Ending Seasonal Changes of Time (Reasoned Opinion)

Bill Esterson Excerpts

Monday 12th November 2018 General Committees

[Kelly Tolhurst]

I do not have the particular detail of how many respondents there were from the UK, but I am more than willing to share that afterwards with my hon. Friend.

[Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)]

In her statement the Minister said that the Government have many concerns, but I did not pick up what they were. She mentioned some of the things that the Commission said, but could she spell out the Government’s concerns about the proposed change in time rather than the procedural stuff?

[Kelly Tolhurst]

My statement clearly laid out the Government’s concerns. First, the proposed timeframe is not acceptable. Secondly, we are not proposing to change summertime. Thirdly, it should be for member states to make such decisions, but this directive starts from a position of harmonisation. Those are just some of the many concerns.

[Kelly Tolhurst]

Currently we do not intend carry out a consultation. We are working with other member states to block the proposal. Obviously, we will respect the implementation of EU rules while we are still a member but at this moment in time we do not want to consult because we are fundamentally against the proposed clock changes.

[Bill Esterson]

To clarify: with my previous question, I hoped that the Minister would tell us the Government’s concerns about the impact of the change on the economy, society, business, the voluntary sector, schools and other areas. Could she spell those out?

[Kelly Tolhurst]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his clarification. He raises an incredibly important point. One of the reasons that we are against the proposal is that we do not know what its impacts will be. The European Commission has not, as far as we are concerned, properly assessed them, and we have not been able to do so, either, in such a short timeframe. To implement this change in such a short timeframe would not be practical when we do not know the impact it would have across the country.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kelly Tolhurst]

First, it is not the timetable I have set out, but the European Commission’s timetable. Fundamentally, that is one of the reasons we object to the proposal, because we do not feel the timeframe is workable. That is obviously backed up by other member states. I have written to the devolved Administrations to get their position. Given the short timeframe, we need to work. It has been accepted by many that a delay of two years would be preferable for member states to do the necessary consultation to implement any potential new directive that comes from the European Union. At that time, once a decision is made, we will look to ensure that we communicate with people.

[Bill Esterson]

Following on from the initial question that my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow asked, can the Minister spell out for us what the procedure is for this proposal being blocked, if the reasoned opinion is supported by the Committee today? How does that get support? Is it a system of majority voting, do we have a veto or is it another system? Can the Minister tell us how this would be allowed to go through or stopped, whichever is more likely, and give us a few scenarios?

[Kelly Tolhurst]

Obviously, we at the stage where member states are debating the proposal and making their positions clear. What I have already outlined is that we are working with other member states to get the European Commission to change its proposals. At such time, there will be a position where all member states will either agree or disagree with the proposal.

--- Later in debate ---

[Bill Esterson]

Well, what an interesting set of sub-questions. We made some progress and got answers in the end; I thank the Minister for that. I will offer just a few additional thoughts.

I was surprised that the Minister said that the Government had not carried out an impact assessment. I gently suggest that they might need to do so because, on the basis of her other answers, we do not appear to be in a position to stop the Commission issuing the directive if it decides to go ahead. That might be helpful to the whole country, whether on the island of Ireland or not.

Opposition Members were trying to be helpful with some of our questions. The questions my hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent asked about the safety of putting the clocks forward and daylight saving time are actually part of the argument to the Commission. They make the point well that we have concerns about what the Commission is proposing. We were being helpful.

There are some health studies about this matter, and I hope that the Government will look into them. A Nobel prize was awarded to chronobiologists this year, and additional work will be carried out to indicate the health benefits or otherwise of changing the clocks—whether the clocks should change or not. I hope that the Government look at that. One issue is disruption to the circadian rhythm—did I pronounce that correctly? [Hon. Members: “Yes.”] Good; I got that one right. The issue is whether moving the clocks helps or not. What is the impact on the circadian rhythm and health? These are important points.

There are points about the impact on the economy. When we were initially looking at daylight saving time and double summer time, for example, we were in a different era. The importance of the agricultural sector in this country and the impact on agricultural workers were of a different nature, but we still have to consider that. We still have to consider the impact on postal workers, on children going to school and on commuters in the early mornings and whether there is an increase in the number of road traffic accidents when the clocks change. These are all important points that need to be taken on board.

We can start to look at evidence from those countries that have made the change that the Commission suggests. The one piece of evidence that my researcher was able to find relates to Iceland, which has been in a position of removing daylight saving time for some years now. Concerns were raised, in the one English language commentary we found on the matter, about the gap between solar and social time and teenagers dropping out. There is a whole other debate to be had on whether teenagers should go to school later in the day, but that is for another Committee on another occasion.

However, there are concerns about health and about the impact on workers. There is some evidence of small energy savings to be had, whichever way round we go.

[Michael Tomlinson]

The hon. Gentleman raises some interesting points about whether we should change the clocks and consider any safety aspects, as was suggested earlier, but this debate is about whether we should issue a reasoned opinion and whether we agree that it should be this House that determines that, or the EU. What is his position on that?

[Bill Esterson]

This debate is about those things, but it is interesting that the documents that we were given cover in some detail all the points that I have raised—without the background, it is very difficult to go forward. I was about to move on—the hon. Gentleman’s intervention was quite timely—to quote paragraph 1.16 of our papers, where his own Committee quotes the Commission, which

“acknowledges, ‘evidence is not conclusive as to whether the benefits of summer time arrangements outweigh the inconveniences linked to a biannual change of time’, leaving room to doubt that a fully harmonised approach is necessary.”

The reasoned opinion that we give back must be as strongly evidenced as possible, if we are to have as much influence as possible. In the absence of certainty of evidence that a change is a good thing, we want to be as strong as possible, along with our allies and partners across the European Union, in influencing the Commission’s final decision.

My hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow was absolutely right to push as strongly as she did the points about what happens in Ireland. She might also have mentioned Gibraltar, of course. It would be very difficult to see differences on either side of those two land borders. These points should go back to the Commission in as strong a manner as possible.

We are due to leave the European Union on 29 March, as the hon. Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole said—I know that he is very passionate that we do leave on that day. As things stand, we are leaving on 29 March. I hope that there will be a good deal, not the inadequate one being put forward by the Prime Minister—it has little to no support from anybody in her own Cabinet, let alone anywhere else—but we absolutely must not have no deal. If we do get a deal, there will be a transitional period. If this goes ahead, we will have to be ready for it, as with so many requirements coming from the European Union. I hope that the Government will do the work necessary to prepare us for that eventuality.

These questions were raised by the European Scrutiny Committee and are set out in paragraphs 1.19 and 1.20. The Minister is well aware of the concerns raised today. I hope that she will go away and ensure that the Government do that preparatory work and carry out their own impact assessment. Perhaps she will write to members of the Committee with her findings as soon as possible, so that the work we have done today is followed up as thoroughly as possible.

Oral Answers to Questions

Bill Esterson Excerpts

Tuesday 16th October 2018 Commons Chamber

[Kelly Tolhurst]

Fundamentally, the Government absolutely support the post office network, and we are determined to make sure that it is provided across the country. As the Minister with responsibility for post offices, I have taken a particular interest in that since taking up my role. I am determined to make sure that we keep the network running across all parts of the country to benefit our communities.

[Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)]

First, I welcome the Minister to the Dispatch Box.

The British Business Bank is simply not reaching most businesses that need support. Only 12% of members of the Federation of Small Businesses apply for external finance, and two thirds of those applications are rejected. In the spirit of cross-party co-operation, how about setting up a network of regional development banks to deliver business finance where it is most needed? The Government have stolen a number of our policies—why not that one?

Draft Business Contract Terms (Assignment of Receivables) Regulations 2018

Bill Esterson Excerpts

Monday 10th September 2018 General Committees

[Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)]

It is always a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Sharma. We are reminded that this place is chock full of lawyers—what would we do without them? Answers on the back of a postcard, please. I welcome the Minister to her first Front-Bench duty. As she said, we share a common heritage on the banks of the Medway—she is my dad’s MP, in fact. It having been a secret ballot, I cannot possibly divulge whether he voted for her. She and I were also Medway councillors before coming here.

Invoice financing can be described as the process of borrowing money to improve cash flow. The regulations suggest a potential demand 10 times that which is currently met through the use of invoice financing by smaller businesses. However, the Minister used the phrase “unintended consequences” in her remarks, and I caution that we need to beware of the potential downside of overuse of invoice financing—at the moment, an estimated 40,000 businesses use it. I say that because customers who see their suppliers relying or over-relying on invoice financing could and sometimes do question their stability. There is a balance to be struck in deciding whether to use something such as factoring, or the assignment of receivables, which is the correct legal term.

There is also a cost to using invoice financing, which is estimated at between 0.5% and 5% of the value of the invoice. As the Minister rightly said, one clear benefit of these regulations is the likely reduction in those costs, because of the reduction in risk and in the time taken up in applying invoice financing. Nevertheless, there is a cost, and it applies only because firms are having to use invoice financing in the first place, because there are alternatives. I shall spend a little time talking about some of them.

As the explanatory memorandum on the regulations tells us, invoice financing is related to cash flow. Note 7.1 describes the importance for businesses of “having adequate cash flow”, but in the same sentence that is set against the requirement to

“access…external sources of finance in order to invest and grow.”

It is very important to recognise the difference between funding and finance for cash flow on the one hand and longer-term finance for investment and growth on the other. They are very different, and the sources of finance should be very different—they cost very different amounts. Invoice financing is not the answer to long-term finance for investment or growth. The phrasing of the explanatory note is a little misleading, as it could suggest that invoice financing plays a part in long-term investment for growth.

Invoice financing is used for cash flow, but in many cases the question is why, because if customers pay promptly, there is no need to use it. We have faced the scourge of late payment in this country for far too long. In my three years on the Front Bench, I have spent a lot of my time discussing it. We have tried at length to address the topic in a couple of the Bill Committees on which I have served. It is the role of the small business commissioner to look at the problem, but his powers are very limited—they are limited to signposting and he has no powers to intervene. I have argued in Committee that he should be given such powers and I will return to that point later. The regulations have the potential to be a distraction from the problem of the lack of prompt payment.

We have a prompt payment code to which many large firms are signatories, but the reality is payment in 60 days—there is a 30-day payment term for Government contracts. The problem is how the code is enforced through the supply chain. As we saw with Carillion, far too often small firms were being paid late and the payment terms were not being enforced. Carillion, which was a signatory to the prompt payment code at the time, extended its payment terms to 120 days from the 60 days of the code. There is a requirement to publish performance against the prompt payment code, but the code is voluntary and therefore there is no assurance of compliance and, in any case, the 60-day requirement is that 95%, not 100%, of invoices are paid within that time.

The Federation of Small Businesses wants better access to invoice financing, and I agree with it, but it is also concerned about late payment. It estimates that large firms owe £6,142 to their small suppliers. It has campaigned on that for 10 years, but the concern remains that large firms use their smallest suppliers to help their cash flow by delaying payments. Some 40,000 firms use invoice discounting, but 50,000 go bust every year as a result of late payment. Thirty-seven per cent. of Federation of Small Businesses members are experiencing cash-flow difficulties, 30% use overdrafts to manage their cash flow and 20% are experiencing a slowdown in profit growth. Welcome though the proposals are, the figures the Minister cited from the explanatory notes estimate the financial benefits of the measure to be in the tens of millions of pounds, rising to the hundreds of millions which, in terms of the economy, are very small benefits.

Invoice financing has its place. Making it harder for large customers to prevent its use is helpful, but that is not the whole answer to the challenges of SME finance. I am struck by the fact that, according to the Federation of Small Businesses, only 9% of businesses approached their bank for finance in 2016. That is a tiny figure. There is a real problem in accessing finance. Today’s measures will address a small part of that problem but there is the bigger challenge of improving both access to finance for long-term investment and growth and the terms and reality of the payment of invoices.

We need a system with teeth. I have on many occasions recommended the Australian system of buying in arbitration, with fines for persistent late payment—a recommendation that found its way into Labour’s manifesto last year. Highways England uses project bank accounts, and I encourage the Minister early in her term of office to use her influence to have them considered much more widely for large Government contracts. They protect against insolvency and improve the reliability and promptness of payment.

I support the proposed change and the Opposition will not oppose the regulations, which lower costs and risks, but I repeat the call I have so often made that we need to improve payment practice. The Government must lead by example through Government contracts and by enforcing terms through the supply chain and helping with access to finance. That is how we will deliver the support that our SMEs need.

Carillion

Bill Esterson Excerpts

Thursday 12th July 2018 Commons Chamber

[Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)]

I congratulate the three Select Committees on the fine work they have carried out in investigating and coming up with conclusions on the Carillion fiasco. I thank my hon. and right hon. Friends—my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds West (Rachel Reeves), who introduced the debate so expertly, my right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton South East (Mr McFadden) and my hon. Friends the Members for Luton North (Kelvin Hopkins) and for Liverpool, Walton (Dan Carden)—for their excellent speeches.

The collapse of Carillion was indeed a fiasco—a fiasco for the 30,000 employees and the 20,000 sub- contractors; for the 27,000 members of its defined pension schemes, who will now have to rely on the Pension Protection Fund for a reduced pension; for the 30,000 suppliers who are owed £2 billion in unpaid invoices; for the children who depended on school meals; for our armed forces personnel whose housing was mismanaged; and for the taxpayer who is picking up the tab for the colossal failure of the Government to safeguard large sums of public money and the delivery of outsourced services and construction contracts.

In Liverpool, the obvious example of the fiasco, as my hon. Friend, and constituency neighbour, the Member for Liverpool, Walton said, is the failure to complete the Royal Liverpool Hospital. Construction came to a grinding halt when Carillion collapsed. It is completely unacceptable that the Government have not taken over the contracts to make sure that, in the interests of patients, the Royal is finished. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton South East said, the same applies to the hospital in Birmingham and the road in Aberdeen. Those are all examples of the fundamental flaws and costs of PFI and, too often, the way in which public contracts are delivered in the private sector.

Last August, Carillion extended payment terms to an outrageous 120 days and charged suppliers a fee for early payment. Such behaviour is indefensible, yet Carillion was a signatory of the prompt payment code. Will the Minister tell us why the Government were not policing their own payment terms and their own code? That prompts the question whether such payment terms are being enforced now. Why were new contracts worth £2 billion awarded after the change of payment terms, after the profit warnings and after the changes in senior management? Why did Government officials accept assurances from Carillion management about the viability of the company, even as it headed towards the cliff edge, and why did Ministers not challenge their own officials? Will the Government support the proposal of the Institute of Directors for a body to be created to police the directors of major companies?

The company continued to pay out executive bonuses and dividends, while reforming its pay policy to protect management from the possibility of having to repay their bonuses. The arrogance and corporate greed that have been described at Carillion simply will not be tolerated any more either by industry or by the wider public. The CBI wants performance in the payment of suppliers to be a consideration in tendering for public contracts. It is also calling for the publication of payment data. Labour Members agree with it and we will be including payment of suppliers as an essential criterion in our procurement policy in government. The next Labour Government will take the action needed to stop the late payment culture that cost our economy £2.5 billion last year and forced 50,000 small businesses to close. This Government have failed to do so. We will guard against insolvency by mandating the use of project bank accounts and retention deposit schemes in public construction contracts.

The chair of KPMG accepts the need for reform, but it is frustrating to learn that he “respectfully disagrees” with Select Committee members who described the firm’s audit of Carillion as complacent. I am afraid that his comments reinforce that very sense of complacency and it is fair to say that many people will respectfully disagree with him. The time has come for an overhaul of our audit system and of the cosy relationships that have come to characterise the way in which the big four accountancy firms operate, so will the Minister tell us whether the Government support the calls for a break-up of the big four accountancy practices? Whether it is the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee saying that they do not follow Treasury process, the abandoned construction site at the Royal Liverpool Hospital, the failure to enforce their own much trumpeted prompt payment code, or ignoring publicly available information about profit warnings, changes of senior management and excessive bonus payments, this Government have been found wanting, all at the cost of public services and the public finances.

The Government have appointed a senior partner at Slaughter and May as an adviser, despite the £8 million in fees paid to the firm by Carillion, which included £1 million on the day before it collapsed. I had hoped that the Government would have learned from the Carillion fiasco, but the Slaughter and May appointment suggests that they have learned nothing. The mismanagement of Carillion’s contracts was a massive failure by the Government, and the worst of rent seeking and wealth extraction by the few at the expense of the many. However, that culture is coming to an end. The public are appalled by the excesses of Carillion, and the consequences of that for suppliers, workers and public services, and so, too, are the vast majority of decent, hard-working, responsible business people.

The next Labour Government will be a strong partner for businesses that want to put the public good first—businesses that want to work with trade unions, recognise that decent pay and conditions are good for business as well as for workers, and want to treat suppliers fairly and pay them well and promptly. Labour will be the party of responsible business and responsible contracting —the party of business for the many, not the few.

Construction Sector Deal

Bill Esterson Excerpts

Thursday 5th July 2018 Commons Chamber

[Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Richard Harrington]

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

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

[Bill Esterson]

A few weeks?

Draft Companies (Miscellaneous Reporting) Regulations 2018

Bill Esterson Excerpts

Wednesday 4th July 2018 General Committees

[Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)]

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

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

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

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

[Catherine West]

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

[Bill Esterson]

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

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

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

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

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

[Michael Fabricant]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Bill Esterson]

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

[Michael Fabricant]

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

[Bill Esterson]

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

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

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

[Catherine West]

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

[Bill Esterson]

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Griffiths]

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

[Bill Esterson]

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

[Andrew Griffiths]

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

[Andrew Griffiths]

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

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

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

[Bill Esterson]

Will the Minister give way?

[Andrew Griffiths]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

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

Nuclear Sector Deal

Bill Esterson Excerpts

Thursday 28th June 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mr Gyimah]

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

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

[Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)]

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

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

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

[Mr Gyimah]

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

Energy Policy

Bill Esterson Excerpts

Monday 25th June 2018 Commons Chamber

[Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Greg Clark]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Oral Answers to Questions

Bill Esterson Excerpts

Tuesday 12th June 2018 Commons Chamber

[Andrew Griffiths]

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

[Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)]

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

Retail Sector

Bill Esterson Excerpts

Wednesday 6th June 2018 Commons Chamber

[Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)]

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

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

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

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

[Bill Esterson]

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

[Helen Goodman]

There isn’t one!

--- Later in debate ---

[Bill Esterson]

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

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

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

“the cost of business rates remains too high”.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Drew Hendry]

Will the shadow Minister give way?

[Bill Esterson]

No.

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

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