Construction Sector Deal

Bill Esterson Excerpts

Thursday 5th July 2018 Commons Chamber

[Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for early sight of the statement. It is welcome that there is a sector deal for construction, although the promised “a few weeks” from last November have become nine months.

Like last week’s nuclear deal statement, this appears to be a series of reannouncements of previous ministerial policies. The announcement about reducing emissions, although welcome, would be more credible if it were not so starkly at odds with other Government policies, such as last week’s cancellation of the Swansea Bay tidal lagoon. The steel, retail and rail industries are still awaiting responses to the proposals that they made last September. Perhaps the Minister will tell us when other sector deals will be agreed.

The collapse of Carillion of course caused at least some of the delay in today’s announcement, but that in turn was caused by the Government’s own lack of oversight, so what assurances will the Minister give to the sector that there will be no more Carillions, and that suppliers and workers can have confidence that Government will support them on Government-funded contracts? And what in this deal will address the concerns around late payment and retentions that the Carillion fiasco highlighted, with 30,000 suppliers owed £2 billion? What was changed during the review of this sector deal from what was announced last year? There appears to be nothing to tackle the problems endemic in public sector construction procurement.

The commitments in this sector deal on productivity and the speed of building are welcome, but they need to be matched by a significant increase in Government investment in infrastructure and house building projects. That is how we can properly support the construction industry. The TUC has shown that the £31 billion through the national productivity fund increases public investment to 2.9% of GDP, whereas the average spent on investment by leading industrial nations in the OECD is higher, at 3.5%. Labour is committed to a national transformation fund of £250 billion of capital investment over 10 years. Comparing those figures, we have to question whether the Government’s commitment to investment is meaningful. Similarly, the rhetoric about skills and technical education is welcome, but can the Minister give the sector an assurance that those skills will be developed to enable the radical transformation of construction that this country desperately needs?

There are great concerns about the exploitation of construction workers, often by the use of bogus self-employment, and the abuses of human rights and risks to the safety of too many workers through the behaviour of some unscrupulous employers. What are the Government’s plans to protect workers through this deal?

The deal appears to ignore the important role played by smaller firms. What is in the deal for small builders, for whom accessing investment in new technology is likely to be a challenge?

This week’s Jaguar Land Rover announcement that it might move production out of the UK and re-evaluate its planned £80 billion of investment is deeply worrying, not least for the 40,000 workers directly employed. JLR’s is just the latest in a string of warnings from manufacturers vital to the success of British industry, and the same warnings apply in construction and throughout the construction supply chain. The Government’s mishandling of Brexit makes a mockery of their industrial strategy; they must listen to businesses and place workers and our economy ahead of ideology.

[Richard Harrington]

I thank the shadow spokesman for taking us on a wider canter through industrial strategy and mentioning Brexit. I will try to answer his questions, but I will also do my best to stick to the sector deal, Mr Speaker, as I know you would like to make progress.

I make no excuses about the time this has taken because we wanted to get it right. We are always pressed on occasions like this to use words and phrases like “soon”, “imminently” and “at the end of the year”.

[Bill Esterson]

A few weeks?

Draft Companies (Miscellaneous Reporting) Regulations 2018

Bill Esterson Excerpts

Wednesday 4th July 2018 General Committees

[Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Sharma, and to debate this important set of regulations. There is much in them to welcome. It has taken us two years to get to this point from the Green Paper but we must celebrate success when it is on us, and we do—with some questions, as the Minister would expect, I am sure.

The Government propose a series of changes, yet questions have not been addressed in the regulations, so I would be interested in the Minister’s response. For example, does he foresee the Government proposing corporate governance commitments on companies’ attitudes and policies on their carbon footprint, reducing waste or using recyclable packaging? Will commitments be proposed to support suppliers through the supply chain in areas such as access to apprenticeship programmes or prompt payment? What requirements should be in place as a result of Government contracting?

I mentioned prompt payment, and the Carillion fiasco reminds us that treatment of suppliers is not always as we would want: 30,000 suppliers are owed £2 billion, which they are highly unlikely ever to see. Will the Minister give his thoughts on where we will go from here and on when the Government might make proposals not just for companies to consult, discuss and publish how they have done in their annual report, but for practical action to ensure that such things do not happen in supply chains?

My hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green mentioned seats on boards for workers. That has been discussed by the Government, as has the question of seats for suppliers and other stakeholders. What plans are there for such changes to boards? The former Prime Minister, David Cameron, proposed a 20:1 ratio—slightly different from the 75:1 figure for the John Lewis Partnership. What is the Government’s thinking? A number of figures have been mentioned but the Minister has not given one.

[Catherine West]

While my hon. Friend is pursuing this line of questioning, perhaps an assessment could be made of the construction industry, where Persimmon, Berkeley and other large companies have paid themselves massive bonuses yet created few affordable homes for people to live in.

[Bill Esterson]

My hon. Friend is quite right to raise that point, given that we are talking about private sector companies. Perhaps it is time for the Government to consider wider corporate governance issues in the private sector. The directors to whom she referred have benefited from public money and success for such companies has come through the Government’s Help to Buy scheme, where unfortunately, despite the Government’s intention, money has gone to the directors rather than helping people who desperately need somewhere to live. Last year, Labour’s manifesto had commitments on the 20:1 ratio for the public sector and companies involved with public contracts. Might the Government be in a position to do something similar?

I agree that improving relationships and consulting stakeholders is important. Doing so with employees is also important, so I will return to employees. Consulting, discussing and publishing the results of those discussions is one thing, and action is quite another. I am interested in the Minister’s thoughts on what can be done with the findings of such consultations. If consultations are just a talking shop and the results have to be published, what is the point? What is a company’s motivation other than to look good in reports?

Members of the Committee will have had the TUC’s briefing. It has raised a number of concerns. It said—the Minister touched on this in his opening remarks—that the whole workforce need to be engaged, and that these regulations should be about engaging with workers as a whole and not just with employees. I remind the Committee that the TUC estimates that 740,000 people in the UK today are working through an employment agency, 450,000 earn most of their income through personal service companies and 500,000 people are in bogus self-employment. Significant numbers of people are in indirect employment and their indirect employment is often with the companies covered by the regulations.

I hear what the Minister has to say about the difficulty of having direct control, but is there not a danger that some employers will take the opportunity to act less than scrupulously and use indirect employment as a way to avoid their responsibility under the regulations? Sadly, we have seen too much of that kind of behaviour in our economy and the mistreatment of people in precarious situations is a growing and dangerous part of how our economy functions. Not only is it bad for working people, but it creates an unfair competitive advantage and undercuts those employers who want to do the right thing—those businesses that want to act in a responsible way. I urge the Minister to take that point on board, in the spirit of its being good for workers and good for businesses.

The TUC also raised the point about the size of businesses covered by these regulations. For listed companies the regulations use the established definition of a large company, which in this case is one with more than 250 employees, but, for reasons that the Minister might want to explain, for private companies the figure is 2,000. The TUC has drawn to our attention the fact that the gender pay gap reporting requirements use the same lower figure for public and private. I stand ready to be corrected by the Minister, but that is my understanding from the information coming from the TUC. Why is there a difference between the reporting requirements for gender pay and for pay ratios, if that is indeed the case? If it is not, and they are both 2,000 for private companies, I would still want to know why there is a difference between private and public.

[Michael Fabricant]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Bill Esterson]

I will take the opportunity to find my place in my notes.

[Michael Fabricant]

I always try to be helpful. Does the hon. Gentleman not agree that although these rules of course concern companies and corporate law, perhaps other organisations should fall under such a remit, such as universities, where some vice-chancellors, we hear, earn astronomical wages?

[Bill Esterson]

Yes, of course—I do not think there is any doubt about that—but this is about the private sector. I quoted the figure in our manifesto for the public sector. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman is advocating that the Conservative party should make similar proposals of its own for the public sector? I welcome his conversion to the cause and support for Labour’s manifesto from last year in the spirit in which his intervention was no doubt intended.

The other point I want to raise with the Minister concerns the FRC’s responsibilities and enforcement. Perhaps he could start by describing how enforcement has happened with the gender pay gap regulations and what examples have been received, in what I think is just over a year since those regulations came into force, of the need for the FRC to intervene and whether they have found companies that are not compliant. He quoted the policy of “comply or explain”; perhaps he can say whether he has considered what happens if the answer is always to explain and if we do not have compliance. I would be interested in his thoughts on the level of enforcement that has already gone on with the gender pay gap, and on how enforcement will happen for these regulations.

A lack of enforcement of the prompt payment code was one reason so many ended up in such a precarious financial position as suppliers of Carillion. The Minister and I have debated before the difficulties of enforcing the prompt payment code. This debate is an opportunity to remind him that good enforcement is essential for the regulations to have any meaning, and to encourage him in that regard. Perhaps the Minister could tell us how he envisages that and also give examples of how the FRC will be able to deliver that enforcement.

[Catherine West]

The shadow Minister makes some excellent points. Does he agree that the failure of Carillion and larger firms to pay small suppliers on time is not the only trouble caused? When those firms go bust many apprentices lose their jobs and roles; they are cast away. There should be some penalty for companies when the bosses walk away and the poor apprentices are left with no future.

[Bill Esterson]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. When a company goes bust not a lot can be done to support apprentices. That is a problem with legislation, in that suppliers are unsecured creditors. It is very unlikely that the 30,000 Carillion suppliers will get a penny of the £2 billion owed to them. Money will go first to secured and preferential creditors.

In the case of Carillion, directors appear to be able to retain considerable bonuses and other payments received as a result of running Government contracts in a very unsatisfactory way for a number of years. They do not seem to be the ones who suffer when things go wrong. That is a question we can explore today and take further on another occasion. I am interested to hear from the Minister how the regulations will be enforced and how they will lead to better corporate governance for the good of all stakeholders: the business, the wider workforce—as the TUC rightly says—and shareholders.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Griffiths]

The hon. Lady will know that, as part of our enforcement, we have doubled the amount we are putting into protecting those on the lowest pay. We are increasing resources in the Employment Agency Standards Inspectorate to protect agency workers. Through our work in relation to the Matthew Taylor review, we are specifically looking at what we can do to strengthen the protections for agency workers and give them more rights and more clarity in relation to who employs them and the pay that they should receive. It is part of a wider corporate governance package and a wider set of protections for workers such as those employed by the Employment Agency.

[Bill Esterson]

I am glad the Minister mentioned the Taylor review, which was published a year ago. There is a great deal of frustration about how long it has taken to get responses to it and for action to be taken as a result. Perhaps the Minister could indicate when the Government will come forward with proposals and a response to that work?

[Andrew Griffiths]

The hon. Gentleman is impatient. I announced our response to the Taylor review in my second week as the responsible Minister. The consultations closed two weeks ago, and we are busily working on a response to them, which we will come forward with as soon as possible. We are keen to ensure that we deliver a whole new set of rights and protections to workers across the United Kingdom, and we are keen to demonstrate that we do not need the European Union to protect workers’ rights. We are committed to extending and going further and faster in this country.

[Andrew Griffiths]

I thank my hon. Friend for those kind words, but there is no doubt that he has led the way on these protections. I commend him for the steadfastness and determination that he showed in ensuring that we bring in protections for some of the most vulnerable people in the workplace.

The hon. Member for Sefton Central pretty much asked why we are not implementing the Labour party proposal for a pay ratio of no more than 20:1. It is not for the Government to set arbitrary caps on individual companies. We will drive the transparency and accountability that can expose unjustified executive pay, and that is what we are doing with pay ratio reporting. The Labour party’s proposal is fraught with legal and other difficulties. Would a Labour Government extend the 20:1 pay ratio to non-UK companies bidding for Government contracts? That would raise state aid and World Trade Organisation issues. If they would not, that would put UK contracting companies at a clear disadvantage. There is no sense to the proposal that the Labour party puts forward.

In relation to prompt payment, on which we share common ground, we all want to ensure that small and medium-sized enterprises in particular in this country are paid promptly and fairly. Section 172 and the draft regulations require companies to set out their relationship with their contractors and how they treat their supply chain. Another part of this important corporate reform that the Government are bringing forward is payment practice reporting. That is now live and we are seeing real evidence of how bigger companies pay their supply chain. That will go a long way in providing the kind of evidence, transparency and changes in behaviour that we want in this country.

[Bill Esterson]

Will the Minister give way?

[Andrew Griffiths]

I think I have given way quite enough. We have been going for some considerable time, and as the temperature rises I know that right hon. and hon. Members would like us to draw this to a close.

I think the hon. Member for Sefton Central raised the issue of Persimmon and asked why there are not greater consequences. There were consequences for Persimmon: there was a vote of shareholder dissent—something that this Government introduced—that went on the register that this Government introduced, and the chair of the remuneration committee and the chairman of the company resigned. Those are consequences of its actions and they clearly demonstrate that there is real benefit to the reforms we are bringing in.

There was a question about enforcement and Government checks on compliance and non-compliance. If Companies House finds that a company has not submitted a report, for example by shareholders, and a company fails to comply, the Insolvency Service can bring forward measures from its criminal enforcement team. The Secretary of State has authorised the Financial Reporting Council to report proceedings concerning effective accounts, directors’ reporting and strategic reports, to obtain an order that directors prepare a revised report.

On clawbacks, particularly in the Carillion matter, the hon. Member for Sefton Central will know that many of the points he raised are addressed in our corporate governance Green Paper, to which we have had many responses. It looks specifically at clawbacks, particularly in relation to director pay and bonuses. That consultation has now closed and we will respond to it in the very near future.

The hon. Member for Glasgow South West always makes important contributions in these kinds of debates. He rightly asked about the five-year deadline for a review. I alluded earlier to the fact that this is a constant iteration and reassessment of whether corporate governance rules are effective and doing the job we want them to do. It is perfectly possible that, if we see an area of corporate governance that is not working, we will revisit it sooner than in five years, to ensure that it is working properly.

The hon. Member for Glasgow South West also raised the subject of public sector procurement, which the Government are keen to address. I point him to the speech made by the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere (Oliver Dowden), last week when he brought forward new measures on public sector procurement, not only to ensure that it is easier for SMEs to bid for and win public sector and Government contracts but to look at the wider good of a company’s activities. That can include charities and third sector groups. There will be much more flexibility for smaller businesses to make a real contribution to their economy and community if they win public sector contracts.

The draft regulations will give shareholders important new information about executive pay and encourage boards to consider carefully how it relates to the pay of other employees. For the first time there will be specific reporting on how directors have regard to stakeholder and other matters in section 172 of the Companies Act.

We will raise standards of corporate governance in large private businesses. Alongside changes to the corporate governance code, the regulations will improve how our largest companies engage at board level with employees, customers, suppliers and stakeholders. They will improve boardroom decision making, deliver more sustainable business performance and build wider public confidence in the way businesses are run. They will ensure that our corporate governance framework remains the world’s best. I commend the draft regulations to the Committee.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That the Committee has considered the draft Companies (Miscellaneous Reporting) Regulations 2018.

Nuclear Sector Deal

Bill Esterson Excerpts

Thursday 28th June 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mr Gyimah]

My hon. Friend, who has campaigned assiduously on this issue since she joined the House, makes a very good point around the commitment to increase the number of women working in the sector. That is a significant commitment, and one that we are determined to deliver on.

More generally, for Cumbria, a major component of the deal is support for lower-cost decommissioning using advanced manufacturing techniques, so Cumbria is set to benefit, as it is from Sellafield which, as my hon. Friend said, employs several thousand people and leads on some of the most complex decommissioning challenges.

[Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)]

I welcome the publication, albeit delayed, of a nuclear sector deal, but the Secretary of State really should be here to announce the deal, not least so that we can get some answers to the questions asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Barrow and Furness (John Woodcock), which we did not in the Minister’s previous response. Nuclear energy plays an important part in reducing our reliance on fossil fuels and in delivering jobs and prosperity to the parts of the country that most need investment, not least my hon. Friend’s constituency. We very much welcome the 40% target of women working in the civil nuclear sector by 2030, but when is it going to be 50%?

This announcement is mostly a repackaging of existing policy. Of the headline £200 million, it seems that only £10 million is new Government funding, so will the Minister confirm the £56 million for R&D for advanced modular reactors and the £86 million for a national fusion technology platform, both announced last December, and the £32 million for an advanced manufacturing and construction programme, which was unveiled last month? Will he also confirm why there has been a considerable downgrade in the funding available for small modular reactors? In 2015, the then Chancellor said that £250 million would be allocated to small nuclear reactors. At the end of 2017, the Department said that £100 million would be allocated, and now it is just £56 million.

The Minister mentioned Wales, so will he take the opportunity to clarify the Government’s funding arrangements for the Wylfa plant in Anglesey? In the week when the Government have scrapped the Swansea Bay tidal lagoon, it has become clear that different rules apply for different technologies. This announcement should have been made alongside a commitment to invest in tidal energy. Both are equally important. The Committee on Climate Change says today that the Government are failing to keep up with agreed targets on decarbonisation. With this week’s announcement to scrap the Swansea Bay tidal lagoon, the expansion of airport capacity and the modesty of the nuclear sector deal, will he tell us how the Government are going to meet their climate change obligations?

[Mr Gyimah]

On the question of there being no new money here, that is not correct. The deal announced today has £20 million for advanced manufacturing, £10 million for supply chain support, £40 million for potential hydraulics facilities in north Wales and £32 million of industry money, and potentially more to come. That is new money. On the much broader question of tidal energy versus nuclear, to reiterate the arguments that have been made in the House already this week, the Swansea bay proposal would cost £1.3 billion to build but would have produced only 0.15% of the electricity we use each year—a capital cost that is more than three times as much per unit of electricity as Hinkley Point C. The same power generated by Swansea over 60 years would cost only £400 million for offshore wind, even at today’s prices. There are some people you can never please, but as my hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Trudy Harrison) said, today is a good story for the nuclear industry, and I hope that Opposition Members join us in welcoming it.

Energy Policy

Bill Esterson Excerpts

Monday 25th June 2018 Commons Chamber

[Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)]

I thank the Secretary of State for the somewhat late advance sight of his statement—I think we understand why—and give the apologies of my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test (Dr Whitehead), who would normally respond to this statement, but who is a victim of the Transport Secretary’s failure to run the trains on time; a failed policy if ever there was one. I am afraid that this statement is evidence of yet another failed Government policy; it is a missed opportunity for the domestic economy and for our export potential.

The Government really should be ashamed about what we have heard from the Secretary of State today. When he announced the cancellation of the project, my hon. Friends said, “Shame”. They were right to do so as this is indeed shameful. It is another broken promise by the Conservative party—we have seen lots of those recently, too. I remind the House that, in 2015, the Conservative manifesto committed to building the Swansea Bay tidal lagoon. The Government appointed Charles Hendry to produce a report to do just that. It has been one year, five months and 14 days since he published his final report. The report stated:

“The aim now is that we should move to secure the pathfinder project as swiftly as possible.”

During this time, the Minister has received letters signed by more than 100 MPs from all parts of the House in support of the project, along with interventions and questions indicating the strength of feeling in this place. There has been unanimous support from across industry, but the handling of the project by this Government has been atrocious. Not only have the Government taken an inordinate amount of time to come to the House; hon. Members, Tidal Lagoon Power, the Welsh Government, the trade unions and other stakeholders have been left to find out about development through leaks in the press

It emerged in a joint hearing of the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee and Welsh Affairs Committee last month that a BEIS Minister had not spoken to Tidal Lagoon Power for 16 months. Will the Secretary of State set out how we can trust his word that he wants to talk to other marine developers and bring forward the other projects to which he referred in passing, when his Department has not even spoken to Tidal Lagoon Power for more than a year? This is no way for the Government to conduct themselves over an issue that is so important for Wales, our environment and the whole wider UK economy.

Approving the lagoon would have been a positive step, taken by a Government with a clear vision for the future, willing to lead the way in new, innovative technology and strongly supporting British industry. It would have been a step taken by a Government able to provide businesses with certainty in uncertain times, rather than the insulting, undermining and questioning rhetoric that we have heard from the Secretary of State’s Cabinet colleagues. We have heard a lot from him and his colleagues about the industrial strategy and supporting new technologies, revitalising our manufacturing sector, encouraging UK-based supply chains and creating jobs outside London. Well, so much for that industrial strategy. Swansea Bay tidal lagoon could have helped to deliver on each of these objectives, so will the Secretary of State outline which assessment criteria were used to decide against the project, over and above a simple cost calculation?

The project would have required 100,000 tonnes of steel, with a significant proportion expected to be produced nearby at Port Talbot. It would have used first-of-a-kind, precision-engineered, bi-directional turbines, with the vast majority of components built in the UK, establishing new UK-based supply chains. It would have created more than 2,300 jobs in Swansea and paved the way for the creation of a new domestic industry with substantial export potential. The Hendry review was commissioned by the Government. Given that the Secretary of State is ignoring his own review, what alternative analysis did he carry out to support his decision to cancel the project? That this Government, especially in the excessive time that they have taken to make a decision, do not value the wider benefits of the project is disappointing to say the least.

One very good way of offsetting the impact on climate change of expanding airport capacity would be to expand renewable energy production. Is not it remarkably ironic that this statement has been made on the same day as the Heathrow vote? There is a fine judgment to be made on Heathrow tonight. Giving the go-ahead to the Swansea Bay tidal lagoon would have made supporting Heathrow just that little bit easier.

[Greg Clark]

On the hon. Gentleman’s last point, my understanding is that the Welsh Government support the option of a third runway at Heathrow; I am not sure whether that is a co-ordinated position.

The hon. Gentleman asked a number of questions. I understand his disappointment that we have not been able to approve the proposal, but he will know that we all—be it the UK Government or the Welsh Government —have to be responsible stewards of taxpayers’ and consumers’ money. He asked about the analysis that has been made and the time that has been put into this decision. It was the request of the Welsh Government and the recommendation of Charles Hendry that we consider alternative suggestions as to the economic impact of the proposal. That is what we have done, and I have been willing to extend the analysis and leave no stone unturned to see whether this project can be approved.

The hon. Gentleman knows that our record on renewables is one of the strongest in the world, particularly for offshore wind, in which Wales—as well as every other part of the United Kingdom—is a huge beneficiary. We have quadrupled our deployment of renewables since 2010. We are the world’s leader in offshore wind, creating jobs and exports around the world. If we were to use the funds at less value for money—that is, take them from that very successful supply chain and deploy them instead to the programme of a tidal lagoon—the consequence would be job losses in Wales and other parts of the United Kingdom. It is the commitment to continue what has been a successful strategy of achieving jobs all around the country in offshore wind that provides the reason why we need to be rigorous about this.

Listening to the hon. Gentleman, one would think that what ordinary working people and businesses have to pay for their energy is a matter of complete indifference to him. Is there any limit at all to what he would he would make consumers pay? The Swansea lagoon would cost three times as much—I repeat, three times as much—as having the same electricity generated by offshore wind here in the UK. The whole tidal programme would cost £50 billion when we could have the same amount from wind for nearer to £20 billion. Is it Labour’s policy to charge £700 per household more than is needed in the first place? As for economic development in Wales, it would be cheaper to write a cheque for £15,000 to every single household in Wales than to subsidise this particular proposal. I am afraid that his response sums up the approach of spending whatever it takes, no matter how wasteful of consumers’ and taxpayers’ money that is.

The hon. Gentleman talks about industrial strategy, but the clue is in the word “strategy”. A strategy does not spray consumers’ or taxpayers’ money on any proposal—it requires a rigorous assessment. We are a leader in offshore wind because we took a decision to focus on a technology for which costs could come down and there was a massive global market in which we could create jobs. What he proposes would reverse that by doling out subsidy to whoever asks loudest, rather than what has been rigorously assessed. That is not strategic.

In summary, Labour would pay £700 per household for less reliable electricity, fewer exports from offshore wind and fewer jobs, including in East Anglia, on Teesside and in Scotland—and, yes, in Wales and Northern Ireland, too. It would saddle taxpayers with a decommissioning cost of over £1 billion. We will always put the interests of taxpayers, and working people who pay bills, first. I would hope that a responsible Opposition would acknowledge the seriousness of the analysis that has been made and recognise that its conclusion is rigorous.

Oral Answers to Questions

Bill Esterson Excerpts

Tuesday 12th June 2018 Commons Chamber

[Andrew Griffiths]

I absolutely agree that it is important to ensure that our workforce are properly skilled, which is why that is an important part of our modern industrial strategy, but I am less pessimistic than she is. Retail employment has been stable at about 3 million. Yes, those jobs are changing, but retail sales totalled some £362 billion last year, and jobs are being created in the retail sector.

[Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)]

Last week, House of Fraser announced that 6,000 jobs were at risk. Yesterday, another 5,000 jobs went at Poundworld. Since the start of the year, tens of thousands of retail workers have lost their jobs. Some 3.9 million people work in our retail sector. They, their employers and anyone who cares about our high streets want a retail sector deal, so when are the Government going to publish the strategy? More to the point, will it have any meaningful action?

Retail Sector

Bill Esterson Excerpts

Wednesday 6th June 2018 Commons Chamber

[Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)]

The retail sector faces a challenging and testing environment. The high cost of business rates alongside the challenge of online retailing for high street shops, the long-term squeeze on household incomes, the squeeze on pay and loss of retail jobs, and the failure to provide clarity to business on the future of our relationships with the outside world: these are all key factors where the Government should have something to say, but also where the Government could and should take action. They are all areas, however, where this Government have been found wanting.

I thank colleagues on the Opposition Benches for their contributions. We heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon (Liz Twist) on the high number of her constituents employed in retail—a quarter of the jobs in her constituency. We heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Justin Madders) on the importance of balancing the high-quality, out-of-town shopping centre at Cheshire Oaks with the high street, and from my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh), to whom I pay tribute for the fine work she has done in standing up for workers at Sainsbury’s. We also heard from my hon. Friends the Members for Bishop Auckland (Helen Goodman) and for Great Grimsby (Melanie Onn), who both spoke of the difficult challenges being faced in our high streets. One of the themes that has come out of this debate is the difficulty created by a two-tier economy, not least in retail, between our cities and our towns, particularly the smaller ones.

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

Would my hon. Friend accept that one of the problems in market towns is that the ownership is often with distant landowners who are more interested in speculative development than in improving retail opportunities?

[Bill Esterson]

That is a very good point, and it has also been made by other Members today. Where is the strategy, not only for retail but for our towns, and for our high streets in particular?

[Helen Goodman]

There isn’t one!

--- Later in debate ---

[Bill Esterson]

Indeed; as my hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland also said in the debate, there is no such strategy.

In the response to the urgent question on Marks & Spencer on 24 May, the Minister for Energy and Clean Growth, the right hon. Member for Devizes (Claire Perry), said that the Government had set up a new Retail Sector Council, but why has that taken so long? Why did it take eight years to create that council? What is needed now is action. Business rates are a huge fixed cost for businesses in our high streets, and that is a disadvantage that their larger online-only rivals do not have to contend with. The Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, the hon. Member for Burton (Andrew Griffiths), will no doubt say that there have been changes to business rates, but those changes have made matters worse for many businesses, particularly smaller ones. Last year’s revaluation resulted in an average rates increase for smaller shops of £3,363 over the next five years.

The Government commissioned Mary Portas—remember her?—to tell them how to re-energise high streets. How is that going? Not so well. Her report recommended cuts to business rates, not the massive hikes that so many are experiencing. Meanwhile, ASOS reports its profits going up 26% while its rates bill fell by £30,000. Rates rises for our brilliant independent retailers alongside rates cuts for the multinational online retailers are hardly the stuff of fair competition or a level playing field. There was very little in the Secretary of State’s opening speech about independent retailers, yet smaller firms in all sectors, including retail, are crucial to the future economic success of this country. The Association of Convenience Stores has stated that

“the cost of business rates remains too high”.

And what about the fact that investors in retail are put off by the high cost of business rates? The Government should be doing so much more to ensure the right balance between high street, online and out-of-town retail, and we need to see that happening in the sector deal when it comes forward.

That brings me to the retail workforce. There are 2.9 million people working in retail and the sector is worth £94.6 billion to the economy. It is where many people develop their first experience of the world of work, and it is often the source of good-quality employment in businesses large and small, but the pressures on retailers are starting to show. We have seen job losses at Toys R Us, Maplin, M&S, Conviviality and maybe now House of Fraser, and CVAs and profit warnings at many others. We have seen 21,000 jobs go in the first three months of this year alone, and cuts in pay and conditions at companies such as Sainsbury’s, which has ended paid breaks and premium pay. Yes, there has been a rise in the hourly rate, but it has been offset by cuts in workers’ rights, adding up to a pay cut for too many people.

Ministers could and should be working closely with campaigning unions such as USDAW, GMB and Unite, which are doing such a good job on behalf of workers’ rights and on campaigns such as Freedom from Fear. It is in the interests of responsible retailers and of the whole economy for the Government to play their part in ensuring that workers are treated fairly. A high-pay economy is good for workers, but it is also good for business because workers are also consumers who buy goods and services from retailers. It makes economic sense to prevent the exploitation of workers, not least in the large distribution centres. It was simple complacency for the Minister for Energy and Clean Growth to imply in her answer to the urgent question on 24 May that M&S staff could just go and work at Amazon, complete with its airport-style security and unpaid toilet breaks.

I am afraid that it was also simple complacency for the Secretary of State to say earlier that retail employment was going up. There are 2,500 fewer retail stores than there were three years ago. According to the Office for National Statistics, 40,000 fewer staff were working in retail in 2016 compared with 2015. The British Retail Consortium says that its figures show from 2015 to 2017 the number of jobs fell by 73,000. Meanwhile, the average hours worked in January to March 2018 were 30.2 a week, which is a fall of 30 minutes on the previous year.

Those figures are a cause for concern, not complacency, and are indicative of an overall decline in retail employment. The Government should be doing so much more to improve productivity. As in other sectors, it is true in retail that skills and investment in infrastructure and new technology are the keys to better productivity, and that needs to lead to better-paid jobs as well as more profitable businesses. My hon. Friend the Member for Salford and Eccles (Rebecca Long Bailey) set out some ideas for how to boost pay. The British Retail Consortium has its “better jobs” agenda, and I refer the Business Secretary and the Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy to its excellent report. Productivity gains from cuts to workers’ pay and conditions or to the prices paid to suppliers are short term and characterise the lack of economic progress under the Government, not least in retail.

That brings me to our relationship with the outside world. Frictionless trade is vital for the import of perishable goods. It is vital for the supply chain in the car industry, where components cross the border multiple times. Car retailers need certainty, as do our supermarkets, because 79% of food is imported by retailers. Certainty is needed for retailers to plan for the trading arrangements post Brexit. Arrangements at the Port of Dover, Holyhead, Liverpool and across the country will play a huge role not only in business life, but in daily life, and retail is one of the sectors that most affects daily life.

Warnings of empty shelves need to be heeded. Consumer choice will be badly affected—dramatically so—if border arrangements are adversely affected. The Government’s failure to confirm their preferred negotiating position with our European partners is causing real problems. Many retailers rely on foreign workers. It is not just the highest-qualified EU workers who need assurances that they are welcome in this country. Workers in lower-paid sectors, including retail, need the same assurances and so do businesses. Some 22% of retailers report that foreign workers have left since the referendum. It is time for clarity.

[Drew Hendry]

Will the shadow Minister give way?

[Bill Esterson]

No.

The Government need to make up their mind, stop negotiating with themselves and start negotiating with the EU for a deal that puts jobs and the economy first and that is not just in the interests of a handful of extreme Brexiteers in the Conservative party. Let us have a proper sector deal that sees action, not just words. Let us see the Government make a proper commitment to retail. Three mentions of the sector in a White Paper do not inspire confidence in the Government’s commitment to retail businesses or workers.

Let us have a deal with thriving town centres, not crippled communities, and one that addresses the concerns of the British Retail Consortium, which describes a sector in stasis, where vacancies are going up. Let us see a deal that reverses the long-term decline. Let us see proper business rate reforms that include the switch to CPI-measured inflation, encouraging innovation and growth, that exempt new investment in machinery from valuations and that ensure businesses can access a proper, comprehensive appeals process. We need a deal that has smaller independent retailers at its heart and one that supports retail by investing in skills, in education and in an immigration system that brings in the skills this country needs. We want a deal that takes on board Labour’s plans for a catapult centre for retail, that listens to the views of employers and unions and that promotes the best outcomes for workers, communities, consumers and businesses.

Marks & Spencer

Bill Esterson Excerpts

Thursday 24th May 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Truly the Minister is a woman of the people.

[Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)]

My suit is from an independent retailer in my constituency, not from M&S.

The Press Association reported last month that 21,000 retail jobs were at risk in the first three months of the year, with administrations at Maplin and Toys R Us, and store closures at New Look, House of Fraser and Carpetright. We now learn that M&S is to close 14 branches this year, and 100 stores by 2022. As we express our fond memories of M&S, may we remember that 872 members of staff will lose their jobs? We need some sobriety in the proceedings here.

High street retailers struggle to compete against out-of-town and online shopping, given their lower cost base, and that is not helped by the long-term squeeze on incomes under this Government. The Government have their much-trumpeted industrial strategy, but where is the retail sector deal? How do they propose to help the affected communities and high streets? The Government must go much further on business rates because the changes simply have not cut through to make the difference needed by high street retailers. What conversations have the Minister and her colleagues had this year with trade unions that represent retail workers?

Unless the Government are prepared to step in to secure a level playing field between our high streets, and online and out-of-town retailers, more shops will close, more high streets will lose key big-name brands, more communities will lose out, and more workers will lose their jobs. The Marks & Spencer closures show that leaving market forces to their own devices is simply not working, and the Government must ensure that there is a fair market in retail for the good of businesses, workers, communities and our high streets.

[Claire Perry]

The hon. Gentleman and I are in violent agreement. That is why the establishment of the Retail Sector Council, which absolutely involves store worker representatives, is vital. A series of financial measures has been taken forward. The Government have given almost £20 million to towns funding initiatives such as the Great British High Street. We have established the Future High Streets Forum, which is chaired by the Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, my hon. Friend Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Jake Berry), and that also involves retailers. More than £2 billion of measures were introduced in the autumn Budget to cut business rates, including the 100% small business rate relief that is so vital to independent retailers.

[Bill Esterson]

It is not working.

[Claire Perry]

The hon. Gentleman says that, but he bought his suit from an independent retailer, which will no doubt have benefited from that—[Interruption.] He should have bought more suits there, Mr Speaker.

One point that has not been raised is that there is an unfairness in the current structure of online and offline retailing because of the way in which retailers pay VAT. That is an issue for us all, and it is why online prices can be much lower. We are therefore bringing forward a review into the wider taxation of the digital economy to ensure that international corporation tax rules are fair, and that sellers that operate across online and offline marketplaces pay an appropriate amount of value added tax.

Parental Bereavement (Leave and Pay) Bill

Bill Esterson Excerpts

3rd reading: House of Commons & Report stage: House of Commons
Friday 11th May 2018 Commons Chamber

[Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)]

This is an important and sensitive issue. I am acutely aware that some Members who have been involved with the Bill throughout its passage have direct experience of losing a child, and I commend the bravery with which they have used their personal experiences to do good for others. In my family, my mum experienced the loss of my older sister who I never knew. She died some years before I was born, and for the rest of her life my mum was unable to speak about the loss of her daughter—I know that others have mentioned such experiences. It is something that has been present throughout my lifetime, unmentioned but always there in our family in the background. My sister’s name was Rebecca, which is also the name that my other sister gave to her daughter in her memory.

This Bill can only be a positive step. I am aware of the anxieties about it, but I am sure that none of us wish to do anything to scupper its progress. All those who are going through the ordeal and trauma of losing a child should at least be able to have some paid time away from their employment to deal with the practical elements of a bereavement, as well as the undoubted grief and pain associated with the death of a child.

Families, family relationships and caring relationships in our society are beautifully diverse, and it is right that legislation that offers entitlement to leave because of someone’s relationship with a child reflects that diversity. Often, those who are primary carers are not the biological mother or father of the child. They could be grandparents, other members of the extended family, or those who have opted to care for the child through formal means such as fostering, in a residential care home, or through adoption—my wife and I have gone through that experience and we have two adopted children.

In this country we—including under this Government—encourage foster carers to build loving relationships with children in their care, and rightly so. It is therefore only right and proper to make provision in law, so that people who are caring for a child, in whatever circumstances, are given paid leave if that child dies. That is in recognition of the fact that although those people may not be biological parents, they will often be parents, perhaps even legally, and they will form deep and meaningful relationships with the children in their care. They will suffer pain if they lose that child, and they will need time to make practical arrangements, including a funeral, and of course time to grieve.

How and when grief hits a parent can vary, as does the time at which practical arrangements associated with bereavement are needed. Arranging a funeral is just one of a huge list of responsibilities in the wake of the death of a child. There could be involvement with a coroner, and an ability to take the leave entitlement at varying points and not all at once would be welcome. People may need a day off to register the death, and they may need more time off weeks later because they are too low or upset to attend work. Grief does not come and go in a neat two-week period; it is something that stays with people, as I described with my mum’s experience. Although it is not practical to extend the leave entitlement to an undefined period, that entitlement should be valid for a sensibly long period of time—a year seems reasonable. It should also be possible to take the leave at more than one time.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

The hon. Gentleman is making good points and speaking very movingly. Does he accept that this is principally a signal to employers? There are many different circumstances involving this kind of tragedy, and everybody’s situation is different. Fundamentally, we are trying to ensure that all employers are generous, sympathetic and flexible in how they treat such situations, and that they provide leave and pay that is fair in all different circumstances. However, we cannot necessarily provide for all those things in legislation.

[Bill Esterson]

The hon. Gentleman is right and I commend him on promoting this Bill. I would like to pick up on some of the points he made about employment, self-employment, and the impact of the Bill on businesses. A good employer would certainly want to look after its staff—indeed, it is in its interests to do so. If an employer wants to retain staff, it should look after them, and that is also the right thing to do more generally. As we have heard, the vast majority of employers already do what is set out in the Bill in practice, and the Bill rightly ensures that all employers have a minimum set of standards to follow.

I take on board the point about whether this is the right time to consider broadening the provision to cover adult children, but we are talking about a relatively small number of people who would qualify for an entitlement to leave. We are talking about someone who loses a child, whether that child is under or over the age of 18—the hon. Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Michael Tomlinson) described losing his brother who was 24. It does not matter at what age this happens; it is an extremely painful situation for family members, and I understand that my hon. Friend the Member for North West Durham (Laura Pidcock) reminded the Committee of just that point. In the mind of a parent the pain never ceases, whatever the age of the child.

Although an older child might have a family of their own to help with practical arrangements, that is not always the case. Indeed, some older children are dependent on their parents—for example, parents may still care for a disabled adult. It is perfectly possible that a worker aged 60 could have a daughter or son who dies aged 30 or older, and it is reasonable for them to be afforded paid leave for all the reasons given for younger children. Lifting the age limit of what it means to be a child could be done either in the Bill or later, in recognition of just how exceptional these circumstances are.

Out of all the employment rights currently written into law, parental bereavement leave and pay is something that no one in the Chamber would ever want to apply for. Increasing leave entitlement from zero days and no pay to two weeks’ paid leave at a statutory minimum rate is a welcome step, although I am sure that many people who have lost a child would tell us that two weeks is nowhere near long enough, and perhaps a longer period of leave might be right. However, for purposes of the Bill we are discussing two weeks’ paid leave, which would be a significant and important step forward.

It is crucial that bereavement pay is paid immediately after the death of a child. A parent or carer should not have to worry about whether they can afford to take time off, and that should not be another thing added to the extreme stress that bereavement often creates. The statutory minimum rate is certainly better than nothing, although I fear, having had to take a hit on pay, that if pay is not given in full that may still exclude some from taking leave. Certainly the statutory minimum is better than nothing, and a step forward for those employers that currently do not provide such support.

[Kevin Foster]

Does the shadow Minister agree that this is about setting a floor, not a ceiling?

[Bill Esterson]

Yes, I agree. I believe that bereavement pay rightly has the support of the whole House. It is important that it is state funded and that HMRC is liable. That will minimise the risk of people not being paid—the point was made by my hon. Friend the Member for North West Durham in Committee—which is necessary because of the exceptional nature of the leave and the pay that needs to come with it. For those reasons, I also agree that there should not be a qualification period before a bereaved parent is qualified to receive the pay.

I want to pick up on some of the points raised by the hon. Member for Torbay (Kevin Foster). There is a challenge in ensuring that everybody benefits from the Bill, for example self-employed people who are currently not able to receive social security. This week the Federation of Small Businesses pointed out that it often takes two to three years to fully establish a business. The current rules on universal credit, which apply for only one year, are a very real concern in supporting self-employed people. There is a similar challenge here in supporting self-employed people through parental bereavement pay.

The flipside, of course, is the impact on employers. As someone who has run a small business, I can say from experience that when a key member of staff is not available it impacts the business. That is also true for larger businesses, but it is easier for them to make alternative arrangements. We need to recognise the impact on small businesses. This is about getting the balance right. It is only right that members of staff receive bereavement pay and that the statutory minimum is recoverable by the employer. The ongoing challenge will be how smaller firms in particular are supported when a key member of staff is absent.

My hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln (Karen Lee), from her own very sad experience as a nurse, demonstrated just how difficult it is for a member of staff who has suffered a bereavement to return to work and to carry out their normal duties. It is not straightforward to say that for a smaller firm staff should have to get back to work. Sometimes it is simply not possible for people, when they have suffered a bereavement, to return to work and carry out their duties. The challenge is very difficult for both the employer and a bereaved member of staff, and I hope the Minister will pick up on that point in his response to the debate. I do not say that there are any easy answers, but it is right that we are able to discuss the issue.

It was surprising to see the contradiction between some of the amendments tabled by the same Members. One asks that no notice be necessary for leave, while another asks that reasonable notice be given.

[Michael Tomlinson]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. I remember serving on my very first Bill Committee when he was my equal and opposite. Is it not often the case that amendments are tabled to be probing? Alternatives are put forward that would be equally suitable and that is a perfectly logical and rational way to have a sensible debate.

[Bill Esterson]

If the hon. Gentleman thinks that by doing so he can waste time and delay the debate on the next Bill, and that that is a reasonable way to proceed, he is entitled to his opinion. I will give him this: it is logical to do so for the reason he outlines, but I sense from Government Members that my suspicions have been confirmed. I understand there is a reason to have a discussion on some of the points raised in the amendments, but I think it is a shame if they are being used to delay or scupper the next Bill. It is very important that we get the notice period right and I am sure the Minister will pick up on that in his response.

--- Later in debate ---

It is important that the Bill is seen as an enabling framework, which has the advantage of allowing time to be taken to get the necessary details right. That is not to say that time is wasted in considering those details, or that Government should merely wait to see what happens with the passage of the Bill before we take further steps—quite the opposite. In Committee, my colleague the Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy committed to publishing a consultation to look at key aspects of this policy. Consultations have got a bit of a bad name. Some of the more popular press say that it is just an excuse for the Government not to take a decision.

[Bill Esterson]

Surely not!

[Richard Harrington]

The shadow Minister makes a good sedentary comment, but I detect a note of sarcasm.

The serious point here is that consultations in which charitable bodies and other institutions make points based on their experiences are an important part of the legislative process, because that is where the detail comes in. I can assure Members on both sides of the House that this is not a can-kicking consultation or a formality. It is very important. Anyone who is interested can submit a response, and the consultation is open until 8 June, so there is not long to wait. I feel that it is necessary. Sometimes consultations are formalities, but I do not think this is one of them.

--- Later in debate ---

[Bill Esterson]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake) on the fine way in which he has piloted the Bill to its Third Reading. I endorse everything he says about the contribution of hon. Members on both sides of the Chamber to the Bill.

This is a subject that unites Members on both sides of the House, and this Bill is an opportunity for the House to demonstrate what we can do when we recognise that we have more in common than that which divides us. We have seen that displayed extremely well today. I thank those who have, no doubt with some difficulty at times, explained their own personal experiences of the tragic situations they have faced, and I commend them for their inspiring contributions to this debate on Second Reading, in Committee and today.

It has been said many times, but it is worth repeating that parental bereavement leave and pay provision did not exist and had not been considered until this Bill was introduced. Astonishingly, ours is the first country to have got this far in the provision of this correct support for those suffering bereavement. At one of the worst periods of someone’s life, it is only right that employers and the state do all they can to make that time a little easier to bear.

Many employers are extremely compassionate, and go above and beyond what is expected of them. This Bill does not seek in any way to undermine employers who do the right thing; it seeks to ensure that those who do not do the right thing have to catch up with everybody else. The Bill helps to reinforce the employers who are doing the right thing and to make sure that those who do not are not in a position to gain an advantage by undercutting, whether deliberately or otherwise. It is right that we rectify that position on something so important, and that there is no prospect of employers, deliberately or otherwise, being obstructive or unhelpful during the grieving process.

This legislation provides for the bare minimum; it is not perfect, but it is welcome and necessary, and it moves matters forward. It is right that bereavement leave for the loss of a child is the first way in which bereavement pay and leave is addressed. We heard discussion about the fact that bereavement affects us when we lose a partner, a family member or a close friend, but it is right that we put the loss of a child first, because the special connection between a parent and a child is different from other relationships and so this is different from bereavement on the whole.

This Bill has the support of the CBI, the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development, the TUC and many other major organisations. We heard about the challenges for those with poor employment rights—those on zero-hours contracts or minimum-hours contracts, and those who are self-employed. These are all challenges to come, and I hope that when the Government respond to the consultation we will start to address some of these areas, along with some of the challenges faced by businesses when a key worker is absent.

Fundamentally, the Bill is the right thing to do. It makes a great start in providing support for those who have suffered the loss of a child, and it addresses the problem where the minority of employers—and it is just that—are not doing what they definitely should be doing. So I look forward, as a matter of some urgency, to seeing the Government’s response to the consultation. I very much welcome the fact that we have reached this point and we will be passing this Bill on Third Reading in a few minutes’ time. I hope that as this Bill is passed, with all of our support, it gives all those people who are experiencing the traumatic and devastating loss of a child one less thing to have to worry about.

Draft Enterprise Act 2002 (Share Of Supply Test) (Amendment) Order 2018

Bill Esterson Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd May 2018 General Committees

[Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Austin—that is true of you and true of others. The Minister may be reminded of his comment on other occasions—it will potentially be entertaining to remind him of it. I congratulate the hon. Member for South Basildon and East Thurrock on the birth of his grandchild. The Hansard Reporters will no doubt try to determine if she is the youngest person ever to be named in Hansard—there is a challenge. I know, Mr Austin, that you have a train to catch, so I shall endeavour to ensure that you can be on it.

This is a very narrow statutory instrument, as the Minister explained. He alluded to a number of areas that it addresses. It follows on in part, if not wholly, from the UK national security risk assessment of 2015. It has taken a while to bring the SI forward, so perhaps the Minister can explain why it has taken quite so long. Undoubtedly, that risk assessment demonstrated the nature of some of the complex threats that the country faces. It is a concern that it has taken so long, given that, although this is a narrow SI, the provisions in it are important. We will support them for that reason.

The Secretary of State is reluctant to intervene, as we saw with GKN. The Opposition had grave concerns about the national security implications of the takeover by Melrose of GKN. The Minister used the phrase “control” of UK business; that actually describes some of the reasons why we were so concerned with the way that the Government did not choose to intervene in the takeover. He also used the phrase “dual use”, which is one of the elements that the statutory instrument covers. GKN has military and dual use in its operations. The statutory instrument highlights those real concerns about national security and the takeover. Perhaps the Minister can give a response now or later on that point.

The Minister mentioned the export regime. Will he expand a little on the implications of this statutory instrument for the Government’s approach to exports? He did not mention the Green Paper, but he did mention that a White Paper is coming forward about primary legislation in the area of national security. My understanding is that a Green Paper is also due on the wider area of competition regimes. Perhaps the Minister will indicate when he expects that to come forward.

There are concerns not just about national security; the public interest tests around mergers and takeovers cover a number of areas. The Competition and Markets Authority has a role to play in deciding how to investigate—we saw that just this week with the proposed merger of Asda and Sainsbury’s. With the White Paper coming forward and perhaps the Green Paper that I mentioned, will the Minister say whether the Government intend to make proposals on an economic interest test, as well as on national security? There are real concerns about some of the recent takeovers and mergers, such as GKN and Asda and Sainsbury’s. These changes would not have been relevant to Cadbury, BHS or Unilever, but there are a number of takeovers and mergers where there is great public interest and concern. Perhaps the Minister might have some thoughts, in relation to what he has said, about some of those takeovers, particularly GKN because it is relevant to national security.

We support the measures and think that they are right, but perhaps the Minister will say why it has taken so long since the 2015 risk assessment to get to this point today.

Oral Answers to Questions

Bill Esterson Excerpts

Tuesday 1st May 2018 Commons Chamber

[Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)]

Project bank accounts ring-fence the money for suppliers in construction contracts yet were not used by the Government with Carillion. As a result, 30,000 mostly smaller businesses are likely to lose money, and some will struggle to survive, so will the Minister confirm that the Government will now use project bank accounts to protect businesses and jobs in their own supply chain and guarantee there is no repeat of the Carillion fiasco?

[Andrew Griffiths]

The hon. Gentleman will know that the Government took swift action, led by the Secretary of State, when Carillion collapsed, to ensure we understood the issues relating to the construction industry, including by setting up a forum with trade representatives. He will also be aware that we consulted on project bank accounts in the construction industry. That consultation finished just a few weeks ago. We are considering the responses and will respond shortly.