s safeguarding tariff and the Government’s price cap are lifted. My concern, and the concern of other members of the Committee, is what happens when the whole-of-market price cap comes in for standard variable tariffs. Will Ofgem continue with the safeguarding tariff at the same time?

In response to that recommendation, the Government gave a long list of laudable policies that are today in place for vulnerable customers. We of course welcome that list of policies, but concerns linger. Ofgem has been clear, including in a decision letter on 7 December last year, that it plans to do away with the safeguarding tariff when the whole-of-market price cap on standard variable and default tariffs comes in. Ofgem has said that the warm home discount safeguarding tariff will end in December 2019 if it has not already been replaced by other price protection—that is, the price cap we are debating and voting on this evening.

Some might say that that is fine, because the new price cap will replace the safeguarding tariff for customers on the warm home discount. That will only be the case, however, if the new price cap is at the same level or lower than the safeguarding tariff already in existence today. If it is not, then energy bills will rise for the 1 million most vulnerable customers when the price cap comes in. That would mean that the very legislation to protect consumers may hurt those who most need protection, and I know that the Minister, along with Members across the House, does not want that to happen.

[Alex Sobel (Leeds North West) (Lab/Co-op)]

My hon. Friend knows very well that in Leeds we have set up White Rose Energy, a municipal energy company. Its main mission is to protect those vulnerable consumers. When consumers move away from the cheapest tariff, it informs them repeatedly to ensure that vulnerable consumers are protected. Is that not a model of good practice for all energy companies?

[Rachel Reeves]

I am pleased that my hon. Friend and fellow Leeds MP mentions White Rose Energy, which is doing fantastic work. It ensures that customers in Yorkshire have a greater choice of energy companies and genuinely puts customers first. During prelegislative scrutiny, we heard from other small companies, including Bulb and Bristol Energy who are also trying to support their customers.

No one in this House wants a situation where the most vulnerable customers see their prices rise because of the price cap. Perhaps Ofgem could operate the safeguarding tariff and the price cap we are debating today simultaneously. That seems entirely possible and desirable to try to avoid the issues that National Energy Action and others have raised from coming into effect.

I hope we will receive assurances from the Minister this evening that these risks will not be allowed to materialise. In that case, I will not press this amendment to a Division. Let me urge the Minister, however, to ensure that the Bill does its job of protecting customers and that energy companies are not able to use any loopholes that would mean prices rising for the most vulnerable customers: those we have the greatest duty to protect.

Higher Education

Alex Sobel Excerpts

Monday 23rd April 2018 Commons Chamber

[Alex Sobel (Leeds North West) (Lab/Co-op)]

This will be a short speech about why I support the motion of my hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner) and why the Office for Students is not fit for purpose.

I am a former student union executive officer and NUS full-time elected officer. The Government are excluding student representation on entirely spurious grounds, so it is not an office for students but an office against students. On 20 March, The Guardian reported that university leaders described the Office for Students as the “Office for State Control,” warning that it would prove disastrous for higher education and is “dangerous for democracy.”

The Government’s power grab is not being challenged by people in the sector, as they fear reprisals from Ministers, so it is for us in the Opposition to speak up for them. An anonymous vice-chancellor said:

“It is a huge problem if we feel we cannot criticise government. A lot of VCs feel that if they speak out they risk being ripped apart by the media. If there is a lack of leadership at UUK that is a massive problem.”

How have the Government managed to create both a culture and an institution akin to the Ministry of Love in George Orwell’s “Nineteen Eighty-Four” in which university vice-chancellors, the leaders of this country’s great institutions of learning and research, cannot speak out? In a modern democracy, that is a shameful indictment of the Government. This chapter, on how the state has treated universities in this country, will live long in the history of infamy. This motion is not only necessary but essential if we are to guard universities’ academic freedom. We must think again about how the Office for Students is constructed.

I understand but strongly disagree with the Government’s need to turn higher education into a complete market economy in which students do not fulfil their desire to learn and grow but are consumers there to fulfil a future economic need. There is a drive for deregulation, the free marketeers’ dream.

[Dr David Drew (Stroud) (Lab/Co-op)]

Does my hon. Friend accept that, as one vice-chancellor told me, there is at least a suspicion that we are moving back to the binary divide between the Russell Group and the new universities? That is a worrying development because it will play out in terms of value for money, and it will end up with the Russell Group charging higher fees and new universities having to charge lower fees.

[Alex Sobel]

I have a 1992 university in my constituency and I am a graduate and former student union officer of a Russell Group university, and I agree with my hon. Friend. The rot will set in when we start to have differential fees, which some of us here opposed at the time.

We need to create an institution that supports our bastions of learning, rather than one that tries to sanitise them. We need to transform how students view their institutions and the Office for Students. We need to view these institutions differently from other actors in the free market—they are not a shop or retail outlet but places where people come to learn and grow.

[Rachel Maclean]

The hon. Gentleman is kind in giving way. Is his understanding of the motion the same as mine? If it is approved and the Office for Students is abolished, my understanding is that there will be no fee cap at all on providers, so all providers will be able to raise their fees. There is control on fees at the moment because of the Office for Students. I am very worried about that, but I do not know whether he is.

[Alex Sobel]

I was here in July when we debated the statutory instrument on the fee cap, so SIs do come to the Floor of the House. The Office for Students needs to operate properly and enshrine academic freedom. That is what we need, and that is what the motion would achieve.

[Helen Goodman]

A bit of learning and growing by Government Members would be helpful. Does my hon. Friend agree that we cannot amend SIs? We can only vote them down, and then the Government must table another one. We did not invent that process for this occasion.

[Alex Sobel]

My hon. Friend has been here far longer than me and it is good to know that lots of Members are learning about the statutory instrument process as we speak. I knew we could not amend an SI in the same way as we can amend primary legislation, but I am sure this is not going to be the end on this SI if the motion is defeated tonight. The Government may come back with a better offer, given the opportunity.

In conclusion, I just want to touch on the previous appointment to the regulator. On the marketisation of education, the Government chose to appoint their chief cheerleader in this transformation, Toby Young, a figure so abhorrent to the sector that he barely lasted a week. That is where we are with the governance of the OfS. Today, we have our opportunity to start the fightback to get ourselves an Office for Students that is fit for purpose and to curb the Government’s enthusiasm for a consumer higher education market. We can start the journey back to universities as places where people want to go to grow and learn, and where people are not simply going to a sausage factory for this Government’s failed policies.

Industrial Strategy

Alex Sobel Excerpts

Wednesday 18th April 2018 Commons Chamber

[Rebecca Long Bailey]

I thank the hon. Lady for her comments, which are rather illuminating. I wonder whether she could share with the House how her region managed to secure those additional resources, so that we could let our colleagues know about it. That simply does not seem to be the case right across Britain.

Now, there was also a clear failure in business support. The Government’s proposals recognised that we need both public and private investment. Similarly, the Labour party has pledged to mobilise £250 billion of lending through a national investment bank and a network of regional development banks. However, the Government’s proposals fall far short of that. I said in the House last year that sector deals, a £2.5 billion investment fund incubated in the British Business Bank and yet another review into encouraging SME growth were simply not good enough. There was a clear failure to recognise the impediments that many businesses face when attempting to access finance and, indeed, there was a failure to protect businesses more generally.

[Alex Sobel (Leeds North West) (Lab/Co-op)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that we lost a lot of support after 2010 when Business Link was shut and the regional development agencies were closed down? Business support has gone backwards. We need to take it forwards, but we have lost eight years.

[Rebecca Long Bailey]

I completely agree. Unfortunately, what I see as I travel around Britain is a bit of a postcode lottery in business support, and the Government need to address that urgently.

As I said, the Government failed to recognise the impediments facing many businesses and to outline any more general protections. That could not have been displayed more clearly than in the Government’s handling of the Carillion scandal, where key requests by business organisations to mandate 30-day payment to suppliers and instigate the use of project bank accounts were effectively ignored. The Government simply looked on as Carillion and other big players like it abused the businesses that they contracted with and passed on financial liability and risk down the supply chain. Labour pledged to mandate 30-day prompt payment and the use of project bank accounts for all Government projects, and I will be grateful if the Minster will do the same today when summing up.