Draft Patents (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2018
Draft trade marks (Amendment Etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2018
Bill Esterson Excerpts(5 years, 4 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Henry. I think this is the first time I have had that pleasure. I look forward to the rest of the deliberations. I think this is the first time that the Minister and I have faced each other as Front Benchers, although we have occasionally crossed swords, if that is not overstating it, on—
Bill Esterson
Indeed. The Minister referred to the importance of the intellectual property regime in the United Kingdom. He was absolutely right to state in the terms he used the high regard in which it is held throughout the world. There are key questions for us about maintaining those high standards and that high reputation. In the digital era, that is perhaps more vital for businesses than it has ever been.
The operation of the patent and trademark system after exit day will play a key part in delivering business confidence. I fully welcome the Chancellor’s commitment to the business community to ruling out any prospect of no deal; that is most welcome to Opposition Members. I look forward to the Prime Minister’s making exactly the same commitment, in order to deliver the certainty for our economy that is so needed and desired by businesses, workers and consumers.
Of course, if we avoid no deal, the regulations before us become less of a challenge, but given that we have to prepare for every eventuality, we need to consider them, as the Minister says. Currently, patent law functions through domestic legislation, while EU law sets out legal provisions on the patenting of biotechnical inventions. That includes exceptions from patenting, the scope of any protection, and a compulsory licensing regime between overlapping patents and plant variety rights.
EU law also provides processes for a compulsory licence to be granted for UK manufacture of a patented medicine for export to a country with a public health need, and sets out an exception under which certain studies, trials and tests can be carried out using a patented pharmaceutical product without infringing the patent. Those provisions are being transposed under these regulations, but in these areas, questions arise to do with patented pharmaceutical products and agro-chemicals, where the EU provides for an additional period of protection after a patent has run out. I ask the Minister to address that.
In the no-deal notice, the Government advised:
“Supplementary protection certificate holders, applicants for supplementary protection certificates, and third parties may wish to familiarise themselves with any changes to the related regulatory processes (human and veterinary medicines and chemicals).”
What measure have the Government undertaken to promote those among stakeholders, and what progress has been made on certainty regarding the unified patent court? My understanding is that that is an EU-wide agreement, unlike the non-EU European Patent Office, which covers much of what is referred to in this statutory instrument.
As with all the recent SIs relating to no-deal planning, no impact assessment has been carried out of the regulations before us, and only informal consultation has taken place. That is something we have debated a number of times with the Minister’s colleague, the Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, the hon. Member for Rochester and Strood (Kelly Tolhurst); perhaps the Minister can add this occasion to the list. One concern we have raised before, and which I know has been raised in written questions, is the cumulative impact of all these SIs. I draw to the Minister’s attention to the fact that there is concern about that within the business community, even if the Government do not see the need for individual impact assessments on specific regulations.
I also ask the Minister to confirm that separate UK and EU registration will be required for applications for intellectual property. Can he confirm what, if anything, is changing in that regard, given that, from my understanding, at present it is a non-EU body that manages EU-wide registration? Perhaps he can clarify exactly what will change in respect of patent applications, given that they are not an EU responsibility.
In relation to EU trademark applications pending on exit day, applicants may file a new UK trademark application within a period of nine months from exit day, maintaining the filing date, priority date, or seniority date. Can the Minister confirm what will happen after that nine-month period, and whether my understanding of the nine-period is indeed right? The draft regulations do not make reference to international trademark registrations or applications. What progress has been made with the World Intellectual Property Organisation to protect existing international registrations? This area is incredibly important, and the protection of IP is of immense value to businesses in the digital era. Getting it right is crucial.
I thank the Minister for his opening remarks, but there are significant questions still to answer about what he seems to think are relatively minor changes. Even minor changes need to be addressed to make sure we get this right. I hope that we will not need these regulations, and I hope that he hopes the same, but we need to get them right in case we do.
Draft Statutory Auditors and Third Country Auditors (Amendment) (EU Exit) regulations 2018
Bill Esterson Excerpts(5 years, 4 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)
It is always a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Davies. I take the opportunity to wish you and all hon. Members a happy new year.
I noted from the Minister’s opening remarks that we are still very much in the pantomime season. She only had to look behind her to see the truth of that statement as in her opening comments, when she confidently articulated the likelihood of Tuesday’s vote succeeding in the House. I do not want to disabuse her, but I sincerely doubt that that will happen. Nevertheless, here we are. We will play the game and address the regulations before us in the spirit intended, with the assumption that the deal will go through on Tuesday, even though we all know that is not going to happen.
The Minister rightly said how important it is that we have a successful, sustainable and workable audit regulatory framework in the UK after leaving the European Union. I wholeheartedly agree with that sentiment, but her speech and the information before us raises a number of questions, which we can usefully address, regardless of how we leave the European Union and whether the vote goes through on Tuesday.
The Minister mentioned the fact that a transition period in the withdrawal agreement lasts until the end of 2020, and that this avoids a cliff edge in the changes that she described. Can I ask her about the FRC’s confidence in its ability to negotiate new mutual recognition agreements to avoid simply delaying a cliff edge until the end of 2020? What have other countries said on the same subject? My understanding, from talking to the FRC, is that negotiating mutual recognition agreements on those subjects is by no means straightforward—they are extremely complex. I must ask where her confidence comes from, because I could not find in the paperwork before us any kind of clarification or assurance that would lead her to be so confident.
The Minister mentioned the commentary of the Government of the Republic of Ireland. She also mentioned that the number of businesses affected cross-border on the island of Ireland is small. Can she tell us how small, how many businesses are affected and what their turnover is? Similarly, can she say exactly how many businesses overall will be affected by the anticipated changes, and what their turnover is? I note that again—as for similar statutory instruments that we have discussed in the last few months—we have no impact assessment. The last impact assessment we had, which was on accounting standards, suggested that 20,000 businesses were affected. That is a sizeable number, and I would be interested to know whether it is a similar sort of number in this case. Perhaps she can get that figure for us.
As with the accounting standards regulations, the responsibility for oversight moves from the European Commission to the Secretary of State, and is delivered by the Financial Reporting Council. I ask the Minister, as I did last time, what the arrangements are. There are arrangements for scrutiny of the European Commission’s activities, but what arrangements will we have to scrutinise the Secretary of State’s activities and, more importantly, how will resourcing of the FRC be changed to address the additional workload resulting from what she set out in her remarks?
We are discussing regulations for significant additional third-country operation of auditors in the UK, and the regulation of that activity. Those are very important areas. Public confidence in our auditing profession is low, with some very high-profile cases— Carillion springs readily to mind—so anything that undermines or further devalues public confidence in how audits are carried out would be extremely damaging. What assurances can she give that the FRC will be in a position to ensure that no further damage done to the reputation and quality of audit? That is extremely important. Twenty-one months is not a long time. The changes are significant and additional reassurance would be extremely welcome.
I mentioned the Irish Republic. The chartered accountants body in Ireland is calling for negotiation on the mutual recognition of professional qualifications. My understanding is that a significant number of EU citizens are working in our large audit firms, which audit the FTSE 350, for example. What arrangements are being put in place to ensure that their qualifications are recognised and that they will be able to continue auditing businesses of all sizes in this country? The Irish Government want to deliver a bilateral mutual recognition agreement. As some of these issues will not just apply in the Irish Republic, is something similar being suggested by other EU countries, and have those discussions taken place with the Minister’s Department?
The regulations are in the event of the withdrawal agreement going through. However, if the agreement does not go through, what planning has been done on these subjects in the event of no deal? I was heartened to hear the Secretary of State’s comments that he is doing everything in his power to avoid no deal, which he reiterated this morning in response to the very bad news about the job losses at Jaguar Land Rover. Knowing him, I am sure that is true, but in the event of no deal, what would be the impact on the regulations before us? More importantly, what would be the impact on the auditing that is relevant to these regulations? As with so many other parts of our economy and country, no deal would have serious consequences for the audit sector. Arrangements need to be put in place—a point that has also been made in the information that is in front of us, and in the Minister’s opening remarks. To be fair, she set that out very well.
With the exception of a small number of people in this House, we can perhaps all agree that avoiding no deal is extremely important. With these regulations, we have yet another example of why it is so important that we avoid no deal, and that the proper arrangements are put in place to make sure—whether for the audit sector or for many other areas of the economy—we have an agreement that we can all get behind. As I said before, that is not going to be the agreement that the Prime Minister puts forward on Tuesday, but we are certainly going to need to agree something in the coming weeks and months. The prospect of no deal, whether for these regulations or for other areas, is utterly disastrous for us all.
Draft Accounts and Reports (Amendment) (EU Exit) REgulations 2018
Bill Esterson Excerpts(5 years, 5 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)
It is a pleasure, as always, to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Davies. Yet again—for the third time in a week—we are here to discuss the consequences of no deal and the changes that are needed to regulations. Yet again, we are told in the explanatory notes that they are relatively minor, but when we dig deeper we find that they affect quite a large number of pieces of legislation and that in combination, they are significant. The combined effect of these SIs, along with many other aspects of the way Brexit is progressing, demonstrates just how important it is that the Government rule out any prospect of no deal as urgently as possible. Businesses are crying out for that certainty. The more of these SIs we consider, the more uncertainty is created.
In this case, the reporting requirements will change significantly, in particular—but not exclusively—for companies where the parent company is in the EEA and subsidiaries are in the UK. The advice note produced last month by specialists Linklaters contains the heading:
“Brexit set to increase accounting requirements for UK entities with EEA parents or subsidiaries”.
That is not something that any Government or any business would want to read. It summarises the fact that this SI, along with the others, will lead to great potential difficulties for businesses and the economy.
I think the Minister quoted from paragraph 2.11 of the explanatory memorandum, which states that
“it is inappropriate to continue with preferential treatment for EEA entities, or UK entities with parents or subsidiaries from EEA States, or entities listing on EEA regulated markets, because that would amount to unreciprocated preferential treatment.”
I do not deny that that would be the case in the disastrous event of no deal, but we must be trying to avoid that. That prompts some questions, which I would like to explore with the Minister, about the impact of this SI.
Paragraph 7.4 sets out in a little more detail what is anticipated. It talks about the changes to the Companies Act 2006—at least, I think that is what it refers to:
“Section 399 CA06 set out conditions under which UK subsidiaries with EEA parents were exempt from the requirement to file group accounts. That exemption has been reduced in scope so that it applies only to UK subsidiaries with UK parents.”
How many companies are going to be affected? What proportion of the economy will be affected? I asked a similar question yesterday and I do not think we ever quite got the answer. Perhaps the Minister can have another go today. She may not have had the answer yesterday, and if she does not have it today, I am happy for her to say so and to write to me separately.
That also applies to the point about an impact assessment. As with previous SIs, the Government say that it is not relevant because of the limited impact. Let us get an honest assessment of the impact of the changes. How many companies will be affected? What size are those companies? What proportion of the economy will be affected?
My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South asked an interesting question about the potential for businesses to move from the UK into the EEA after Brexit. What assessment has been made of that? What came back from the consultation about the prospect of that happening? Presumably, if a company that is registered in the UK at the moment wants to avoid additional reporting requirements, it would be tempted, if it has an EEA parent, to re-register in the EEA. What are the consequences if that happens?
What consequences have the Government considered, in terms of the feedback from the consultation and any assessment they have carried out? If no assessment has been carried out, why on earth not? This could have quite serious consequences. I can think of a very sizeable business located in my hon. Friend’s constituency that might be affected by such a desire to shift registration, and I can imagine the consequences of shifting that registration and the business operations associated with it. Some answers would be very much appreciated, if we are to do justice to our scrutiny of the regulations.
How was the consultation carried out? How many businesses were consulted? What business organisations were consulted? What were their responses? Paragraph 10.2 of the explanatory memorandum describes it as an informal consultation, but that does not give an indication of its scale or scope, or what the responses were. In order to make sure that we are properly assessing the impact, scale and consequences of the regulations, we need answers to those questions as well.
I have made the point about the Government’s decision that the regulations do not justify a full impact assessment. Frankly, if this is of a more sizeable scope and if the potential for businesses to relocate is significant, there will be a significant impact. I am surprised that the Government have decided that an impact assessment is not required.
I turn to other matters. How will the new arrangements operate? What will the arrangements be for companies listed in the EEA that have subsidiaries in the UK? What will be the reporting arrangements to replace what happens at the moment? It was not clear from the Minister’s initial remarks how that will work, so perhaps she can confirm that. Will Companies House be sufficiently resourced to address the additional accounting requirements that Linklaters refers to in its analysis? For that matter, will businesses be sufficiently resourced to address the additional work? Will additional funding be required for Companies House, or will it just have additional responsibilities without extra resources to discharge them?
Specifically, will the Minister describe the impact of the regulations on extractive industry companies registered in the EEA? How will they be affected? I understand from the explanatory notes and analysis that there is a particular issue about the effect of the changes on country-by-country reporting by extractive companies, such as those in the mining sector. As Linklaters tells us, there will be significant issues in respect of the exemption from the requirement to prepare consolidated accounts. There will also be significant impacts when it comes to the exemption from the requirement to prepare a non-financial information statement, the ability to change accounting frameworks on de-listing, the dormant company exemption from producing accounts, country-by-country reporting by extractive companies in mining, qualified partnership accounts and overseas company regimes.
Those significant changes go substantially beyond what the Minister said in her opening remarks about the scale and scope of what we are being asked to approve. Will she give that her detailed attention, with any support that her officials can deliver this afternoon? Will she write to the Committee to answer the questions that I have raised?
On their own, but especially with the other statutory instruments we have been asked to approve, the regulations are an indication that significant changes are being made to the legislative framework of this country as a result of no deal planning. I accept that we have no choice other than to address the regulations this afternoon, but that does not mean we have to do so without adequate scrutiny.
Kelly Tolhurst
Actually, I think it is quite right that as a Government we are preparing for no deal, and we will continue to do so. That is why I am here presenting a statutory instrument—so that in the event of no deal we will be able to give business confidence and clarity on what the outcome will be, whether it is liked or not, in a no deal scenario.
I will try to answer some of the questions that the hon. Member for Sefton Central posed about the statutory instrument. He asked about the total number of companies that might be affected. There are approximately 3.8 million active companies on the UK register as it stands, and 98.5% of them happen to be micro or small businesses. There are approximately 35,000 medium-sized businesses and 20,000 large entities on the register. We have assessed that fewer than 20,000 companies will be affected by the statutory instrument, with a range of sizes and set-ups.
I was asked what assessment we have made of de-listing. As I have outlined, we did not carry out a full assessment, because we established from the data we have that the burden and cost to business will be below £5 million. The burden on business will relate to the potential costs of having to file accounts and make preparations, where they had been exempt. Obviously, that is a small cost to a limited number of organisations.
Obviously the de-listing is very difficult to assess. It is very difficult to assess how many companies would take the decision to leave the UK based in a no deal scenario. As I have said, as a Minister I have not been made aware of any companies that have registered an interest in leaving the UK, based on the changes that we are considering. We estimate that the number of organisations that might decide to de-list would be very small, but it is a very difficult number to assess.
Bill Esterson
The Minister said that nearly 20,000 businesses would be affected by the regulations. The explanatory memorandum states that there is “no significant” impact on business. I just wonder whether she can tell me how many businesses it would take for the Government to decide that it was a significant number worthy of an impact assessment.
Kelly Tolhurst
As the hon. Gentleman knows, because I have just outlined it, we are talking about approximately 20,000 businesses that would be affected, out of the current 3.8 million businesses that are registered in the UK. That is a small number of businesses in relation to the total number of registered companies. However, we are talking about the cost, and the burden will relate to the potential extra costs in relation to accounting and reporting.
We must remember that, as Members will have read and as I have mentioned, dormant companies for example have been exempt. They will no longer be exempt, so there will be a cost to that under the regulations in a no deal situation.
Kelly Tolhurst
I am going to carry on, because I have given as full an answer as I am prepared to give.
As I highlighted in my introduction, and as I have reiterated, we are not changing the way in which we ask companies to report. We will work with Companies House, as we do already, to ensure that we identify all the companies that are affected by not having the exemptions, that we have the data, and that any guidance that is needed is issued well before the SI comes into effect.
On the extraction industries, the hon. Member for Sefton Central is right that currently the EU Commission has the power to grant equivalency to third countries. We are not changing any of the criteria for that; rather than the EU Commission having that power, the Secretary of State would have the authority to make those decisions in a no deal situation. As I outlined, the SI will correct the deficiencies in EU retained law.
Bill Esterson
I think my hon. Friend has anticipated my question. Will the Minister explain what the scrutiny process will be for the Secretary of State’s decision making in the event of no deal?
Kelly Tolhurst
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that question. As I outlined, the European Commission has the power to grant equivalency, and we are not changing any powers here. Having looked at this, we believe that it is small enough for us to have it in an Executive power. If the European Commission has those powers currently, it is right they would be transferred to the UK Secretary of State in a no deal situation. Scrutiny would operate exactly as it does currently.
Kelly Tolhurst
Absolutely, because the Secretary of State would make those decisions and grant those powers. Granting equivalency to third countries is obviously a small part of it.
Effective financial reporting underpins the success of every business. It helps to inform decision making, to improve performance and to promote confidence in a company’s future. As the UK exits the EU, it is paramount that we maintain the integrity of the UK system of accounting and reporting. The regulations will ensure that it remains coherent, operable and understandable for companies, users of accounts, and the general public, who rely on the transparency that it provides. I commend the regulations to the Committee.
Question put.
Draft Takeovers (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019
Bill Esterson Excerpts(5 years, 5 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)
The Minister’s remarks show that the prospect of no deal should be avoided at all costs for this reason alone; there are many other reasons for avoiding it, but let us explore the risks in the regulations.
The Minister talked about legal clarity and certainty, and referred to part 28 of the Companies Act 2006. However, the regulations move from a specific provision, covered by our relationships as part of the European Union, and of the EEA in particular, to general obligations in terms of international co-operation, the implication of which is that we move to a weaker takeover regulatory system.
The hon. Member for Amber Valley talked about what happens in the event of a takeover that straddles exit day and about how we guarantee continued co-operation before and after exit day from our EEA counterparts. The problem is that the duty to co-operate will no longer apply, as the Minister said.
The hon. Member for Basildon and Billericay asked an even more pertinent question on reciprocal arrangements, and I want to quote part of a letter the Minister wrote to the shadow Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Salford and Eccles (Rebecca Long Bailey):
“At EU exit, however, EEA Member States will no longer be bound by a duty under EU law to cooperate with the UK. To leave section 950 of the Companies Act intact would therefore be to impose a duty on the Panel that is not reciprocated by supervisory authorities elsewhere in the EEA.”
The hon. Member for Basildon and Billericay hit the nail on the head: we cannot guarantee that the supervisory arrangements will be in place from the EEA once we have left. That is a really important point that the Minister will need to address.
As with so many other areas of business dealings and the regulatory environment, there is a real problem. The UK domestic takeover regime will need to function outside the existing EU framework. My understanding is that it is fully integrated at the moment because of our EU membership, but that will no longer be the case. Perhaps the Minister can confirm exactly how it will operate, because her two hon. Friends have highlighted a very real problem regarding the current complexity. That complexity is pretty clear from paragraph 7.1 of the explanatory memorandum. That paragraph describes the consequential amendments required and demonstrates how many changes are needed to existing legislation in this country to disentangle us from the EU arrangements that we are party to at the moment. Perhaps the Minister can address that point and the apparent confusion between her remarks and what she said in the letter I quoted.
In addition, will the Minister talk about what will happen with takeovers that are across multiple jurisdictions? Can she tell us what preparations the Competition and Markets Authority has made? What will the experience of the existing and additional staff be? What qualifications will current and new staff have? How long does it take for staff to acquire the skills needed to supervise such arrangements adequately?
Coming back to the points made by the Minister’s hon. Friends, who will regulate in cases where companies have a registered office in an EEA member state and trade their securities on the UK stock exchange? That is the point about multiple jurisdictions. The fact that a company is registered in an EEA state does not mean that we are not interested; if it is trading on our stock market, we have an enormous interest in ensuring that we supervise adequately.
I am afraid we are becoming rather used to an absence of impact assessments for the SIs we are discussing relating to no deal, which are coming thick and fast—one last week, and two this week that the Minister and I are dealing with. The explanatory memorandum states that
“the impact on most businesses will be minimal”,
so an impact assessment was not produced. However, it also says that 10 UK companies are affected by the regulations. Perhaps the Minister can tell the Committee how big those companies are and how significant they are for the UK economy. If they are sizeable companies, that is not an insignificant issue—and, let us face it, if they are involved in takeover activity, they are likely to be sizeable companies. That raises the question of why the Government have decided not to produce an impact assessment.
I mentioned the consequential amendments. Paragraph 7.14 of the explanatory memorandum speaks of a duty of co-operation. EEA member state bodies will have no duty, and we will have no duty, so will the Minister explain how that will work, and address the points that have been raised?
It seemed from the Minister’s initial remarks—I think there were some gaps in her analysis in response to her hon. Friends—that the Government cannot guarantee at this stage how the takeover regime will operate in the event of no deal. I suggest that she needs to answer that today, if she can. If she cannot, she should write to all members of the Committee with more detail about how the regime will operate in the event of no deal regarding the multi-jurisdictional challenge.
The regulations show again how important it is that the Government do everything in their power to avoid the prospect of no deal. The way forward is to get a plan that Parliament and the EU can support so that we do not end up in that situation in the first place.
Draft Competition (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019
Bill Esterson Excerpts(5 years, 5 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Christopher. I note that we have 82 minutes remaining for our deliberations.
I thank the Minister for writing to me in detail a few weeks ago about this important, detailed and complicated matter, which relates to how we adjust domestic competition law in the event of no deal. It is perhaps appropriate to ask the Minister to indicate what the Government’s plans will be for addressing changes to domestic competition law if there is a deal.
The SI raises a number of questions, starting with what the consequences will be for existing competition proceedings under EU law. The UK element of disputes that involve overseas businesses with UK operations will be affected, so will the Minister explain how things will work in the event of no deal when businesses are involved in disputes that cross jurisdictions between the UK and the EU? I am not entirely clear that her speech or the explanatory memorandum have addressed how the Government see that issue being resolved.
The Minister said that no impact assessment had been carried out. An awful lot of legislation is being amended merely to cover the costs of leaving the EU. Will she take this opportunity to confirm that the Government will not allow no deal, to avoid those costs? Will she set out her view on how the Government will go about avoiding no deal? [Interruption.] I note that the Government Whip is shaking her head; I cannot possibly imagine why. I would be interested to hear the Minister’s view.
If I have counted correctly, the Practical Law UK website describes a total of 18 pieces of legislation that will be amended by the draft regulations, with a further eight consequential changes and five more amendments that require secondary legislation. That is a significant shift in legislation. Is a statutory instrument appropriate for such a major change? When the Minister read out the title of the regulations, I noted that it includes the word “etc.” Now, what does “etc.” mean? [Interruption.] She points out that it covers a long list of potential areas.
The draft regulations cover a lot of ground—a vast array of legislation is being amended. The Minister used the phrase “highly integrated”, which gives us a clue about the complexity. I suggest that there is rather more involved than changing the wording from “EU” to “UK” in multiple pieces of legislation. It is a surprise to Opposition Members that a statutory instrument is considered sufficient for such an important topic. Might it have been better to scrutinise the impact on each of the specific pieces of legislation that she described? She summarised the situation in her opening remarks, but there seems to be quite a lot more to it than is perhaps implied in the explanatory memorandum.
According to the Practical Law UK website, the Competition and Markets Authority has indicated that it will have a much bigger role after Brexit. That is self-evident, given the competition law responsibilities that the UK is to take on from the EU. What assessment have the Government made of the CMA’s capacity and of its ability to address its additional responsibilities?
The CMA will also have a new role in relation to state aid. Will the Minister spell out what that role will be? We know that the Government have often been reluctant to use state aid. They are far less prepared to do so than other countries, including our European partners, or to organise tenders in a way that supports UK businesses. I remember the lengthy debates we had in 2010, when I was first elected to Parliament, about the competition between Siemens and Bombardier for Crossrail trains. The contract went to Siemens rather than to UK-based Bombardier, which shows the Government’s reluctance to support UK-based industry.
I read on Friday that the Government had issued the tender for fleet solid support ships as an international competition, on the grounds that they are not naval ships. There is no one in the navy or in the shipbuilding industry who regards fleet solid support ships as anything other than naval ships; it seems that only the Government do that. However, the consequence is that we now have an international tender, rather than a domestic opportunity for domestic shipyards, which is causing huge problems for the workers at Cammell Laird shipyard in the Liverpool city region. As the Government do not regard these ships as being naval, I wonder—because it is in the papers—whether they are covered by the liner shipping block exemption. Perhaps the Minister can answer that question.
What consultation has been undertaken regarding potential future divergence between the EU and the UK on competition law? Perhaps the Minister has the results of that consultation and can share them with us.
I put to the Minister comments made by the UK Trade Policy Observatory:
“An issue which was addressed in the EU (Withdrawal) Act 2018 is the scenario where UK courts are obliged to follow EU judgments that pre-date Brexit. The new s60A (7) provides that the relevant court or decision-maker may disapply the interpretative obligation if they consider that to be appropriate in the light of various criteria”.
What guidance will the Government give to decision makers?
The UK Trade Policy Observatory also says that
“a claimant for a private damages action will have to open new proceedings in the UK courts, and would be well-advised to do so now for any current investigations before the European Commission”,
because
“an infringement of EU competition will no longer be binding after Brexit for the purpose of follow-on actions in the UK courts.”
I would be interested to know whether the Minister agrees with that observation. If she does not agree with it, what might her analysis be?
Significant, wide-ranging changes are being proposed in the event of no deal. Parliamentary scrutiny of them involves just the small selection of Members on this Committee, following a similar Committee sitting yesterday in the other place. As I have said, several dozen pieces of legislation are affected—sometimes, as the Minister indicated in her opening remarks, in significant ways.
This SI gives rise to many questions and I question whether we are able to do it justice. I am not a lawyer and neither is the Minister, although undoubtedly she has lawyers advising her. I question whether this process allows for adequate scrutiny. It is a very good example of why the Government really must do everything in their power to avoid the prospect of no deal.
Kelly Tolhurst
I was wondering whether I might be able to start by answering the hon. Member for Saffron Central.
Kelly Tolhurst
I apologise; I often get annoyed when people refer to my constituency as Rochester and “Stroud”, rather than “Strood”.
The hon. Gentleman asked what we would do with the regulations if we entered into a deal, bearing in mind that we are talking about this statutory instrument as a no-deal SI. This SI is about retaining EU law. Were we to enter into a deal, we would bring further SIs to the House to modify the current regulations.
The hon. Gentleman expressed concern about how we would work cross-jurisdictionally and is unsatisfied with the explanatory memorandum. The CMA, our regime and how the UK has dealt with competition law over the years have a high regard internationally. We co-operate and are part of a number of international bodies. We are regarded as having a world-class framework and operation. There is absolute commitment from the Government to ensuring that, where we can, we co-operate with other states and the EU. Even in a no-deal scenario, the intention will be to ensure that regulators at that level will be able to seek to enter into co-operation agreements bilaterally to ensure that consumers are protected. Ultimately, the European Union and the UK are committed to protection for consumers, as I have said a number of times over the past few weeks in Committees.
Bill Esterson
Is the problem not that, if there is no deal, by definition there will not be an agreement to ensure that co-operation? How does the Minister envisage the CMA and our competition framework coping in that situation?
Kelly Tolhurst
The hon. Gentleman is right: if we enter a no-deal situation, we will not have a deal with the European Union. However, our world-respected bodies, such as the CMA and other regulators, are communicating on a daily and weekly basis with their counterparts in not only Europe but other parts of the world. There is nothing to suggest that that co-operation, communication and co-working would change, and we would seek for it to be continued. We still want to co-operate with our international partners, and I cannot foresee a situation, with or without a deal, where that would not happen. That is my understanding.
With regard to the hon. Gentleman’s question about whether it is right that we are debating this big SI in a short Committee, I highlight that the SI changes two big pieces of legislation. Remember that we are retaining EU law, so the SI is not a change in policy; it is about retaining what we have, to make it fit so that on day one, were we to leave the European Union without a deal, our statute book would function.
The first piece of legislation is the Competition Act 1998, and the SIs that sit under it. We have all sat through a number of SI Committees. In the years I have been a Member of Parliament, many small statutory instruments have altered larger pieces of legislation. The second piece of legislation is the Enterprise Act 2002, and other SIs that have been introduced that relate to the EU, and to the block exemption that I mentioned. The “etc.” refers to the other pieces of legislation, consideration of which we have all sat through. From looking at a hard copy of the Bill, a number of minor changes are clearly being made. That gives Members an idea of why we are discussing this matter in Committee, as opposed to having a wider debate.
With regard to whether the CMA is capable of continuing to do its job given the potential increase of work in a no-deal scenario, we expect that the CMA might have an increased case load of between five and seven antitrust cases in a year. We have also assessed—working with the CMA, obviously—that the CMA might have to deal with between 15 and 30 extra merger cases over a year.[Official Report, 17 December 2018, Vol. 651, c. 4MC.] The National Audit Office has looked at the CMA and believes that it has robust plans in place to operate and function after we leave the EU.
As Members will know, in 2017 in the spring statement the Chancellor put £3 billion aside over a two-year period for funding our EU exit. In the spring statement of this year, the Chancellor announced just under £24 million extra for the CMA. The CMA is going through a recruitment process to increase its number of workers. That will constitute a substantial increase in the size of the CMA, and I am reliably informed that the CMA is working to plan, and recruitment is on target at the moment.
State aid is not part of today’s SI, but I am sure that the hon. Member for Sefton Central will be pleased to hear that the Government will soon lay an SI on that issue. I look forward to having greater conversations with him about the merits—or not—of state aid, and what he would like to see in the future.
Regarding divergence, as the hon. Gentleman explained and as I understand it, post-exit decisions in the European courts will be notable by UK courts, but not binding on UK courts. The idea that previous case law becomes part of UK case law history has come about because businesses need certainty and decision makers need to be able to look at that: it is quite right that pre-exit case law remains the bank of case law. However, as we have determined, UK courts will not be bound by that case law, although they will obviously have regard to it. Going forward, we need businesses to have assurance that previous case law has set the precedent, but as we have outlined in the SI, UK courts can diverge from it.
As regards the guidance that we will be giving on that point, it is case law: obviously, it will be defined by judgments. As the hon. Gentleman knows, markets, competition and things are changing all the time, so the guidance will also change over time. At that point, if necessary, we will give guidance to the relevant individuals. The hon. Gentleman mentioned bringing claims in the UK for things happening within the jurisdiction of the European Union. That is true: they will be brought here in the UK. I believe we can do so under UK law in UK courts. Also on that point, there is an ability to bring a civil, private claim in the UK under foreign tort law anyway.
My hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East asked what we will do to make sure that the UK protects its consumers from the big corporate organisations that are perceived to potentially cause restrictions and competition issues in the UK. As I outlined, our competition law in the UK is world renowned; we are respected internationally for the way we deal with such cases, and we already have great co-operation with international organisations.
To give one example, in the Google investigation a UK market was one of the main ones being investigated, and most of the claimants came from the UK market. I hope that gives my hon. Friend some comfort that, even if we are in a no-deal situation, if this SI is agreed we will be more than ready to take on those challenges and we will continue to maintain co-operation with our international partners and the European Union to make sure that the protection of UK consumers is at the heart of what they are doing.
Oral Answers to Questions
Bill Esterson Excerpts(5 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Greg Clark
One of the reasons why companies up and down the country sometimes find it a struggle to recruit people is that we have such a low level of unemployment in this country. I would have thought that the hon. Gentleman would recognise that. He knows that one of the benefits of leaving the European Union is that our migration policy will be set in this country according to the needs of our economy—so it’s over to us.
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)
The Prime Minister’s botched Brexit deal creates uncertainty for business. The lack of any commitment to permanent customs arrangements means that there is no guarantee of tariff-free, frictionless trade. Frankly, I am amazed that any Business Secretary would put their name to this deal. Without any commitments to frictionless trade, how can the Government claim to be helping business?
Greg Clark
I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman has read the proposed agreement, but business leaders certainly have, and they have been warmly supportive of it. There are good reasons for that. One of the things that businesses have asked for is a transition period leading up to an agreement that we should be able to trade without tariffs, without quotas and without frictions. This agreement provides for that, which is one reason why it has been endorsed by businesses up and down the country.
Ending Seasonal Changes of Time (Reasoned Opinion)
Bill Esterson Excerpts(5 years, 6 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Kelly Tolhurst
I do not have the particular detail of how many respondents there were from the UK, but I am more than willing to share that afterwards with my hon. Friend.
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)
In her statement the Minister said that the Government have many concerns, but I did not pick up what they were. She mentioned some of the things that the Commission said, but could she spell out the Government’s concerns about the proposed change in time rather than the procedural stuff?
Kelly Tolhurst
My statement clearly laid out the Government’s concerns. First, the proposed timeframe is not acceptable. Secondly, we are not proposing to change summertime. Thirdly, it should be for member states to make such decisions, but this directive starts from a position of harmonisation. Those are just some of the many concerns.
Kelly Tolhurst
Currently we do not intend carry out a consultation. We are working with other member states to block the proposal. Obviously, we will respect the implementation of EU rules while we are still a member but at this moment in time we do not want to consult because we are fundamentally against the proposed clock changes.
Bill Esterson
To clarify: with my previous question, I hoped that the Minister would tell us the Government’s concerns about the impact of the change on the economy, society, business, the voluntary sector, schools and other areas. Could she spell those out?
Kelly Tolhurst
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his clarification. He raises an incredibly important point. One of the reasons that we are against the proposal is that we do not know what its impacts will be. The European Commission has not, as far as we are concerned, properly assessed them, and we have not been able to do so, either, in such a short timeframe. To implement this change in such a short timeframe would not be practical when we do not know the impact it would have across the country.
Kelly Tolhurst
First, it is not the timetable I have set out, but the European Commission’s timetable. Fundamentally, that is one of the reasons we object to the proposal, because we do not feel the timeframe is workable. That is obviously backed up by other member states. I have written to the devolved Administrations to get their position. Given the short timeframe, we need to work. It has been accepted by many that a delay of two years would be preferable for member states to do the necessary consultation to implement any potential new directive that comes from the European Union. At that time, once a decision is made, we will look to ensure that we communicate with people.
Bill Esterson
Following on from the initial question that my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow asked, can the Minister spell out for us what the procedure is for this proposal being blocked, if the reasoned opinion is supported by the Committee today? How does that get support? Is it a system of majority voting, do we have a veto or is it another system? Can the Minister tell us how this would be allowed to go through or stopped, whichever is more likely, and give us a few scenarios?
Kelly Tolhurst
Obviously, we at the stage where member states are debating the proposal and making their positions clear. What I have already outlined is that we are working with other member states to get the European Commission to change its proposals. At such time, there will be a position where all member states will either agree or disagree with the proposal.
Bill Esterson
Well, what an interesting set of sub-questions. We made some progress and got answers in the end; I thank the Minister for that. I will offer just a few additional thoughts.
I was surprised that the Minister said that the Government had not carried out an impact assessment. I gently suggest that they might need to do so because, on the basis of her other answers, we do not appear to be in a position to stop the Commission issuing the directive if it decides to go ahead. That might be helpful to the whole country, whether on the island of Ireland or not.
Opposition Members were trying to be helpful with some of our questions. The questions my hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent asked about the safety of putting the clocks forward and daylight saving time are actually part of the argument to the Commission. They make the point well that we have concerns about what the Commission is proposing. We were being helpful.
There are some health studies about this matter, and I hope that the Government will look into them. A Nobel prize was awarded to chronobiologists this year, and additional work will be carried out to indicate the health benefits or otherwise of changing the clocks—whether the clocks should change or not. I hope that the Government look at that. One issue is disruption to the circadian rhythm—did I pronounce that correctly? [Hon. Members: “Yes.”] Good; I got that one right. The issue is whether moving the clocks helps or not. What is the impact on the circadian rhythm and health? These are important points.
There are points about the impact on the economy. When we were initially looking at daylight saving time and double summer time, for example, we were in a different era. The importance of the agricultural sector in this country and the impact on agricultural workers were of a different nature, but we still have to consider that. We still have to consider the impact on postal workers, on children going to school and on commuters in the early mornings and whether there is an increase in the number of road traffic accidents when the clocks change. These are all important points that need to be taken on board.
We can start to look at evidence from those countries that have made the change that the Commission suggests. The one piece of evidence that my researcher was able to find relates to Iceland, which has been in a position of removing daylight saving time for some years now. Concerns were raised, in the one English language commentary we found on the matter, about the gap between solar and social time and teenagers dropping out. There is a whole other debate to be had on whether teenagers should go to school later in the day, but that is for another Committee on another occasion.
However, there are concerns about health and about the impact on workers. There is some evidence of small energy savings to be had, whichever way round we go.
Michael Tomlinson
The hon. Gentleman raises some interesting points about whether we should change the clocks and consider any safety aspects, as was suggested earlier, but this debate is about whether we should issue a reasoned opinion and whether we agree that it should be this House that determines that, or the EU. What is his position on that?
Bill Esterson
This debate is about those things, but it is interesting that the documents that we were given cover in some detail all the points that I have raised—without the background, it is very difficult to go forward. I was about to move on—the hon. Gentleman’s intervention was quite timely—to quote paragraph 1.16 of our papers, where his own Committee quotes the Commission, which
“acknowledges, ‘evidence is not conclusive as to whether the benefits of summer time arrangements outweigh the inconveniences linked to a biannual change of time’, leaving room to doubt that a fully harmonised approach is necessary.”
The reasoned opinion that we give back must be as strongly evidenced as possible, if we are to have as much influence as possible. In the absence of certainty of evidence that a change is a good thing, we want to be as strong as possible, along with our allies and partners across the European Union, in influencing the Commission’s final decision.
My hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow was absolutely right to push as strongly as she did the points about what happens in Ireland. She might also have mentioned Gibraltar, of course. It would be very difficult to see differences on either side of those two land borders. These points should go back to the Commission in as strong a manner as possible.
We are due to leave the European Union on 29 March, as the hon. Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole said—I know that he is very passionate that we do leave on that day. As things stand, we are leaving on 29 March. I hope that there will be a good deal, not the inadequate one being put forward by the Prime Minister—it has little to no support from anybody in her own Cabinet, let alone anywhere else—but we absolutely must not have no deal. If we do get a deal, there will be a transitional period. If this goes ahead, we will have to be ready for it, as with so many requirements coming from the European Union. I hope that the Government will do the work necessary to prepare us for that eventuality.
These questions were raised by the European Scrutiny Committee and are set out in paragraphs 1.19 and 1.20. The Minister is well aware of the concerns raised today. I hope that she will go away and ensure that the Government do that preparatory work and carry out their own impact assessment. Perhaps she will write to members of the Committee with her findings as soon as possible, so that the work we have done today is followed up as thoroughly as possible.
Oral Answers to Questions
Bill Esterson Excerpts(5 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Kelly Tolhurst
Fundamentally, the Government absolutely support the post office network, and we are determined to make sure that it is provided across the country. As the Minister with responsibility for post offices, I have taken a particular interest in that since taking up my role. I am determined to make sure that we keep the network running across all parts of the country to benefit our communities.
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)
First, I welcome the Minister to the Dispatch Box.
The British Business Bank is simply not reaching most businesses that need support. Only 12% of members of the Federation of Small Businesses apply for external finance, and two thirds of those applications are rejected. In the spirit of cross-party co-operation, how about setting up a network of regional development banks to deliver business finance where it is most needed? The Government have stolen a number of our policies—why not that one?
Draft Business Contract Terms (Assignment of Receivables) Regulations 2018
Bill Esterson Excerpts(5 years, 8 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)
It is always a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Sharma. We are reminded that this place is chock full of lawyers—what would we do without them? Answers on the back of a postcard, please. I welcome the Minister to her first Front-Bench duty. As she said, we share a common heritage on the banks of the Medway—she is my dad’s MP, in fact. It having been a secret ballot, I cannot possibly divulge whether he voted for her. She and I were also Medway councillors before coming here.
Invoice financing can be described as the process of borrowing money to improve cash flow. The regulations suggest a potential demand 10 times that which is currently met through the use of invoice financing by smaller businesses. However, the Minister used the phrase “unintended consequences” in her remarks, and I caution that we need to beware of the potential downside of overuse of invoice financing—at the moment, an estimated 40,000 businesses use it. I say that because customers who see their suppliers relying or over-relying on invoice financing could and sometimes do question their stability. There is a balance to be struck in deciding whether to use something such as factoring, or the assignment of receivables, which is the correct legal term.
There is also a cost to using invoice financing, which is estimated at between 0.5% and 5% of the value of the invoice. As the Minister rightly said, one clear benefit of these regulations is the likely reduction in those costs, because of the reduction in risk and in the time taken up in applying invoice financing. Nevertheless, there is a cost, and it applies only because firms are having to use invoice financing in the first place, because there are alternatives. I shall spend a little time talking about some of them.
As the explanatory memorandum on the regulations tells us, invoice financing is related to cash flow. Note 7.1 describes the importance for businesses of “having adequate cash flow”, but in the same sentence that is set against the requirement to
“access…external sources of finance in order to invest and grow.”
It is very important to recognise the difference between funding and finance for cash flow on the one hand and longer-term finance for investment and growth on the other. They are very different, and the sources of finance should be very different—they cost very different amounts. Invoice financing is not the answer to long-term finance for investment or growth. The phrasing of the explanatory note is a little misleading, as it could suggest that invoice financing plays a part in long-term investment for growth.
Invoice financing is used for cash flow, but in many cases the question is why, because if customers pay promptly, there is no need to use it. We have faced the scourge of late payment in this country for far too long. In my three years on the Front Bench, I have spent a lot of my time discussing it. We have tried at length to address the topic in a couple of the Bill Committees on which I have served. It is the role of the small business commissioner to look at the problem, but his powers are very limited—they are limited to signposting and he has no powers to intervene. I have argued in Committee that he should be given such powers and I will return to that point later. The regulations have the potential to be a distraction from the problem of the lack of prompt payment.
We have a prompt payment code to which many large firms are signatories, but the reality is payment in 60 days—there is a 30-day payment term for Government contracts. The problem is how the code is enforced through the supply chain. As we saw with Carillion, far too often small firms were being paid late and the payment terms were not being enforced. Carillion, which was a signatory to the prompt payment code at the time, extended its payment terms to 120 days from the 60 days of the code. There is a requirement to publish performance against the prompt payment code, but the code is voluntary and therefore there is no assurance of compliance and, in any case, the 60-day requirement is that 95%, not 100%, of invoices are paid within that time.
The Federation of Small Businesses wants better access to invoice financing, and I agree with it, but it is also concerned about late payment. It estimates that large firms owe £6,142 to their small suppliers. It has campaigned on that for 10 years, but the concern remains that large firms use their smallest suppliers to help their cash flow by delaying payments. Some 40,000 firms use invoice discounting, but 50,000 go bust every year as a result of late payment. Thirty-seven per cent. of Federation of Small Businesses members are experiencing cash-flow difficulties, 30% use overdrafts to manage their cash flow and 20% are experiencing a slowdown in profit growth. Welcome though the proposals are, the figures the Minister cited from the explanatory notes estimate the financial benefits of the measure to be in the tens of millions of pounds, rising to the hundreds of millions which, in terms of the economy, are very small benefits.
Invoice financing has its place. Making it harder for large customers to prevent its use is helpful, but that is not the whole answer to the challenges of SME finance. I am struck by the fact that, according to the Federation of Small Businesses, only 9% of businesses approached their bank for finance in 2016. That is a tiny figure. There is a real problem in accessing finance. Today’s measures will address a small part of that problem but there is the bigger challenge of improving both access to finance for long-term investment and growth and the terms and reality of the payment of invoices.
We need a system with teeth. I have on many occasions recommended the Australian system of buying in arbitration, with fines for persistent late payment—a recommendation that found its way into Labour’s manifesto last year. Highways England uses project bank accounts, and I encourage the Minister early in her term of office to use her influence to have them considered much more widely for large Government contracts. They protect against insolvency and improve the reliability and promptness of payment.
I support the proposed change and the Opposition will not oppose the regulations, which lower costs and risks, but I repeat the call I have so often made that we need to improve payment practice. The Government must lead by example through Government contracts and by enforcing terms through the supply chain and helping with access to finance. That is how we will deliver the support that our SMEs need.
Carillion
Bill Esterson Excerpts(5 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)
I congratulate the three Select Committees on the fine work they have carried out in investigating and coming up with conclusions on the Carillion fiasco. I thank my hon. and right hon. Friends—my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds West (Rachel Reeves), who introduced the debate so expertly, my right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton South East (Mr McFadden) and my hon. Friends the Members for Luton North (Kelvin Hopkins) and for Liverpool, Walton (Dan Carden)—for their excellent speeches.
The collapse of Carillion was indeed a fiasco—a fiasco for the 30,000 employees and the 20,000 sub- contractors; for the 27,000 members of its defined pension schemes, who will now have to rely on the Pension Protection Fund for a reduced pension; for the 30,000 suppliers who are owed £2 billion in unpaid invoices; for the children who depended on school meals; for our armed forces personnel whose housing was mismanaged; and for the taxpayer who is picking up the tab for the colossal failure of the Government to safeguard large sums of public money and the delivery of outsourced services and construction contracts.
In Liverpool, the obvious example of the fiasco, as my hon. Friend, and constituency neighbour, the Member for Liverpool, Walton said, is the failure to complete the Royal Liverpool Hospital. Construction came to a grinding halt when Carillion collapsed. It is completely unacceptable that the Government have not taken over the contracts to make sure that, in the interests of patients, the Royal is finished. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton South East said, the same applies to the hospital in Birmingham and the road in Aberdeen. Those are all examples of the fundamental flaws and costs of PFI and, too often, the way in which public contracts are delivered in the private sector.
Last August, Carillion extended payment terms to an outrageous 120 days and charged suppliers a fee for early payment. Such behaviour is indefensible, yet Carillion was a signatory of the prompt payment code. Will the Minister tell us why the Government were not policing their own payment terms and their own code? That prompts the question whether such payment terms are being enforced now. Why were new contracts worth £2 billion awarded after the change of payment terms, after the profit warnings and after the changes in senior management? Why did Government officials accept assurances from Carillion management about the viability of the company, even as it headed towards the cliff edge, and why did Ministers not challenge their own officials? Will the Government support the proposal of the Institute of Directors for a body to be created to police the directors of major companies?
The company continued to pay out executive bonuses and dividends, while reforming its pay policy to protect management from the possibility of having to repay their bonuses. The arrogance and corporate greed that have been described at Carillion simply will not be tolerated any more either by industry or by the wider public. The CBI wants performance in the payment of suppliers to be a consideration in tendering for public contracts. It is also calling for the publication of payment data. Labour Members agree with it and we will be including payment of suppliers as an essential criterion in our procurement policy in government. The next Labour Government will take the action needed to stop the late payment culture that cost our economy £2.5 billion last year and forced 50,000 small businesses to close. This Government have failed to do so. We will guard against insolvency by mandating the use of project bank accounts and retention deposit schemes in public construction contracts.
The chair of KPMG accepts the need for reform, but it is frustrating to learn that he “respectfully disagrees” with Select Committee members who described the firm’s audit of Carillion as complacent. I am afraid that his comments reinforce that very sense of complacency and it is fair to say that many people will respectfully disagree with him. The time has come for an overhaul of our audit system and of the cosy relationships that have come to characterise the way in which the big four accountancy firms operate, so will the Minister tell us whether the Government support the calls for a break-up of the big four accountancy practices? Whether it is the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee saying that they do not follow Treasury process, the abandoned construction site at the Royal Liverpool Hospital, the failure to enforce their own much trumpeted prompt payment code, or ignoring publicly available information about profit warnings, changes of senior management and excessive bonus payments, this Government have been found wanting, all at the cost of public services and the public finances.
The Government have appointed a senior partner at Slaughter and May as an adviser, despite the £8 million in fees paid to the firm by Carillion, which included £1 million on the day before it collapsed. I had hoped that the Government would have learned from the Carillion fiasco, but the Slaughter and May appointment suggests that they have learned nothing. The mismanagement of Carillion’s contracts was a massive failure by the Government, and the worst of rent seeking and wealth extraction by the few at the expense of the many. However, that culture is coming to an end. The public are appalled by the excesses of Carillion, and the consequences of that for suppliers, workers and public services, and so, too, are the vast majority of decent, hard-working, responsible business people.
The next Labour Government will be a strong partner for businesses that want to put the public good first—businesses that want to work with trade unions, recognise that decent pay and conditions are good for business as well as for workers, and want to treat suppliers fairly and pay them well and promptly. Labour will be the party of responsible business and responsible contracting —the party of business for the many, not the few.