Draft Companies (Directors’ Remuneration Policy and Directors' Remuneration Report) Regulations 2019

Debate between Bill Esterson and Lord Harrington of Watford

Wednesday 15th May 2019 General Committees

[Bill Esterson]

That is a very good challenge. Julian Richer is a responsible employer who has treated his employees very well over many years. He is giving a £1,000 bonus to each staff member and delivering an employee-owned future for the business.

One of the historical problems with the regime of rewarding performance is that it has rewarded apparent immediate success without taking the longer term into account. There have been scandals over many years, with some senior executives raking in enormous bonuses only for us to discover later that the apparent success of the organisations they ran was built on sand and that the true underlying performance was not reflected in the short-term results. We can all think of some very high-profile examples; Enron is one, but there have also been many in this country, which I deliberately will not mention at this stage. The hon. Gentleman’s challenge is an important one, but we have to make sure that any executive remuneration is truly fair over a longer period.

To be fair to the hon. Gentleman, I think he accepts the wider point that fair pay must reflect the contributions of people throughout the organisation. There is a degree of consensus that it is extremely important for the relationship between the pay of senior executives and that of others in the organisation to be fair and balanced, difficult though attempts to achieve that may be. I welcome this debate and the fact that the draft regulations address the matter, but the question is how much further we need to go and what steps we must take to maximise the potential benefits.

When the current Prime Minister took over, she made an initial commitment to put workers on boards, but it was very quickly downgraded and appears not to have advanced. Perhaps the Minister could tell us when those sorts of measures might be introduced.

Following on from the intervention from the hon. Member for Mid Norfolk, what is the most effective way to bring up the pay of working people and combat rising inequality? The answer is to join a trade union. The Government have failed to move beyond the union-busting mindset—that is obvious from their Trade Union Act 2016—and to look to a future that involves unions and employers working together responsibly. The Institute for Public Policy Research has shown that there is a strong correlation between high shares of income going to the top 1% of earners and low trade union membership.

[Richard Harrington (Watford) (Con)]

I dealt with a lot of trade unions and companies in my time as a Minister. I was extremely impressed by the good relations between them in areas of the country where there has been a lot of strife in the past, for example in car manufacturing and other manufacturing industries. Does the hon. Gentleman agree?

[Bill Esterson]

When the hon. Gentleman was a Minister, I always enjoyed our exchanges and felt that he was sympathetic on this agenda—I mentioned that consensus. Unfortunately, Government action has not kept up with the good intentions that he highlights. He is quite right: where there are good trade union relationships with management—the car industry is a prime example—we have seen increases in productivity and worker pay, and success for businesses and workers alike.

According to the International Monetary Fund, the economies characterised by free collective bargaining, with strong trade unions and good partnership-working models, are the wealthiest, most productive and most successful. Sadly, in organisations without trade unions, where workers have less power, the richest get richer and the workers do not. The figures from IPPR North tell a story about a decline in incomes and a rise in pay inequality, particularly in the north of England, which is the part of the country that I represent.

We will not oppose the draft regulations, but this is an opportune moment to remind the Minister of Government promises and of the need to go much further. If the Government are serious about curbing excessive power, worker representation on boards and—as the Prime Minister told us a few hours ago during Prime Minister’s questions—the importance of trade unions, and if the Prime Minister meant what she said on the steps of Downing Street about putting the Conservative party at the disposal of working people, they must prove it. They must go much further and invest in all of the people of our country, not just the very wealthy—invest in the future, not the past.

Draft Intellectual Property (Copyright and Related Rights) (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2018

Debate between Bill Esterson and Lord Harrington of Watford

Monday 11th February 2019 General Committees

[Richard Harrington]

I agree.

[Bill Esterson]

rose—

--- Later in debate ---

[Richard Harrington]

I shall do my best to go through the many points that have been raised. I hope that I can persuade Opposition Members to rethink their objection to the statutory instrument—I very much doubt I can, Sir Edward, but if you will be patient with me, I will do my best. I nearly said “if the court will be patient”, because this is like a courtroom drama, but I know that you are a patient man, Sir Edward. If the Committee will bear with me, I shall do my best.

The shadow Minister raised many points. There was a general one about his concerns. [Interruption.] Perhaps he could listen to what I have to say.

[Bill Esterson]

Sorry.

[Richard Harrington]

It is perfectly okay, but I would like the hon. Gentleman to concentrate on my points, as I did my best to concentrate on his. I hope he will feel that I have answered them properly.

To deal first with the hon. Gentleman’s fundamental concern about the process as a whole, I reiterate our view that the regulations are not intended to make significant changes to existing policy. In line with the powers of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018, they aim for continuity as far as possible, and so provide the minimum necessary changes to ensure that our internationally renowned UK copyright legislation continues to function in a no-deal scenario. We have really tried to provide continuity and certainty.

[Bill Esterson]

Will the Minister give way on that point?

[Richard Harrington]

Would the hon. Gentleman wait? I listened to him.

[Bill Esterson]

I think I might be able to help the Minister.

[Richard Harrington]

This is a new policy. I shall sit down.

[Bill Esterson]

I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. I have a great deal of respect for him, and I do listen to him. The Opposition understand that this series of statutory instruments is about preparing for no deal and trying to avoid disruption. The problem is that the information available to us and the answers we have had from the Minister raise serious questions about whether that is exactly what is happening. That is the heart of the matter.

[Richard Harrington]

I accept fully that that is the Opposition’s intention, but I felt that I should make it as clear as I can that the regulations are not intended to make any significant change to our existing policy.

The hon. Member for Sefton Central asked whether any rights will be lost in the event of no deal. I can categorically say that they will not. As I said previously, certain reciprocal arrangements that facilitate cross-border use of copyrighted material will end, but that is distinct from the underlying intellectual property rights. I hope that his lawyer of 40 years’ experience will confirm that. Our continued membership of the international treaties on copyright will ensure that UK works will continue to receive protection abroad, while foreign works will continue to be protected in the UK. These changes also ensure that copyright duration will not change for UK rights holders on exit.

The hon. Gentleman also asked what we are doing to support UK broadcasters who are facing the loss of the copyright country of origin principle. It is still our intention to secure an agreement with the EU on our future relationship—I think that is very well known—and as we set out in our White Paper last July, we want any deal to involve the best possible arrangements for the broadcasting sector. If we leave without a deal, broadcasters may face disruption due to the fact that the EU copyright country of origin principle would cease to apply to the UK. We have tried to give broadcasters and other businesses as much information as possible about the implications of no deal by putting this in the technical notices and detailed guidance about what it means for copyright. The UK cannot address that issue unilaterally in a no-deal scenario.

The shadow Minister mentioned the Marrakesh treaty. The UK has implemented the provisions of the treaty in UK law, and they will be retained after exit. Currently, the treaty has effect in the UK due to the EU’s ratification of it in October 2018, and we are on track to ratify it in our own right, but that cannot happen until we leave the EU, because it is an EU competence at the moment. Until we ratify the law, other treaty countries could prevent the cross-border exchange of copies of works in accessible formats in the UK. Our domestic copyright exceptions stemming from the treaty, which provide disabled persons with improved access to copyright-protected works, will not be affected by our departure from the EU.

The shadow Minister asked when we will ratify the Marrakesh treaty. We are on track to do that. It will be literally as soon as possible after exit. Our ratification must then be accepted by the World Intellectual Property Organisation, before we are once again individually treated as a member of the treaty. There will be a delay between exit and the acceptance of our ratification in a no-deal scenario. We are doing our absolute best to ensure that it will be as short as possible.

On the impact assessments, the hon. Member for Sefton Central asked why we did not consider wider impacts. The impact assessments that accompany the instrument describe in detail the effect of introducing the regulations relative to the pre-exit status quo. That is in line with the “Better regulation framework” and HM Treasury’s Green Book guidance. They are not intended to analyse the impact of no deal more broadly, such as the effect of the EU cross-border copyright mechanism ceasing to apply to the UK. Those impacts arise from the fact that the EU will treat the UK as a third country in a no-deal scenario and will happen regardless of whether this instrument is made. We considered the wider impacts of our exit from the EU in a long-term economic analysis published last November.

The shadow Minister asked why the Government are using secondary legislation for EU exit. This matter has been discussed widely in relation to many statutory instruments, but fundamentally, using primary legislation is inappropriate for the large number of mechanistic changes that are needed. It is normal to use secondary legislation in these circumstances. Furthermore, the changes are dependent on the outcome of the negotiations. This method was heavily debated and agreed to by both Houses during the passage of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act last year. It would not be practical to make all the required legislative changes through primary legislation. However, I reiterate that these changes do not include major policy changes or decisions on policy.

We are very pleased to have—and we do accept—recommendations from the sifting Committee, on which the hon. Member for Wrexham serves, to ensure that sufficient scrutiny is in place for the secondary legislation made under the principal powers in the Act. I accept what the shadow Minister said about not regarding this as enough scrutiny, but we did accept straightaway the recommendations of that Committee.

The shadow Minister asked what the effect will be on UK consumers. The EU portability regulation works by reciprocal application of cross-border rules. It will not cover UK-EU travel in the event of no deal, and we cannot replicate the effects of existing arrangements on a unilateral basis. It is true that UK consumers may see changes to their content services when they visit the EU, but the law will merely revert to its pre-April 2018 status quo.

The shadow Minister asked why the UK is unilaterally applying the country of origin principle for EU satellite broadcasters. The proposed plan is consistent with how UK legislation already treats satellite broadcasters from outside the EU. Continuing to apply the country of origin principle in this way will support UK consumers’ continued access to foreign television programming, because it is not introducing new and unnecessary burdens on broadcasts to the UK. I am sure that the businesses to which the shadow Minister refers will be very pleased about that.

The hon. Member for Wrexham continued that theme and asked why we give unilateral effect to certain mechanisms. It is unavoidable that some cross-border arrangements will apply. In some cases, we will apply these arrangements to the EU on a unilateral basis. That does not mean that we will unilaterally implement EU law; we will just provide continuity where we feel that it is appropriate.

I have done my absolute best to answer the questions raised. As I said in my opening speech, this statutory instrument is essential in preparing our copyright legislation for a no-deal scenario. I therefore commend the regulations to the Committee.

Question put.

Construction Sector Deal

Debate between Bill Esterson and Lord Harrington of Watford

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?

Parental Bereavement (Leave and Pay) Bill

Debate between Bill Esterson and Lord Harrington of Watford

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

[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.

Pubs Code 2016

Debate between Bill Esterson and Lord Harrington of Watford

Wednesday 24th January 2018 Westminster Hall

[Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Robertson, and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich West (Mr Bailey) on—yet again—securing a debate on this topic. I did not attend the debate on pubs last year, but I did attend the one before that. I am no longer the shadow pubs Minister; that is now my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough (Gill Furniss), but sadly she has the flu and has sent her apologies for today’s debate.

[Richard Harrington]

I hope she gets better quickly.

[Bill Esterson]

I will pass on that message from the Minister.

Given that I follow the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey (Drew Hendry), I will point out that my constituency includes the oldest pub in Lancashire, the Scotch Piper Inn—there is a link there of some sort. We have three microbreweries and two micropubs, the Beer Station and the Corner Post. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) made a good point about the importance of pubs as community hubs, and I agree with his other comments about the need for accountability in the implementation of the code.

My hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich West set out the key issues with his usual forensic accuracy, and he mentioned the concerns about the appointment and continuation in post of Mr Newby. I raised concerns about conflicts of interest in the debate two years ago, and such concerns have continued. Sadly, the predictions about Mr Newby’s difficulty in obtaining the trust of pub tenants have been all too well demonstrated. The cases against him by the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators—that he has continued to arbitrate and has not accepted the decision, and that he is in breach of the code of conduct for a body of which he is a member—have not helped, and they continue to give the impression that all is not well with the implementation of the pubs code.

My hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Toby Perkins) was modest in not mentioning his role in securing cross-party agreement on amendments to the Small Business, Enterprise and Employment Bill in 2015. The cross-party agreement had a lot to do with his work, as well as that of Greg Mulholland and other Members across the House. We had the insertion of the market rent only option, but the delivery of that is missing, as is any assurance on the intention that tied tenants should not be worse off than they would be if they were free of tie. My hon. Friend made those points extremely well. As he said, it is vital that we make this work. That is why it is so important that we are having this debate.

I will go through three points for the Minister, who I welcome to his new role. His brief is interesting and exciting, and it is important for many people across the country. I hope he is able to get to grips with the real challenges and concerns that remain. Three questions have been brought to my attention in preparing for this debate. They have been covered, but I will attempt to summarise them. First, the Government may make the point that the code is complicated and will take time to bed in. That is true, but it is overly complicated and completely unnecessarily so. As other Members have said, that complexity has allowed pub companies to use their resources and their power in the relationship—my hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield made this point—to make it difficult for pub tenants to challenge them and achieve the fair market approach that they should be entitled to. Because of the size of the legal bills, it is simply not possible for pub tenants who attempt to use the code to come up with the necessary resources.

The second point that the Government may make is that the Pubs Code Adjudicator, through the Government, was not prepared for the huge take-up. Few staff were in place at the start, and there was a delay in putting in place a deputy adjudicator, despite the overwhelming evidence of abuse. There were 15 years of inquiries by Select Committees, as my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich West set out in his opening speech. The system was not set up in the right way, and it should have been.

The third point that the Government may make is about whether there has been an improvement in the financial balance between the pub-owning companies and pub tenants. Ballpark figures suggested to me are that a pub company would typically earn £90,000 from an average pub, which possibly breaks down to £20,000 in rent and £70,000 from tied products. The tenant earns just £10,000. Because of the process, the delays and the inaction from the adjudicator, it is difficult to do anything about that; but for those who try, there has been something of a change, as my hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield alluded to. There may be a slight improvement, with a £5,000 or £10,000 reduction in the rent and an increase in the tenant’s income to £15,000 or £20,000, but that is still not a realistic living wage for someone running a pub, and the pubco is still earning £80,000 or £85,000.

The point is that legislation was supposed to leave the tenant no worse off than they would be if they were free of tie, not marginally better off than poverty levels. That is the point being made by the campaigners. I pay tribute to all the campaigners who have lobbied so hard over the years—including for this debate—advocating for pub tenants. I include in that Liverpool CAMRA, which has been in contact with me a number of times over the years.

On their own, the three areas that I have set out are grounds for the Minister in his new role to make an early commitment, today or after he has considered the debate, to carry out a proper review of the application and implementation of the pubs code and how the adjudicator is operating. If he can address that and the other points made by my hon. Friends, we will make some real progress.

I am tempted to say—so I will—that the right hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Theresa Villiers) demonstrated a certain failure by a Government of which she was a member for some years to support a pub in her constituency. I can assure her that the next Labour Government will stand up for pub tenants in a way that so far has not happened under this Government, and that will not happen unless they make the changes touched on in this debate. I was grateful to the hon. Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (John Lamont) for pointing out that in Scotland, Labour is at the forefront of introducing a pubs code north of the border.