GKN

Rebecca Long Bailey Excerpts

Tuesday 24th April 2018 Commons Chamber

[Rebecca Long Bailey (Salford and Eccles) (Lab)]

I thank the Secretary of State for giving me advance sight of his statement.

There are two issues that I must raise today: the fact that the reported assurances obtained by the Government, both in the letter of 27 March and subsequently, are not sufficient to guarantee the security of the long-term prospects of the company and, indeed, the workforce; and the inadequate capacity of the takeover regime to protect companies outside the very limited grounds of national defence, media plurality and financial stability.

First, as I made clear last month, the assurances obtained by the Government in Melrose’s letter of 27 March were sadly inadequate. Apart from the first five assurances which were post-offer undertakings, what was in the letter was completely unenforceable. For example, there were no post-offer undertakings on maintaining employment or tax residency, which could easily constitute such undertakings. Indeed, the maintenance of employment is vital to our national security, and the loss of these jobs will cause the diminishment of vital skills that are integral to our defence industry.

Putting aside issues of enforceability, what of the assurances that have been reported since 27 March? The reported veto power that the Secretary of State for Defence has to stop the sale of certain businesses will not, I am afraid, solve the national security problem. Melrose reportedly has a short-term outlook which undermines the long term that is required for defence projects. That is important, and a veto on the sale of certain parts of the business by the Defence Secretary will not help significantly. Sadly, the Government’s failure to address the short-term horizons of Melrose may damage the capability of a business to deliver projects that could last for 10, 15 or 20 years.

Secondly, our takeover regime is inadequate, and the Secretary of State is acutely aware of that. If a takeover falls outside the grounds of national defence, media plurality and national stability, the Secretary of State cannot act, even though the takeover may be harmful for the business, harmful for employees, harmful to research and development, and harmful to supply chains.

Let us take the case of Unilever. Last year it was threatened with a takeover, and there was nothing that the Government could do because the takeover fell outside the three public interest exemptions. Unilever has since commented on the inadequacy of the UK takeover regime, and its recent decision to place its headquarters in the Netherlands was, as reported by the Financial Times, arguably driven by a desire to escape the poor safeguards for takeovers in the UK. Labour Members have called on the Government to broaden the public interest test. The measures that the Government have proposed so far are not good enough. We know that, in GKN’s case, they already had the power to act and did not do so. However, our takeover rules would not have prevented Unilever from being taken over had Kraft been prepared to follow through, because that had nothing to do with any of the three exemptions.

I agree with the Secretary of State that our takeover regime must be open enough to encourage foreign investment, but it must also protect against short-termism and long-term damage to our economy and national security. Arguably, too often it is short-termism that prevails. Only this week we heard reports that the hedge funds that bought GKN shares to make Melrose’s takeover possible are now targeting Melrose, shorting the company on the stock exchange.

What we needed from the Secretary of State today was not just a waving through of the deal, but action, both in obtaining concrete assurances from Melrose on the future of GKN and its workforce, and in the form of clear plans to reform and widen our takeover regime to protect British businesses. I fear that the short-term predators already smell their next victim—and it is not just Melrose; it is Britain’s industrial future.

[Greg Clark]

Right from the outset, the hon. Lady has been unable to advise us of what specific undertakings she thought it was appropriate to obtain. She needs to understand that as this is a quasi-judicial decision, the statement that she made that she would block the bid would disqualify her from making that decision, as the right hon. Member for Twickenham (Sir Vince Cable) knows to his cost.

The evidence presented to me was that this was a British company taking over another British company, that no such takeover has ever been blocked on national security grounds, and that the Ministry of Defence and the other agencies said there was no reason for intervention on those grounds. I have to tell the hon. Lady that the previous directors of GKN themselves said that there was no reason for an intervention on national security grounds. She should reflect on the commitments that the Defence Secretary and I have secured to retain the aerospace division for at least five years, to ensure that the Government have the right to approve any future sale of any defence business or asset, and to invest in research and development to at least the current level. Not once in the past four months has she engaged in a similarly forensic way to set out what she thinks would be appropriate commitments.

The hon. Lady says that the commitments are inadequate, but they have been given as legal deeds and in some cases set out to the Takeover Panel as post-offer undertakings. The truth is that she has had the opportunity to engage with this matter, but having prejudiced her position by saying from the outset that the takeover should be blocked, she has given away the ability to have influence on what the regime should be.

The hon. Lady knows perfectly well what the Government’s powers on takeovers are, because the 2002 Act was passed under a Labour Government and sets out those limited powers, which are the same as in the rest of Europe. The difference between the Government and the Opposition is that when we came into government, we reformed those powers to allow post-offer undertakings to be given, so the situation when Kraft bid for Cadbury and undertakings were reneged upon cannot happen in the current circumstances. We have taken an active approach to ensuring that all stakeholders’ interests are secured, whereas the hon. Lady preferred to float above it all and simply say no before considering the evidence. We have proceeded responsibly, and she would do the employees of and stakeholders in GKN a service if she engaged more forensically in future.

Industrial Strategy

Rebecca Long Bailey Excerpts

Wednesday 18th April 2018 Commons Chamber

[Rebecca Long Bailey (Salford and Eccles) (Lab)]

According to the Government’s own declaration, the industrial strategy sets out their plan to create an economy that will boost productivity and earning power throughout the United Kingdom. The Secretary of State has just presented a very rosy picture of his Department’s industrial strategy, but I am afraid those spectacles he is wearing may be a little bit rose-tinted.

The key questions that must be asked today are whether the strategy is working and whether it addresses the huge problems that our economy is facing. The first of those problems is productivity. I agree with the Secretary of State’s comments about investing in the foundations of productivity, but we have just seen the productivity figures for 2017, and they are not good. Two negative quarters were followed by two positive quarters of growth. The two quarters of growth were caused by GDP growth slowing, but hours worked slowing even further. In other words, productivity has increased through the worst possible means. Even incorporating the 2017 figures, the productivity growth that has taken place over the 10 years since the crash has been the worst since 1820, just after the Napoleonic wars.

The second problem is GDP stagnation. For the 60 years preceding the financial crash, rising GDP meant broadly rising living standards. When GDP rose, unemployment came down and wages went up. However, over the course of 2017, UK GDP growth was weaker than GDP growth in any other G7 nation, standing at 1.4% compared to a G7 average of 2.4%. The figures were 2.9% in Germany and 2.5% in France. The situation is not forecast to improve: yesterday the International Monetary Fund forecast that we would be the slowest in the G7 bar Italy over the next two years, and the OECD predicts that we will grow more slowly than France, Germany and the United States in both 2018 and 2019. Worse still, among major advanced economies since the crash, Britain is the only one to have grown slightly while real wages have fallen.

The third problem is wage stagnation. In real terms, average weekly earnings are lower now than they were in 2007, 10 years ago. Working people, particularly those on low to middle incomes, have suffered the worst decade for a generation in terms of living standards. That is unprecedented since at least the end of the second world war. The quality of work is also an issue, as we have heard from some of my hon. Friends. The Secretary of State lauded employment figures in his opening remarks, but he must acknowledge that insecure employment is rife. According to the TUC, there are 3.2 million people in insecure work—about one in 10—and the number has risen sharply over the last half-decade, by 27%.

The Government tried to paper over those bleak realities with rhetoric in their recent response to the Taylor review, but I am not as optimistic or as excited as the Secretary of State was when he responded to comments earlier. Launching four consultations, merely considering proposals, failing really to act on the review’s recommendations, and tweaking the law here and there is simply not good enough.

The fourth problem is uncertainty. Britain is facing an uncertain future—we are about to leave the European Union, and businesses are craving a deal that will put the economy and jobs first, with as much access to Europe as possible—but Europe aside, parts of our economic framework do not encourage certainty. Our takeover regime leaves many companies deeply uncertain about their future and prey to predatory and hostile takeovers. We have already heard about GKN today. Under our takeover laws, that fantastic manufacturing company was bought up by Melrose. It was clear that our takeover regime needed more teeth and more clarity, but I must add that even in that case the Government had grounds to intervene on matters of defence and still failed to act. As the Financial Times suggested recently, the failure to equip our takeover regime adequately may be partly why a great company such as Unilever decided to make its legal home the Netherlands. How many other companies will follow?

The fifth and final problem is inequality. Sadly, the UK is one of the most unequal countries in Europe in terms of household income. As the Resolution Foundation recently revealed, inequality is projected to increase after 2016-17. On some measures, it is projected to rise to record highs by 2023. Furthermore, there are clear inequalities between our regions and nations. The Institute for Public Policy Research Commission on Economic Justice has found that Britain is the most regionally imbalanced country in Europe.

All these problems are not just abstract, general issues; they have recently manifested themselves in concrete examples—a barometer of the health and efficacy of the Government’s industrial strategy going forward. We started this year with the insolvency of Carillion, but that is not an isolated example. Our retail sector shows signs of strain: Toys R Us has collapsed; Maplin has gone into administration; New Look is fighting to avoid it; and Carpetright is planning a company voluntary arrangement. Workers have also felt the pain of a stalling economy: in the last week alone, literally thousands of workers have been threatened with job losses at Jaguar Land Rover and Shop Direct, yet we have received no statement whatsoever from the Government on what they are doing to protect those jobs, so perhaps the Minister will outline in his summing-up speech the action he is taking.

[Ruth George]

I met many businesses in my constituency last week. Does my hon. Friend share my concern that several of them are already having to move trade to EU countries because they are worried about the cost of a visa system when they cannot guarantee that they will hang on to the staff they pay for, the ending of preferential tariffs at the EU rate—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

Order. The hon. Lady is not making a speech; she is also taking away from the time for other Members.

[Rebecca Long Bailey]

My hon. Friend made some pertinent points and I will talk about skills shortly, and the extreme worry that many of our business leaders across the country have voiced about both Brexit and the quality and adequacy of the supply we have currently in the UK.

Returning to the problems that are a barometer of the issues in our economy, will the Minister update us in his summing up on the Government’s rabbit-in-the-headlights approach to the risks currently faced by our steel industry as a result of recent discussions and the global crisis of overcapacity and dumping? This Government have been in power for eight years—the best part of a decade—and they must own these problems if they are to make any progress; they must own the fact that they have not solved the five problems I outlined earlier, and that instead they have festered.

The Secretary of State and I are in clear agreement on the need for an effective industrial strategy. I applauded the Government for adopting to some extent Labour’s mission-orientated policy approach and the Secretary of State outlined the challenges again today, but I am afraid that this is where the consensus ends. As I set out late last year, the detail and investment proposed in the industrial strategy White Paper simply did not match the surrounding rhetoric and fell far short of what was needed truly to boost our economy. Indeed, a Government source was recently quoted as saying:

“It’s all perfectly worthy, who could oppose any of it? But there is no money, and even if there was, no one has a decent idea of what to do with it.”

So for the benefit of the House let us look briefly at a few key snippets again.

The Secretary of State touched on innovation. Raising total R&D investment to 2.4% of GDP by 2027 is certainly better than where we were, but the UK has been below the OECD average of 2.4% of GDP for years, and we are way behind world leaders who spend over 3% such as Japan, South Korea, Finland and Sweden. Why are we simply aiming for average? It must also be noted that the R&D investment of many of our regions and nations is also well below average. Over half of all research funding goes to the south-east, for example.

[Eddie Hughes (Walsall North) (Con)]

I just cannot contain my anger: settle for average? We have some of the best universities on the planet in this country and investment by this Government in some of the most world-leading, cutting-edge technology. I visited Birmingham university and saw its work on quantum computing; it is absolutely world-leading. We are not average at all, and it is so dismissive of this country to say we would settle for average; we are excellent.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

Order. The hon. Gentleman is not making a speech either, but I think the hon. Member for Salford and Eccles (Rebecca Long Bailey) has got his point.

[Rebecca Long Bailey]

The hon. Gentleman makes his point very passionately, but I do not think he has really listened to what I have been saying. We are certainly—[Interruption.] Please! If Government Members would listen rather than chunter, they might actually learn something.

We are far from average, as these comments from the Commission on Economic Justice illustrate quite articulately:

“We have vast ingenuity and creativity among our people, where enterprise and industry have deep roots going back to the Industrial Revolution. Many of the most important scientific discoveries in human history have taken place in Britain, advancing not only this country but also the entirety of humanity.”

We are far from average—I agree with the comments that the hon. Gentleman made in a, shall we say, quite haphazard and incoherent way—so why should we have to trail behind the world and settle for mediocrity from this Government in terms of investment in research and development?

[Vicky Ford]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Rebecca Long Bailey]

I will make some progress, if I may, then the hon. Lady can make further interventions.

In relation to skills, we were promised about £500 million of investment. That is frankly pitiful and does not even begin to repair the damage done to the adult skills budget between 2010 and 2015, when over £1.15 billion was cut. With research by PWC finding that 77% of CEOs worry that skills shortages could impair their company’s growth, and with the CBI stating that 69% of businesses are not confident about filling their high-skilled jobs, the Government’s actions have done little to show that they are creating a workforce truly ready for our industrial renaissance.

On infrastructure investment, we were promised £31 billion of investment through the national productivity investment fund. Again, that is below the levels seen in other leading industrial nations. As TUC analysis shows, the sums promised will simply increase investment to just 2.9% of GDP, whereas the average spend on investment by the leading industrial nations in the OECD is 3.5%. It is also clear that the Government have made no attempt to halt the skewing of infrastructure spending towards London, which is due to get more transport spending over the next five years than the rest of England put together.

That brings me to local industrial policy. Labour has been clear on the need for a national industrial strategy, but we are also clear about the need to be regionally powerful and distinctive, with the resources to match, and to build on the already world-class universities and businesses in our regions and nations. Since last November, the Labour party has been convening roundtables in every region and nation of the UK to discuss what businesses in those regions need from an industrial strategy. Alarmingly, in one region I heard that the responsibility for formulating a local industrial strategy had simply landed on the desk of the local enterprise partnership’s chief executive, with no additional resources. Could the Minster confirm whether there is a team in his Department working on local industrial strategy or whether that is simply now the responsibility of LEPs? Last month, the Local Government Chronicle argued that the Government should put more resources into agreeing a local industrial strategy if they did not want to risk concentrating their efforts on improving the economy in just a handful of areas.

[Rachel Maclean (Redditch) (Con)]

Further to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall North (Eddie Hughes), I wonder whether the hon. Lady would like to visit the west midlands and meet the Conservative Mayor of that devolved authority, who has most certainly come together with a local industrial strategy. There are resources there, backed by this Government and their friends on these Benches, and that is making a real difference in our region. I would be happy to host the hon. Lady and enable her to speak to those successful businesses that are backing our Conservative Mayor.

[Rebecca Long Bailey]

rose—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. I just remind people that we have a lot of speakers in this debate. Short interventions, please.

[Rebecca Long Bailey]

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

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

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

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

[Rebecca Long Bailey]

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

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

[Peter Kyle (Hove) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend rightly points to the failures around the collapse of Carillion, which was a disaster for the many thousands of people who worked for it. The other organisations that failed were the regulators, so does she agree that we need a root-and-branch think about how we regulate the private sector, particularly when organisations are delivering public services at vast cost to the public purse?

[Rebecca Long Bailey]

I completely agree again.

Another issue that has been brought to my attention relates to sector deals. I understand that sectors are ready with proposals for such deals, but there is no clear structure or process in place for them to follow. For example, the rail industry has had a proposal for a sector deal ready since October, and the plan would deliver transformation across rail over the next 20 years, including new approaches that will cut the cost of digital signalling, addressing capacity issues and reliability. Perhaps the Minister will explain to the House what the delay is. How many proposals for sector deals has he received and how many have been agreed? Perhaps he will also commit to setting out in clear guidance, accessible to all businesses, how to go about pitching for a sector deal? Finally, will he update us on the implementation of the “Made Smarter” review? It was effectively ready to go, but I am sad to say that it received only a few cursory lines in the Government’s industrial strategy White Paper.

In short, Mr Deputy Speaker, as I am sure you have gleaned from my comments, the Government's industrial strategy, as drafted, is inadequate. While they now recognise the importance of an industrial strategy—well done—they are not prepared to use the full policy levers at their disposal to achieve it.

[James Heappey]

Following the shadow Secretary of State’s consultations with businesses around the country, will she name just one that agrees with Labour’s plans for nationalisation?

[Rebecca Long Bailey]

I would not want to put on the record in public the names of any specific companies without their consent, but there has been resounding support for Labour’s approach to the industrial strategy, because we are prepared to invest in our country’s future and to provide the support that businesses deserve. I am afraid that I hear time and again from businesses that the Conservative party simply does not listen anymore.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Rebecca Long Bailey]

I will make some progress as I am coming to the end of my comments.

One of the key responsibilities of any Government is to deliver the best quality of life to every single person in Britain, and this Government have failed to do that. Labour knows that key to that responsibility is the delivery of a truly prosperous, ambitious and locally focused industrial strategy. We see a fourth industrial revolution that, with bold and focused Government investment and support, presents an opportunity for Britain to harness the power of technological and scientific innovation to achieve higher productivity and high-paid, high-skilled jobs in an employment landscape that values and protects workers.

We also see the need for an economic model that deals with the big issues of our time and the need to build an economy around missions so that we not only lead the world economically in these areas but deliver real social and economic benefits to our people. We recognise that industrial strategy must be a true collaboration between business, the Government and society, not a wild west that picks winners and losers, that pits region against region and that leaves businesses and workers to fend for themselves in a dog-eat-dog economy in which only the largest and most powerful survive.

That is the economy that Labour Members are intent on building, but sadly, it is not the economy that the Government are building. Although I am fiercely adamant that industrial strategy should not be political, from what I have seen so far from this Government, until we get a Labour Government we will not see an industrial strategy.

GKN: Proposed Takeover by Melrose

Rebecca Long Bailey Excerpts

Tuesday 27th March 2018 Commons Chamber

[Rebecca Long Bailey (Salford and Eccles) (Lab)]

I thank the Secretary of State for today’s update. Sadly, however, the letter sent by the Government yesterday and the response by Melrose offer very little certainty and raise even more questions.

First, it was on 8 January 2018 that the board of GKN received a preliminary and unsolicited proposal from Melrose to acquire the entire share capital of GKN. Melrose put in its formal offer on 1 February. Concerns about Melrose’s plans had been raised by trade unions, Members of this House and the media for months, yet it took until 26 March for the Government to write to get some assurances from Melrose. So why did the Secretary of State wait until the last minute?

My second question concerns the enforceability of the assurances themselves. Which of the assurances and commitments given by Melrose in its letter of 27 March are actually legally enforceable and binding, because on my reading of the letter, it seems that very few are? Specifically, can the Government confirm that the commitments given under the heading “Takeover Panel enforceable undertakings” are indeed enforceable and will be enforced by the takeover panel? Can the Government also confirm that all the commitments below the paragraph headed “Long-term commitment” are totally unenforceable? What powers do the Government have to enforce any of the empty promises from page 2 onwards that are not post-offer undertakings? My discussions with the takeover panel suggest that enforceability is indeed limited to the areas referred to in Melrose’s letter under the heading “Takeover Panel enforceable undertakings”. I must also express concern regarding the “flexibility” that Melrose requests in relation to any offers it receives to sell the aerospace division prior to 2023. What will the Government do to protect this business and, indeed, the other elements of the business that are not even referred to in Melrose’s letter? Do we take their omission as a clear indication that they will not be protected?

My third question is about the substantive content of the assurances. Why did the Government not ask for or receive any post-offer undertakings on maintaining or increasing employment at GKN over a 10-year period? These can clearly constitute post-offer undertakings under takeover code. Indeed, when SoftBank took over Arm Holdings, it promised to increase the total number of UK Arm group employees to at least double the total number as at the takeover date. It is also not clear why Melrose did not include UK tax residency as a post-offer undertaking. Similarly, I would argue that many of the things that the Government asked for were weak and meaningless. For example, when the Government asked for the maintenance of a UK workforce, what did they actually mean? Is one employee in the UK enough to fulfil this condition? Similarly, on investing in the training and development of the workforce, how much, and by what time?

My fourth question concerns the Secretary of State’s powers under the Enterprise Act 2002 to block the bid on national security grounds. It would be helpful if he confirmed that Melrose has indeed waived the condition to get the approval of the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States. More importantly, the Secretary of State still has the powers to block this on grounds of UK national security, so will he confirm unequivocally today whether he will do this?

Finally, there are reports that merger arbitrage funds are planning to accept the Melrose offer, but as they are holding derivatives of GKN shares, they will not pay stamp duty on the transaction. Will the Secretary of State undertake that if Melrose does indeed proceed with this offer, the Government will investigate all share dealings to ensure that the correct stamp duty has been paid?

If the Government think that today’s weak, late and unenforceable assurances from Melrose are sufficient, then they are deeply mistaken. There is nothing to assure workers, nor to put to bed concerns about our industrial strategy and national security. As my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Jack Dromey) so eloquently stated recently, GKN is a jewel in Britain’s industrial crown that employed generation after generation. It needed a Government prepared to fight for its future, and I am afraid that the response so far has been far less than adequate.

[Greg Clark]

Everyone in this House, on both sides of the Chamber, agrees that GKN is a very important company that is crucial to vital R&D work and employs thousands of people across the country. That is why I consider it important, over and above my statutory powers—I have explained very clearly that this is without prejudice to the use of those powers—to encourage the bidder to set out much more clearly than it has done so far its intentions on many of the matters that the hon. Lady mentioned, such as research and development, being based in the UK, and a commitment to the length of tenure of this very important aerospace business. That seems to be an appropriate action at this stage in the proceedings.

Of course, this is a contrast to the sorry situation that arose—there are Members in this Chamber who will remember this—during the time in which the hon. Lady’s party was in government, when Cadbury was sold to Kraft and a plant that was expected to be kept open was closed forever. In response to that, when we came into government a regime was established that allowed legally binding undertakings to be given. I have said repeatedly in this House and to hon. Members that, given that that regime exists, I expect it to be used. I was not satisfied with the degree of commitments that had been given so far by Melrose, so I think that it was the right step, over and above my statutory powers, to set out those concerns in writing and to invite Melrose to respond to them.

The hon. Lady knows very well the statutory powers that I have. Again, they were passed when her party was in government, under the Enterprise Act 2002. The question of national security is a quasi-judicial one that will be addressed separately. It is not a subjective decision that I can take. It has to be based on a clear assessment. I make the commitment that I will take that assessment meticulously. There is a closing window for this bid, and it is right to use that window to obtain statements as to Melrose’s intentions.

The hon. Lady asked questions about the enforceability of the commitments. Melrose has said in its response that it is in discussion with the takeover panel. I regard that as the best way to lodge the commitments, so that they are enforceable with severe penalties, including contempt of court, if they are broken. The takeover panel monitors the adherence to the commitments after the event, were the bid to be successful. On security, the hon. Lady also asked about the company’s conversations with the US Administration. It is the case that the company took a decision to waive that condition.

The hon. Lady asked a question about commitment to the workforce. I have met the trade unions twice now. I specified in my letter to Melrose that I expected it to make a commitment to deal fairly with the trade unions in order to ensure that the future of the workforce is taken seriously, in lockstep with the trade unions. That is important. She also made a point about the avoidance of stamp duty. Clearly, any taxes that fall due ought to be paid.

I hope that the hon. Lady and the House—whatever their assessment of the bid—would, in recognition of the powers available, think that it is the right step to approach the bidder at this stage, before the timetable closes, in order to set out in a way that can be enforced for years to come, undertakings against which it can be held to account. That is the basis of my letter to the company.

Oral Answers to Questions

Rebecca Long Bailey Excerpts

Tuesday 13th March 2018 Commons Chamber

[Rebecca Long Bailey (Salford and Eccles) (Lab)]

The Government’s response to the Taylor review did virtually nothing to tackle the challenges and insecurity that self-employed people face. Equally poor was the Government’s response to the treatment of gig workers.

“Don has died and they should be making changes”.

Those were the words of DPD gig worker Don Lane’s widow, Ruth. With this in mind and with Matthew Taylor himself last week rating the Government’s response to the Taylor review a shocking four out of 10, what score would the Minister give himself?

[Andrew Griffiths]

Seven weeks in, I think I would give myself 10 out of 10. The hon. Lady quotes Matthew Taylor. He has said quite clearly that this is a complex and complicated matter. He wants us to get the definition of status right, because the rights of thousands of gig workers depend on it. That is why in the passage the hon. lady quotes he also said that when we have finished our consultation, if we deliver what we have promised he would give us seven or eight. I want to go further; I want it to be 10.

[Rebecca Long Bailey]

Ten out of 10 indeed! The Chancellor today might attempt to laud employment figures as positive news, but he will fail to state that over 3 million people are in insecure work, and, according to a recent report by the Centre for Labour and Social Studies, over a third of all workers do not even earn enough to live. There are also real fears, despite the Prime Minister’s assurances, that the quality of work will worsen still, with reports that the Foreign Secretary and other Ministers are pushing for major employment law deregulation. Will the Minister confirm whether his Department is carrying out any work looking at the deregulation of certain employment rights?

[Andrew Griffiths]

The hon. Lady must have missed the intention behind what the Government were doing with the Matthew Taylor report. Not only are we committed to continuing the existing employment rights and protections, but we are going further and faster than anyone else—further and faster than our European colleagues—to give gig workers and others in vulnerable conditions, such as agency workers, greater protections than ever before. We are not just talking about it; we are protecting those workers.

Domestic Gas and Electricity (Tariff Cap) Bill

Rebecca Long Bailey Excerpts

2nd reading: House of Commons
Tuesday 6th March 2018 Commons Chamber

[Rebecca Long Bailey (Salford and Eccles) (Lab)]

I am pleased that the Bill is before the House today, but I must express my exasperation that it has taken so long to get to this point. The 2017 Conservative manifesto committed to implementing an energy price cap that would protect 17 million households. The Government then repeatedly rowed back on that promise, passing responsibility to Ofgem, which made it clear that legislation was required. After months of to-ing and fro-ing, the Prime Minister reintroduced her commitment in her conference speech, and finally, on 11 October, a draft Bill was published. That Bill was then passed to the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee for pre-legislative scrutiny, which, due to the thorough work rightly done by colleagues, was not completed until mid-February. At the same time, a leaked conversation between the civil service and an energy investor seemed to suggest that the Government had no intention of seeing through the legislation. So yes, I was relieved last week to finally see the Bill introduced to Parliament, and I welcome the Government’s foray into a policy that they previously denounced as Marxist, but it remains the case that, as a result of this Government’s inaction, millions of households have been left to scrape through the winter facing a choice between cold homes or astronomical bills.

As all hon. Members will be aware, the UK experienced one of its coldest periods for decades over the past week, with the Met Office reporting that the UK had officially broken its record for the lowest March temperatures in a 24-hour period on Friday. As a result of this Government’s dithering and delay, the 4 million households currently living in fuel poverty, 1 million of which include a disabled person, will be receiving whopping bills at the end of the month. Startlingly, the latest figures from National Energy Action for the winter of 2016-17 show that excess winter deaths were 39.5% higher than in the year before, with an estimated 34,300 excess winter deaths in England and Wales.

[James Heappey]

The hon. Lady underlines the fact that the harshness of the recent weather will have increased energy bills for millions of people. Was she therefore as impressed as I was by the speed at which emergency payments were made to the most vulnerable to help them with their additional heating costs?

[Rebecca Long Bailey]

The emergency payments were certainly welcome—I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comment—but the fact remains that this price cap should have been in place this winter and it was not.

National Energy Action also found that each year an average of 9,700 people die due to living in a cold home. That equates to 80 people per day, the same number of people who die from breast or prostate cancer each year. It has been Labour party policy since 2013 to introduce a price cap on consumer energy bills, and although the principle of this Bill is positive, I remain concerned that, as drafted, it does not go far enough.

[Antoinette Sandbach (Eddisbury) (Con)]

Given that electricity prices rose by 44% between 2003 and 2007, will the hon. Lady outline what action the Labour Government took in their 13 years in power to address this issue?

[Rebecca Long Bailey]

The hon. Lady makes an interesting point. I think that both sides of the House have reached something of a consensus on our energy market. People on the right and left—wherever they place themselves on the political spectrum—agree that our energy market is fundamentally broken and needs to be reviewed. It is interesting that the Government put their own commission in place, under Dieter Helm, but we have had no response from them so far about the proposals it made.

I have several issues with the Bill as drafted, but I start with the fact that it does not provide any direction from the Secretary of State on his preferred level of cap, which effectively passes the buck to Ofgem. The Bill merely states:

“The Authority must exercise its functions…with a view to protecting existing and future domestic customers who pay standard variable and default rates”.

In doing so, Ofgem must consider a number of factors, including creating incentives for suppliers to improve efficiency, enabling suppliers to compete effectively, maintaining incentives to switch between suppliers, and the need to ensure that holders of supply licences who operate efficiently are able to finance activities authorised by that licence.

[Mr Simon Clarke (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Con)]

With respect, I dispute the hon. Lady’s claim that we are in accord on energy policy. The Opposition’s stated policy is to proceed with wholesale nationalisation, which Government Members strongly disagree with. Does she not accept that renationalising National Grid and the energy sector would be antithetical to driving down prices, which is what we all want?

[Rebecca Long Bailey]

I refer the hon. Gentleman to the Labour party’s manifesto, which clearly states that we wish to increase competition in the energy market by creating regional suppliers. We want to promote fair and transparent competition within the energy market, but unfortunately the Government do not advocate a similar position. We hope to fine-tune aspects of the Bill as it goes through the House so that competition in the energy market will be effective, fair and transparent.

[Gareth Thomas]

The hon. Member for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland (Mr Clarke) deliberately misinterprets our policy. The shadow Chancellor has committed the Labour party to supporting a doubling of the co-operative sector. Energy co-operatives do not mean nationalisation, but they do amount to democratic public ownership. Will my hon. Friend re-endorse the commitment to see more energy co-operatives in the market?

[Rebecca Long Bailey]

I wholeheartedly support my hon. Friend’s fantastic point. I think that our manifesto commitments have been misrepresented or, in the case of the hon. Member for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland (Mr Clarke), overstated. I again encourage him to read our manifesto, which encourages competition in the energy market while also considering some of its fundamental problems, such as in relation to grid ownership. I will address those points later in my speech.

With regard to the factors that Ofgem must consider, the problem is that although the Opposition are not averse to these principles, at present they are at best ambiguous, and there is no duty to consult on how such measures can be accurately quantified. Perhaps the Minister for Energy and Clean Growth will confirm how these measures will be quantified. Will they form part of Ofgem’s cap methodology consultation? If not, how will Ofgem determine these ambiguous proposals?

Speaking of those guidelines, Energy UK has highlighted the uncertainty in which the provisions are shrouded. Indeed, The Guardian’s financial editor recently commented of the chief executive of Ofgem:

“At best, he is being sent mixed messages by government. At worst, he is being asked to deliver contradictory goals.”

We recognise that Ofgem will consult on the cap methodology to be used, but has the Secretary of State given any indication to Ofgem of the final outcome he wants to see? The Prime Minister promised that £100 would be knocked off 17 million household bills, but nothing in the Bill will ensure that that happens.

Labour has confirmed that we would introduce an immediate emergency price cap to ensure that the average dual fuel household bill remains below £1,000 a year. Had that policy been in place since 2010, the average customer would have saved more than £1,000 on their bills by now. Will the Minister confirm whether the final cap will go anywhere near Labour’s proposals, or indeed anywhere near the Prime Minister’s promise?

Just as ambiguous is the mechanism for deciding whether to extend the cap beyond the end of 2020. The Bill merely states:

“The Authority must carry out a review into whether conditions are in place for effective competition for domestic supply contracts.”

It does stipulate that the review must include an assessment of progress made in installing smart meters, but unfortunately that is as good as it gets. The industry has expressed concern that this provision is unclear. I agree. For example, Energy UK says that there is an absence of a

“clear and realistic definition of effective competition”.

Which? says:

“the criteria for effective competition are not defined so it is not certain under what circumstances the cap will be lifted or how its success will be judged.”

Will the Secretary of State issue any further guidance on what the conditions for effective competition might be, or are we simply deferring to Ofgem to determine that without question?

[Mark Pawsey]

Does the hon. Lady support the sunset clause, which means that this legislation will not apply indefinitely as we will reach a stage where there is sufficient competition, or would she rather see a permanent price cap that lasts forever?

[Rebecca Long Bailey]

The hon. Gentleman makes an important point, and I will refer to this later in my submission. The Bill does not provide an answer to the broken energy market; it is simply a sticking plaster while the energy market is reformed. We would not expect the provision to be in place for a prolonged period. We are not openly against sunset provisions, although we might dispute how they are drafted, which we will explore in Committee.

In considering the cap removal, I must raise an issue that was highlighted recently by the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee. It found that vulnerable and low-income people were especially affected by poor-value tariffs, with 83% of those living in social rented housing, 75% of those on low incomes, 73% of those with no qualifications and 74% of disabled customers on a standard variable contract. It was clear from the Committee’s findings that, even with the advent of smart meters, those groups will still require protection from overcharging. I therefore urge the Government to consider representations by charities such as Scope, which has called for clause 7 to be amended to ensure that Ofgem, when it considers “effective competition”, has regard to the impact of removing or extending the cap in relation to vulnerable and disabled customers.

Finally on the drafting of the Bill, I am concerned that there is no guarantee that the price cap will be in place this winter, despite the Secretary of State’s earlier assertions. The Bill states that Ofgem must introduce a cap “as soon as practicable” after it is passed, but Ofgem has already said that it would take around five months after a Bill receives Royal Assent to enact a price cap because it has a statutory duty to consult power companies. This morning Ofgem has said that it

“will look to set the level of the cap over the autumn and bring the cap into effect at the end of this year”.

It therefore seems that the cap will not even be in place when the weather turns in autumn this year. I think that the Bill would be greatly improved by the inclusion of a hard deadline by which the cap must be in place, and Labour will be seeking to include such a deadline in Committee.

Given that the Government have already set the date for Committee consideration as 15 March, it would be encouraging if they provided a clear date for cap implementation because, even accounting for the relevant consultation periods set out in the Bill, it would be possible to introduce the cap earlier than next winter. Indeed, my advice is that including such a date might even lay to rest suggestions in some press reports that the big six, and indeed some members of the Cabinet, have been lobbying the Secretary of State to procrastinate or even drop the Bill entirely.

[James Heappey]

The shadow Secretary of State is kind to give way to me a second time. Does she agree that another option she might consider to help to introduce the cap as quickly as possible would be for her party to pledge its full support in helping to get the Bill through the House and the other place as quickly as possible?

[Rebecca Long Bailey]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that very helpful comment. I have not opposed the Bill in any of my comments so far; I am providing helpful advice. We support the principle of a price cap and want it to be introduced in the most efficient and detailed way possible.

I think that there is consensus across the House that the energy price cap is no more than a sticking plaster, and that much deeper problems within the UK’s energy market need to be addressed. The market is fundamentally broken. Electricity bills soared by 20% between 2007 and 2013, while in the past year alone, every household in the UK paid £120 for dividends to energy company shareholders. Over the past few months, report after report and news story after news story have detailed the unfairness of the current system, but it must be noted that the final bills that consumers face are not simply a consequence of manipulation by some supply companies. As the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee has highlighted, network costs make up the second highest element of a duel fuel energy bill.

The Energy and Climate Intelligence Unit found last year that the six distribution network operators made an average profit margin after tax of 32% a year between 2010 and 2015, equating to £10 billion over six years. At the same time, shareholders received £5.1 billion in dividends. In a subsequent report, the ECIU calculated that electricity network companies’ exceptionally high profits are set to add £20 to household energy bills this year. Moreover, analysis by Citizens Advice last year calculated that network operators, including National Grid, had made £7.5 billion in unjustified profits, which it thinks should be returned to consumers. Quite frankly, that is the exploitation of a natural monopoly. It is not a market and there is no effective competition, and I want to hear how the Minister will deal with competition within this element of the energy market.

[Gareth Thomas]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way a second time. Is it not a problem—and deeply ironic—that Conservative Members should defend an energy system in which foreign nationalised companies have more control and earn more income and wealth from the distribution and supply of British energy than the British citizenry?

[Rebecca Long Bailey]

My hon. Friend makes a fantastic point. Many people across Britain find the situation absurd.

As I said, I welcome the Minister’s comments about how she will tackle network exploitation but, along with the BEIS Committee, the Opposition are closely monitoring the next phase of network regulation. We also wonder whether the Minister will shine a little more light on what that might entail, what benchmark the Government have set as their acceptable level of regulation, and what actions she will take if Ofgem’s proposals are insufficient, as was the case with the initial price cap proposals.

The Labour party has been clear that it will not allow the exploitation to continue. We will radically reform the UK’s energy system, not just tinker around the edges, and if the Government are serious about reforming the market and protecting consumers, it is about time that they keep up. Sadly, however, the Secretary of State’s opening remarks were rather thin on proposals for long-term market reform. Reform of the market is not just critical in order to instil fairness and affordability, but vital to ensure that Britain has an energy system fit for the future.

We are experiencing a pace of technological change within the energy sector that has never been seen before. Batteries, storage and smart systems are transforming demand and supply. There is a move to smarter, more decentralised forms of energy generation and supply, emulating many of the models we have seen established across Europe, along with the potential of accessing a low-carbon market that is, according to Goldman Sachs, worth over $600 billion.

Dieter Helm, who was commissioned last year by the Government to conduct a review into the cost of energy, said:

“The corporate structures and policies designed for the 20th-century world no longer work well.”

That review had two main findings: first, that the cost of energy is significantly higher than it needs to be to meet the Government’s objectives and, in particular, to be consistent with the Climate Change Act 2008 and to ensure security of supply; and, secondly, that energy policy, regulation and market design are not fit for the purposes of the emerging low-carbon energy market as it undergoes profound technical change. Dieter published his report in late October. It echoed our calls for a change in ownership of the electricity network; unsurprisingly, we heard little from the Government.

Following the report’s publication, the Government launched a call for evidence to gather the views of stakeholders. That process closed on 5 January this year. I have not heard anything from the Government about that, so in the absence of any future energy vision from the Secretary of State today, perhaps the Minister for Energy and Clean Growth will confirm when a response to that consultation will be published and if the Government agree with Dieter Helm’s proposals.

[Mark Menzies]

The hon. Lady is making suggestions to improve the Bill, so what role does she see for the Competition and Markets Authority to ensure that consumers’ interests are paramount?

[Rebecca Long Bailey]

The hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point. We would expect all stakeholders to be engaged in the process, because the Bill must suit the entire energy market and deal effectively with competition. As I set out earlier, the Bill, as drafted, does not provide sufficient clarity on what is meant by “effective competition”.

[Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)]

In answer to the question asked by the hon. Member for Fylde (Mark Menzies), the regulator is supposed to represent consumers, but it is not strong enough to do that. The sooner we have a proper inquiry into the energy market the better. I have been saying that for the past seven years.

[Rebecca Long Bailey]

My hon. Friend makes a fantastic point about the need for a fundamental root-and-branch look into how our energy market functions and what we will expect to see from it if it is to suit our needs.

The Opposition are pleased that the Government have caught up and finally brought forward legislation to ensure that a price cap is implemented, but the Bill is frankly too little, too late, for millions of people who will not feel benefit this winter and nor, it would seem, for half of next winter. This sticking plaster is only guaranteed to be in place until the end of 2020, so the Government need urgently to bring forward radical proposals for long-term reform of the energy market. We have already set out a clear plan, and it is time that this Government started to catch up.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

Taylor Review

Rebecca Long Bailey Excerpts

1st reading: House of Commons
Wednesday 7th February 2018 Commons Chamber

[Rebecca Long Bailey (Salford and Eccles) (Lab)]

(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy if he will make a statement on the Government’s response to the Taylor review.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Andrew Griffiths)]

I am delighted to set out the Government’s response to the review of modern working, which was led by Matthew Taylor. He set out his ambition that the Government should place as much emphasis on creating quality jobs as they do on the number of jobs. Good work and developing better jobs for everyone in the British economy are at the centre of the industrial strategy vision.

The Prime Minister has repeatedly said that, as we leave the European Union, there will be no roll-back of employment protections, but today we are committing to go further and to seek to enhance rights and protections in the modern workplace for even more people. We will support employers who give individuals their correct employment rights, but we will prevent undercutting by unscrupulous employers who try to game the system, by clearly defining who is employed and who is not. We will extend the right to receive a payslip to all workers, including a statement of the hours that they work. We are requiring employers to clearly set out written terms from day one of the employment relationship, and to extend that to all workers. We are taking forward 52 of the 53 recommendations in the Taylor review, and all but one of the recommendations from the joint report of the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee and the Work and Pensions Committee.

For workers on zero-hours contracts, we are creating a right to request a stable contract. For the first time, the state will take responsibility for enforcing a wider set of employment rights, including sick pay and holiday pay, for the most vulnerable of workers. Employers who lose tribunal claims against staff and are found to have had no regard to the law will face fines of up to £20,000, quadrupled from the current £5,000. We will also ensure that employment tribunal awards are paid correctly.

The Government are very grateful to Matthew Taylor and his panel, as well as to the many individuals and organisations who contributed to the review. I would also like to thank the BEIS, Work and Pensions and Scottish Affairs Committees for their contribution to this work. Through our response, we are acting to ensure good work for all, to protect the rights of those on low pay and to ensure that more people get protection, security and certainty in the work they do.

[Rebecca Long Bailey]

The tragic case of Don Lane, a DPD gig worker, epitomises the precarious and unstable working life many people face and the failure of the Government to protect workers. They needed to do something bold today, but it appears that they are simply papering over the bleak realities with rhetoric. Launching four consultations, merely considering proposals, and tweaking the law here and there is not good enough. How would any of this have actually helped Don Lane? It simply would not—that is the fact of the matter.

So I ask the Minister: which rights will apply to which workers from day one? How will they be quantified for zero-hours workers? Why, despite public support, have the Government not protected agency workers by abolishing undercutting through the Swedish derogation? How does a right to request more stable hours differ from the current position? Without an obligation on the employer to accept such a request, it is meaningless. Why have the Government not brought forward any meaningful proposals to protect gig workers? Defining working time misses the point. We needed clarity on workers being paid when they are logged into apps waiting to receive jobs, as well as clear and urgent direction on the legal status of gig workers. Why was there not even one mention of trade unions? On the genuinely self-employed, we see the creation of a website allowing the self-employed to talk to each other—well, bravo! Why is there no system of support and no recognition of the precariousness of their situation? This is simply window dressing.

What we needed today was radical new architecture of the law at work to protect workers, in which the genuinely self-employed are offered key protections and the involvement of workers through their trade unions is crucial. We saw none of that, and to miss those things out of any recommendations is to miss the ocean and look at the pebbles underneath.

[Andrew Griffiths]

I have to say that I share the hon. Lady’s desire to improve the rights and protections for the workers we represent in our constituencies. It is disappointing that in her long response she was unable to welcome any of the steps we are taking. As a result of the actions set out in our response to this review, millions of workers will have greater rights and access to more protection. Indeed, I argue that we can rightly claim to be leading the world in improving the quality of work for our constituents.

The hon. Lady seems to argue that it is wrong to be consulting on these issues. I hope the House will understand that in addressing the issues she raises—such as employment status in the gig economy, the rights of agency workers and better transparency in the workplace—we are modernising employment law to make it fit for the future world of work. We are seeking expert views on how to do that, which is absolutely right. Our intention is clear, and we are consulting the experts on how we deliver on that promise. Matthew Taylor himself has said that these issues are complex and we must take time to get them right, but the House should be clear that we are consulting on them in order to act. Rather than rolling back employment legislation, which we are sometimes accused of, we are improving the rights of workers and the enforcement of those rights.

The hon. Lady mentions the very regrettable case that has been in the newspapers over the past few days. I extend my sympathies to the family of the individual concerned. I cannot speak about individual cases, but I direct her to page 15 of our response. It clearly sets out what we are going to do to ensure we have the correct definition of workers’ status, so they can have access to the kind of things she is talking about—sick pay, days off and the ability to attend doctor appointments if necessary.

Smart Meters Bill

Rebecca Long Bailey Excerpts

3rd reading: House of Commons & Report stage: House of Commons
Monday 5th February 2018 Commons Chamber

[Rebecca Long Bailey (Salford and Eccles) (Lab)]

My comments will be brief.

The Opposition do not oppose the Bill, and will support its Third Reading. However, there are still a number of outstanding issues, two of which have come to the fore since the Committee stage. First, there is the alarming fact that Capita, which wholly owns the Data Communications Company, has issued a profit warning, and company shares, as of last Thursday, have fallen to a 20-year low. All the communications and infrastructure for the operation of smart meters have been outsourced to Capita, and, in turn, Capita has engaged partners in the DCC to operate aspects of its overall function. As a result of the Bill, a special administration regime will hopefully mitigate the impact on smart metering should Capita’s fortunes worsen, but I reiterate the Opposition’s concern that if the DCC goes into administration, consumers will pay the price through this administration regime. Why should they pay the price for yet another failed outsourcing? I wonder what the Secretary of State’s rationale was for forcing them to pay for such failure.

In the case of the DCC, there will be some protection should Capita fail, but what about the detail, and what about contingency plans in relation to Capita’s other ventures? Indeed, what immediate measures are the Government putting in place for any potential collapse of Capita? Capita is a major outsourcing firm which last year alone was awarded 154 Government contracts. My colleague the shadow Cabinet Office Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Hemsworth (Jon Trickett), last week said

“that the Government’s behaviour in response…has been marked by indifference to corporate mismanagement, incompetence in office and complacency in the face of a crisis.”—[Official Report, 1 February 2018; Vol. 635, c. 980.]

We need assurances that any contingency plans will protect services and information, guarantee jobs for current employees, and protect the pensions of those employees and the pensions of the public sector workers that the company is managing. Will the Secretary of State in time provide those much needed assurances?

The second development is that the National Audit Office has announced it will be investigating the economic case for the roll-out of smart meters and looking at whether the Government are on track to achieve their target to roll out meters by 2020. The report is expected in the summer of this year. I would not want to pre-empt the National Audit Office, but it would seem that it is not only Opposition Members who are concerned that the Government are on track to miss their target at consumers’ expense. Indeed, it seems extremely likely they will miss this target, given that 40,000 gas and electricity meters would need to be installed per day even on present projections; that is no mean feat and perhaps why the language has changed to state that consumers will be offered smart meters rather than there will be installation per se. It seems irresponsible of the Government to have rejected Labour’s new clause 4, which would require the Secretary of State to publish a report and a cost-benefit analysis relating to the smart meter implementation programme and lay a copy of the report before Parliament within three months of the Act coming into force.

I referred to the energy price cap on Second Reading and I do so again now as it has been three months since then and still no action has been taken. It is estimated that customers are to pay somewhere between £130 and £200 on their bills to recover the costs of the installation of a smart meter on their property. This is in addition to the price increases inflicted by energy providers. The Government have promised a price cap and we have had sight of legislation to implement it, but we are still a long way off an energy price cap having any real impact on household bills. I would like to take this opportunity to say to the Secretary of State that although the days are starting to get longer and the weather milder—although this week is a slight exception to that—we on this side of the House have not forgotten the Conservatives’ promise of an energy price cap, and specifically to knock at least £100 from 17 million household bills.

I join the Secretary of State in thanking all those who have spoken throughout the passage of this Bill and all Committee members who have worked so diligently. I thank the Front-Bench teams for the good nature of the debates we have had on this issue, and especially my Labour colleague, my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test (Dr Whitehead), an expert who revels in the detail and minutiae of smart meters and has seen not one but two Bills through the House over the last two months—and who could forget his jovial use of the props Gaz and Leccy on Second Reading? [Interruption.] Google it; it is not to be missed. I also thank the Public Bill Office and the Clerks of the House for all their assistance on this Bill.

Oral Answers to Questions

Rebecca Long Bailey Excerpts

Tuesday 30th January 2018 Commons Chamber

[Greg Clark]

The hon. Lady raises an excellent question, and I want to pay tribute to the CITB, which has been working closely with its Scottish colleagues, for a magnificent response. It has been able to not only contact but offer continuity to all the apprentices—I think I am right in saying that—to give them the ability to continue their training. That was a formidable, agile response to an urgent situation, and it deserves the praise of the House.

[Rebecca Long Bailey (Salford and Eccles) (Lab)]

In July last year, the Government were warned by the Federation of Small Businesses and the Specialist Engineering Contractors Group that Carillion was transferring risk to its subcontractors. They highlighted that Carillion’s payment period was doubled from 65 to 120 days, that Carillion made money on the back of early payment by charging fees, and that regulation 113 of the Public Contracts Regulations 2015, which relates to 30-day payment, was not being enforced. Will the Secretary of State outline what actions, if any, he took on receipt of that information?

[Greg Clark]

The lessons and the scrutiny of what went wrong in Carillion, both on the part of its directors and its scrutineers, and in the oversight that took place across the whole of the public sector in terms of contracting, need to be looked at and will be looked at, including by Select Committees of this House. Whatever actions are required from that, we will take.

[Rebecca Long Bailey]

So it is clear that no action was taken and that subcontractors were being mistreated again and again. But that is not all: the FSB and SEC Group also highlighted how retention moneys and project funds due to suppliers were not being protected from Carillion’s potential insolvency. As a result of the Government’s inaction, microbusinesses are now owed on average £98,000, small firms £141,000 and medium-sized firms £236,000, and large businesses are owed on average £15.6 million. Will the Secretary of State therefore explain to the House and all the businesses affected why the Government took no action last July and why many are on the verge of bankruptcy today?

[Greg Clark]

Retentions and project bank accounts have been the subject, in response to those and other concerns, of a consultation on specific measures, which closed very recently. That came out of the recommendations that were made. Part of the taskforce that we have established includes these representative bodies, and they know that they have my commitment to take all the necessary actions to learn the lessons and protect any future concerns against things that could be learned from this case.

Nuclear Safeguards Bill

Rebecca Long Bailey Excerpts

3rd reading: House of Commons & Report stage: House of Commons
Tuesday 23rd January 2018 Commons Chamber

[Rebecca Long Bailey (Salford and Eccles) (Lab)]

This is an important and necessary Bill, as the Secretary of State confirmed, to ensure that a contingency is available should the Government’s negotiations with the European Union and Euratom fail. That was why we did not oppose it on Second Reading, and it is why we will not oppose it on Third Reading tonight.

That does not mean, however, that we do not continue to have concerns about the Government’s approach and about whether there was any necessity at all for the Bill. On Second Reading, I made the case that it should be possible—or would have been possible—to retain the UK’s membership, or to secure a close association with Euratom that would allow the continuation of nuclear safeguarding. The Opposition still think that continued membership of Euratom or a close associate status is both achievable and necessary for the most efficient continued working of a whole raft of procedures relating to the nuclear industry, not just to safeguarding.

I am pleased that the Government seem to have acknowledged that negotiating a close association would be the best outcome for our nuclear industry and that Bill does not constitute a replacement for all Euratom’s functions. The Secretary of State’s written statement on 11 January set out that the Government’s strategy was to

“seek a close association with Euratom and to include Euratom in any implementation period negotiated as part of our wider exit discussions”.

It went on to say that the

“exact nature of the period will be subject to forthcoming negotiations”.—[Official Report, 11 January 2018; Vol. 634, c. 9-10WS.]

Given that statement, I wonder why the Government did not accept a number of Labour’s proposals: new clause 1, which would simply have asked the Secretary of State to “seek to secure” a transition period during which the UK could secure an association with Euratom, or indeed build any domestic capability; and new clause 2, which would have established that the provisions of the Bill are contingency arrangements if it proves impossible to establish an association with Euratom.

I point out that we could have been more legally robust in our language, especially in new clause 1. We could, for example, have used the words “best endeavours”, but we appreciate the issues that the Secretary of State faces and would have given him the opportunity simply of saying that he would try to secure a transitional period. We are sad that new clause 1 was not accepted today, but none the less I appreciate that the Secretary of State has listened somewhat to Labour’s concerns and promised to report back every three months about overall progress on Euratom in the EU negotiations. As three months from the first statement will be 11 April, which is in the middle of the Easter recess, I look forward to receiving an update on 29 March.

My Front-Bench colleagues have argued that a transitional agreement is vital if we are to ensure that the UK is physically able to provide a functioning domestic safeguarding regime. The evidence taken by the Public Bill Committee highlighted that particular concern of the industry. Dr Golshan of the ONR said:

“given our membership of Euratom, it has not been necessary for the UK and ONR to build capacity and resilience in this area.”

She added:

“a transitional arrangement will be extremely helpful.”

That is not least because the training of inspectors takes several years, as outlined by the representatives of Prospect and Unite the union. Indeed, when she was asked about training, Dr Golshan said:

“We have started that process, but it is a long road and I am not going to sit here and pretend that it is all going to be a smooth run.”––[Official Report, Nuclear Safeguards Public Bill Committee, 31 October 2017; c. 5-9, Q3, 8 and 16.]

We have ongoing concerns about the timely replacement of inspectors, so we urge Ministers to agree a transitional arrangement to prevent full obligations from being placed on an unready ONR. The Government did not see fit to accept amendment 4, which would have required the Secretary of State to declare that the ONR had the resources necessary to take on extra responsibilities for nuclear safeguarding in the UK, but I hope they will listen to this plea.

I will say a little word on the powers that the Bill will hand to the Government—the very small Henry VIII provisions, as they were referred to previously. The Minister did not see fit to accept our amendments that attempted to curtail the executive powers conferred by the Bill, but he promised to publish regulations ahead of Report. He did indeed publish those regulations, but not until Friday afternoon—beyond the deadline to table any further amendments to the Bill. I would just like to put on record that although I welcome the publication of the regulations, the timing was rather cheeky and not altogether in the spirit of the constructive approach that both sides have taken to the Bill.

I associate myself with the words of the Secretary of State in thanking all who have spoken throughout our consideration of the Bill, as well as all members of the Public Bill Committee. I want to thank the Front-Bench teams, including the Secretary of State and the Minister. I think it is fair to say that they have been in listening mode. I especially thank my Labour colleagues, not least my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test (Dr Whitehead), who have worked diligently on the finer details of all things relating to nuclear safeguarding. Finally, I want to thank the Public Bill Office and the Clerks for all their tremendous support, as ever.

Oral Answers to Questions

Rebecca Long Bailey Excerpts

Tuesday 12th December 2017 Commons Chamber

[Margot James]

My right hon. Friend gets to the nub of many of the Taylor review’s recommendations. It is important that decent employment standards are maintained and that consumers are offered new opportunities, and we will be reviewing the proposals.

[Rebecca Long Bailey (Salford and Eccles) (Lab)]

Recent reports uncovered the fact that people driving on behalf of Amazon were forced to deliver up to 200 parcels a day while earning less than the minimum wage. With impossible schedules that left little to no time for breaks and no access to paid holidays or sick pay, many drivers experienced conditions that could be described as Dickensian. As yet another high-profile employment case emerges, why are the Government not taking robust action to crack down on bogus self-employment and to enforce employment rights?

[Margot James]

The hon. Lady puts her finger on precisely why the Prime Minister commissioned the Taylor review in the first place. When employers are indulging in practices such as those the hon. Lady outlines there will definitely be a deleterious effect on employees’ health, and they should be roundly condemned.

[Rebecca Long Bailey]

The Government keep hiding behind their forthcoming response to the Taylor review, but Sir David Metcalf, the Government’s director of labour market enforcement, stated this year that even the Government’s existing powers have not been used to protect workers, despite numerous official statements that the Government have taken abuse by employers seriously. Only last week, the Government identified 16,000 workers who were paid less than the minimum wage, and yet the Low Pay Commission believes that the true figure is between 300,000 and 580,000. Does the Minister agree with Sir David Metcalf that the Government’s enforcement of basic employment rights is wholly inadequate?

[Margot James]

I await the publication of Sir David’s strategy for dealing with labour market enforcement, which we expect to see in the first quarter of next year. I am pleased with his appointment, and he is doing a great job so far of bringing together the enforcement agencies at the Government’s disposal to ensure that they work even more effectively in the pursuit of non-compliance with the law.