Draft National Minimum Wage (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 2016

Bill Esterson Excerpts

Thursday 8th September 2016 General Committees

[Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Wilson. The Minister set out the good news about the 3.7% rise in the national minimum wage that is before us. She acknowledged that it has been some time since there have been significant rises; the regulations start to rectify the fact that rates have fallen behind over many years. This good news for young workers is tempered by the fact that if someone is under 25, they do not get the national living wage. The Scottish National party spokesman asked why; I am afraid that I do not find the Minister’s answer at all convincing, any more than we did when the national living wage first came through.

[Margot James]

I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman so soon in his speech, but will he acknowledge that young people aged between 21 and 24 will be paid, through this increase in the minimum wage, £6.95 per hour? Would he not agree that the difference between that and the national living wage is fairly small?

[Bill Esterson]

Perhaps the Minister has just told us that she has no intention of putting up the so-called national living wage by very much. I remind her that the Living Wage Foundation says that a living wage in this country is £8.25, or £9.40 in London—not the lower smoke-and-mirrors figure of £7.20 that the former Chancellor introduced.

[Michael Fabricant]

I was quite involved in the minimum wage when it came in under Tony Blair, the former leader of the Labour party, in 1999. The age of 25 was chosen was because the Labour party got good advice that if it priced the minimum wage for those under 25 at the same amount as for those aged 25 and over, those under 25 would not get employed. The Labour party wanted 21 to 25-year-olds in work; it is as simple as that. It may be that the old Labour party, as opposed to new Labour, resents or rejects that, but that was the view of the Labour party at the time, and it was correct.

[Bill Esterson]

I remember all too well the all-night sitting—I was a researcher at the time—during which Conservative MPs filibustered as long as they could to prevent the national minimum wage from being introduced, so we will not take any lectures about the implementation of the national minimum wage. [Interruption.]

[The Chair]

Order.

[Bill Esterson]

The point is well made that there is a difference. The reality is that old and young workers will potentially be set against each other. Employers in low-paid sectors might be encouraged to recruit up to the age of 24, to replace staff by using short-term contracts, and to discriminate against older workers. There are all sorts of problems and concerns arising from the differential. I will be interested to see whether the so-called national living wage goes up by a similar amount.

There are real problems with what has happened. We had a successful partnership between the Government, business and trade unions in the Low Pay Commission, which is still operating for under-25s. The way that the previous Chancellor went about introducing the national living wage undercut that partnership approach and has caused problems for low-paid sectors such as care and hospitality. In care in particular, and where budgets have been cut in local government and in the public sector generally, it has really caused a problem. Those employers, and employers whose private businesses are engaged by the public sector, have no way of making up the shortfall in order to pay the higher national living wage. I do not think the Government have addressed that point in their introduction of the national living wage. Surely they should have increased local government budgets, so that local government could in turn pass on those increases either to its own workers or to workers employed by contractors.

We have heard about M&S, and a similar point could be made about Sports Direct. The Minister talked about enforcement and how serious the Government are about it. She spoke about the welcome increase in funding for HMRC staff from £13 million to £20 million, but how many staff is that? How many prosecutions has HMRC started? How many times has the national minimum wage penalty been applied? What level of criminal evidence does HMRC require to start an investigation?

We have heard enough about Sports Direct’s behaviour for me to ask whether the Minister believes that it should be subject to a criminal investigation, notwithstanding its apparent Damascene conversion to the cause of workers and low pay over the past few days, just before its annual meeting. Of course, it turned out that the improvements in pay and conditions would affect 10 workers a year. I would like to hear a bit more about exactly what action has been taken. The SNP spokesman spoke of hundreds of thousands of cases across this country. I very much doubt there have been hundreds of thousands of investigations by HMRC, so let us have the figure, so we can see exactly how effective the measures are.

A successful economy is characterised as one where working people are paid well. There are a number of reasons for that—not just reasons of decency and prosperity. Where people are paid well, they have more money to spend with private businesses, and more people are in a position to pay tax to fund the high-quality public services that we as individuals need, and that the private sector needs to be able to run effective businesses. So we should all support attempts to improve the rates of pay and the standard of living of ordinary working people in this country. Is that really what is happening as a result of the differential between under-25s and over-25s? Will a 3.7% one-off rise in the national minimum wage, after years of stagnation and a fall in real terms, really cut it? I rather doubt it.

I look forward to the Minister’s response on the level of prosecutions, and on investigation and enforcement by HMRC. Employers who are allowed to get away with not paying the minimum wage are gaining an unfair competitive advantage over those who want to pay properly. We should be encouraging good, responsible business behaviour in this country, so let us see more enforcement. I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say on those points.

[Michael Fabricant]

I was not going to speak, but I have been driven to do so by the hon. Member for Sefton Central. I agree with his last few words—enforcement is tremendously important—but his rewriting of history has been quite remarkable. He may have been here as a researcher when the minimum wage was introduced; I was the Opposition Whip at the time, but they would not put me on that Committee because the only row I ever had with our then leader, William Hague—now a noble Lord—was over the minimum wage. I said to him at the time that the minimum wage was something that we would come to support. He said, “It will never happen”—that was not a very good impersonation—and I said, “Oh yes it will, and it works in the United States.” On that occasion, I was proved right and he was wrong.

Earlier, talking about the level of the minimum wage, I gave the example of the United States, where the federal rate is just $7.25 an hour. Interestingly, there are many exemptions in the US. For example, disc jockeys—I was a disc jockey for a short while on a pirate radio boat—are exempt, and so are waiting staff. That is one of the reasons why people have to tip well when they go to the US—because the waiting staff live on tips. I go to the US a lot for private reasons. I was chatting to a barman who told me that he is on $2.50 an hour, which is only £1.90, so we really can be proud of the UK’s minimum wage.

The rate is tremendously important. It is all very well for the hon. Member for Sefton Central to say that it should be higher, but if people are not employed, the rate is zero per hour. It is always a balance. Tony Blair knew that; Gordon Brown knew that; sadly, the hon. Gentleman does not seem to realise that. If people are priced out of the market, they will not get anything, because they will be unemployed.

[Bill Esterson]

Given the hon. Gentleman’s belief that the national living wage prices people out of jobs, was he against the former Chancellor’s introduction of the national living wage at £7.20—a rate significantly higher than the then national minimum wage?

Paris Agreement on Climate Change

Bill Esterson Excerpts

Wednesday 7th September 2016 Commons Chamber

[Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)]

I did not realise that I was at a “Star Trek” convention, but we learn something new every day in this place.

This has been an incredibly important debate. There have been a number of excellent speeches from all parts of the House by Members who really know this subject inside out and upside down. The debate was opened with a formidable tutorial by my hon. Friend the Member for Brent North (Barry Gardiner), who mentioned the Government’s woeful record.

[Drew Hendry]

On the subject of the Government’s woeful record, does the hon. Gentleman agree that a missed opportunity was not supporting the alternative air fuel scheme, proposed by British Airways, which would have transformed 575,000 tonnes of London’s waste into fuel and allowed BA to operate its flights twice over for a year from London City airport? Does he agree that that was a missed opportunity by the UK Government and that they should revisit it?

[Bill Esterson]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his exceedingly early intervention in my speech. Of course, there are many examples of the kind that he gives.

We heard from my right hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband) about the worrying loss of UK influence on tackling climate change, like so much else that results from the Brexit vote. He also mentioned his grave concerns about the damage being done to the international community’s ability to tackle climate change, given our leading role up till now and the likely dramatic reduction in our influence outside the European Union.

We heard contributions from my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test (Dr Whitehead), who reinforced the importance of the UK’s role and the implications of Brexit. He questioned whether Government policy meant that we were on track to meet our obligations. That theme was picked up by other hon. Members later in the debate, including my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mary Creagh). We heard from my hon. Friends the Members for Wirral West (Margaret Greenwood), for Copeland (Mr Reed) and for Llanelli (Nia Griffith), among other contributions.

Earlier, the Minister spoke about what he called the Government’s fantastic record, but he rather ignored the fact that investor confidence has plummeted, subsidies have been cut and jobs, not least in the solar industry, have been lost. He blamed the European Union for our not having ratified the Paris agreement, while acknowledging that other European countries had done so. The Government and the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills have been happy enough recently to act against the rest of the EU. The UK recently blocked action by the rest of the EU to protect our steel industry. The Government are happy enough to take unilateral action when it suits them, but we had enough false claims about the EU during the referendum campaign, thank you.

[James Heappey]

It is my understanding that no EU member country can fully ratify the treaty until all have done so and the EU ratifies it as well, so some European countries may have taken the early legislative steps to put themselves on the way to that, but I do not believe that any of them will have ratified it yet.

[Bill Esterson]

Last time I checked, France was still a full member of the EU, with no intention of leaving.

We had the announcement last night, and we have heard the loose interpretation of legal obligations today in the Chamber when it comes to the preparation and delivery of the fourth and fifth carbon plans. That announcement, the approach and what we heard today confirmed the need for today’s debate, and it is why we are right to press the motion.

It is astonishing how quickly the Government have trashed our hard-won reputation for leading the world in responding to the challenges of climate change. Our role as key EU negotiators at Kyoto, our world-leading Climate Change Act 2008 and our progressive reputation at the Paris climate conference all risk being left in tatters if we are seen to be dragged to the table at the last minute as a result of being outside the EU. Whereas China, the US and France, among many others, have all ratified the Paris agreement, despite what the Prime Minister said earlier today, we are being left lagging behind.

At least the Government have moved on from the position under the previous Business Secretary, who refused to let the words “industrial strategy” pass his lips. The new Business Secretary will have to develop a strategy. That is especially true in respect of green energy. The argument for energy, particularly green energy, to be at the heart of our industrial strategy was well made by my hon. Friend the Member for Copeland, and the Minister made similar remarks in his speech.

Last year, we were going to lead the way in Paris with a £1 billion carbon capture and storage competition. The United Nations framework convention on climate change identified CCS as one of the interventions that could help countries worldwide meet emissions reduction targets, yet just a week before the Paris climate conference the Government scrapped their plan, despite the international praise it had received. After the Paris agreement had been signed, the Government abolished DECC, precisely when the Department’s expertise would most sorely be needed. They cut subsidies for green household energy initiatives by 65%, and then they increased subsidies for fossil fuel production at the same time as cutting investment in green technologies. While the cost of green energy has been falling, the Government have instead focused on fracking.

There are signs, with the arrangements for devolution, that we are starting to see the sort of long-term, ambitious vision at a local level that is sadly lacking at the national level. My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Steve Rotheram) is Labour’s candidate for metro mayor for the Liverpool city region. After many false dawns, we finally have a chance for the Mersey barrage to be a reality, developing the high-tech industries that can drive forward the economy and deliver the quality jobs his constituents and mine so badly need, while potentially delivering energy self-sufficiency to the city region. The devolved Administration in Wales are committed to green technology, with eye-catching proposals for tidal lagoons—something mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli. Meanwhile, Sadiq Khan has committed to make London a city run entirely on clean energy by 2050, joining the leaders of 50 Labour-run councils in making a 100% clean-energy pledge. Sadiq and his Labour colleagues recognise the damage being done by harmful emissions to the health of the people they represent.

Labour in local government and in the devolved Administrations wants to deliver on the green agenda, but it cannot do these things alone, and they should not have to be done in a piecemeal way. Why is the green agenda not a national priority, on which Government, local authorities and Assembly Administrations can all work together to deliver as full partners? Where is the underwriting by the Government of the development of our green industries? Where is the Government-backed green energy company to challenge the market and to address complacency from the energy cartel, which is simply not set up to put the needs of residential or business customers first? That is what follows from the short-term nature of the stock market-listed companies that make up the cartel and from their need to put shareholder returns above all else. Where is the development of a national energy strategy to address the very real security concerns about supply? If the Government are committed to the green agenda, why, oh why, did they privatise the Green Investment Bank?

The Government are missing the fact that inconsistency and uncertainty are the enemy of investment. Last year, for the first time, the UK fell out of Ernst & Young’s top 10 most attractive countries for renewables investment. We used to top the table, thanks to clear long-term planning that gave investors confidence, but we fell to fourth in 2013 and 11th in 2015, and now we are 13th. The Government’s inconsistency is also undermining confidence in green tech start-ups. Why has confidence gone among investors? Because the Government have put short-term budget cuts before strategic investment, and because they make and revoke green policy piecemeal and in a vacuum.

There is an overwhelming economic case for the UK to build infrastructure and cutting-edge technologies, not just to meet our Paris agreement commitments. We are well placed to serve the market that exists given that 180 countries signed the Paris agreement. There are nearly 100,000 low-carbon and renewable energy businesses in the UK. UK Government figures value the green economy as a whole at £122 billion a year—double the size of the automotive industry, twice the size of the chemicals industry and five times the gross value added of aerospace.

Green energy is a major trade opportunity. We have signed deals for low-carbon trade of £6.7 billion with China and £3.2 billion with India. The global green energy market is growing at over 4% a year and is expected to reach £5 trillion this year. Trade in green energy has the potential to transform our export prospects just at the moment we most need it, following the Brexit vote.

Then there is the long-term cost of failing to invest. The decision to cut the pioneering CCS project might have saved the Exchequer £1 billion this year, but it is forecast to push the bill for meeting climate change agreements up by more than £30 billion, according to the National Audit Office—a very clear example of false economy. So where is the strategy: where is the coherence? Where is the Government’s fabled long-term plan? Whether we are looking for an environmental, economic or business rationale, the plan simply is not there. No wonder the 100,000 members of the public who signed the petition on ratifying the agreement on environmental grounds were joined by investors worth £13 trillion arguing the business and economic case for early and enthusiastic ratification of Paris.

The complete lack of strategy in green and renewable industries is threatening to rob the UK of a golden opportunity at the very time when it is most needed. The opportunities exist in renewables. They include the potential for us to be self-sufficient, the delivering of energy security, lower prices, a chance to develop world-leading status in a high-tech sector, and a massive export opportunity at a time of great economic need—and all the while we deliver on our obligations to the international community and to the environment.

We have a new Business Secretary: the chance for a fresh start. If he wants to—I hope that he is serious about an industrial strategy and about our global and domestic responsibilities—he has the chance to develop and deliver a strategy that puts the green sector at the heart of what his Government do. He has the chance to support our renewables industry, so that it can be the world leader it wants to be and can be. I hope that he takes the chance he has been given.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Natascha Engel)]

I call Jesse Norman.

Draft Pubs Code (Fees, Costs and Financial Penalties) Regulations 2016

Bill Esterson Excerpts

Monday 18th July 2016 General Committees

[Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Ryan. I join my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham in welcoming the Minister to her post. She follows in some illustrious shoes. I have enjoyed debating with the right hon. Member for Broxtowe (Anna Soubry) over the past nine months or so, especially on the topic of the pubs code and the adjudicator, and on creating a level playing field and a fair arrangement between tied pub tenants and pub-owning companies. I welcome the Minister to that debate and to our attempt to create a fair market for pubs. Indeed, we debated the previous statutory instrument as recently as last Wednesday.

I am sure that the Minister, new though she is to the topic, will understand that it is important to get the measures right. It is quite right that we support community pubs not just because of all that they bring to the community, but so that we support small local business including the increasing number of micro-brewers such as Red Star Brewery from Formby, whose beer was in Strangers Bar not long ago. All hon. Members are able to get the beers of their favourite local brewers into Strangers if they apply.

The regulations need not detain us for too long, but I have a couple of questions for the Minister. I hope she can clarify what I have understood. She mentioned the adjudicator’s role in resolving disputes. I believe she said that the adjudicator sets the level of the fees and decides the nature, size and scale of any penalties that might be implemented in the case of complaints or breaches. Will she confirm that?

The Minister mentioned that the legislation includes a threshold of pub companies owning 500 or more pubs. We debated that topic in Committee for the 2015 Act. There are concerns about pub-owning companies possibly being split into smaller companies that own fewer than 500 pubs. Thereby, the pub-owning company would not be covered by the adjudicator. Will she keep an eye on that particular concern and challenge that has been raised in Committee and outside this place?

My final question is about enforcement. Will the Minister keep in mind concerns about the level of resources that the adjudicator will have, and about his ability to enforce penalties that he might wish to impose? How does the Minister envisage enforcement being carried out, and what is her view, at this early stage in her role, on ensuring that the adjudicator’s office is sufficiently well resourced to achieve what everybody wants, which is the proper balance between tied pub tenants and pub-owning companies? With that, I happily await the Minister’s response.

[Margot James]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his kind comments. He asked whether the level of fees is set by the adjudicator. It is, in fact, set by the regulations, and the adjudicator has discretion within the regulated amount set out in the regulations.

The hon. Gentleman asked me to keep in mind the potential for pub-owning companies to fragment their business such that large sections fall just beneath the threshold of 500 or more tied pubs as set out in the regulations. In that respect, we will certainly keep the operation of the code under review. The adjudicator must report on cases of avoidance if he thinks that unfair practices are going on. There will be some protection by the fact that the level of fines—the 1% of group turnover—applies to the entire group, no matter how many small subdivisions the pub-owning company might establish.

Finally, the hon Gentleman mentioned the issue of resources for the adjudicator. I agree that there is no point having an adjudicator if he is not sufficiently resourced to tackle the many cases that might come before him. We think that the resources established will meet the likely demand, but that will be kept under review. I hope I have answered all the hon. Gentleman’s questions. If I have left one out, perhaps he would like to intervene.

[Bill Esterson]

indicated dissent.

Question put and agreed to.