Marks & Spencer

Bill Esterson Excerpts

Thursday 24th May 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Truly the Minister is a woman of the people.

[Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)]

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

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

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

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

[Claire Perry]

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

[Bill Esterson]

It is not working.

[Claire Perry]

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

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

Parental Bereavement (Leave and Pay) Bill

Bill Esterson Excerpts

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

[Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)]

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

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

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

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

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

[Kevin Hollinrake]

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

[Bill Esterson]

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

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

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

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

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

[Kevin Foster]

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

[Bill Esterson]

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

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

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

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

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

[Michael Tomlinson]

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

[Bill Esterson]

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

--- Later in debate ---

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

[Bill Esterson]

Surely not!

[Richard Harrington]

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Bill Esterson]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bill Esterson Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd May 2018 General Committees

[Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Oral Answers to Questions

Bill Esterson Excerpts

Tuesday 1st May 2018 Commons Chamber

[Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)]

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

[Andrew Griffiths]

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

Draft Companies (Disclosure of Address) (Amendment) Regulations 2018

Bill Esterson Excerpts

Thursday 29th March 2018 General Committees

[Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Sharma. I had planned to trace the history of the Companies Act 2006 and, for the benefit of our illustrious company, to go through the reasons why it was so important that residential addresses, later service addresses, were published, but the Minister has given such a thorough, detailed and lengthy explanation—

[Alex Chalk (Cheltenham) (Con)]

Exhaustive.

[Bill Esterson]

Exhausting or exhaustive? I could not quite catch from the Parliamentary Private Secretary which it was. I leave that for the readers of Hansard to determine for themselves.

I have two questions for the Minister. It is clearly right that the authorities still have access to residential addresses, including for former directors, and that a service address is available. As the Minister rightly set out, for reasons of fraud and the risk of violence and intimidation, and the 2003 cut-off, it is right that directors—as well as, I believe, company secretaries, shareholders and persons with significant control—receive adequate protection. My understanding from research from the fraud prevention organisation, CIFAS, is that one in five victims of recorded cases of such fraud is a company director. As the Minister says, there has been an increased incidence of fraud or risk of violence and intimidation reported to his Department.

It is clearly right that if the service address option exists, it is only fair that all directors, current and former, can take up the option. Will the Minister explain how the redactions are possible? What has changed in the technology to allow that? What is the new process that means it is now possible? Will he confirm that my understanding about full access by the authorities is correct and also that the publication of a service address is important to the wider public? With those replies, we will be happy to support the regulations.

Draft Land Registry Trading Fund (Extension and Amendment) Order 2018

Bill Esterson Excerpts

Monday 19th March 2018 General Committees

[Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir David. In 2014 and in 2016, the Government brought forward proposals to privatise the Land Registry. They seem to do that every two years, and we are another two years on, so forgive us if we sense another opportunity for the Government to privatise—or to put out for consultation to privatise—the Land Registry. My question to the Minister is therefore this: is the draft order part of fattening the calf for slaughter? Is it a chance for the Government to prepare the Land Registry for another go at privatisation? I will explain why that matters before turning to the detail.

The consultations of 2014 and 2016 revealed wholesale opposition and the Government backed down. The reason for the wholesale opposition was, whether for share trading or for buying or selling the family home, the importance of having a trusted, impartial register that is apparent to everyone—to every individual, to everyone in the legal profession, and to everyone in the property profession and across commerce, with the exception, of course, of those who stood to benefit from taking over the highly successful Land Registry itself. There was great interest from the venture capital sector in doing that. Proof of title—proof of ownership—is vital to everyone, as is having trust in that title, which is why it was so important to so many people that privatisation did not go ahead then, and why it is so important that it does not go ahead now.

I mentioned venture capital. The firms that showed an interest on the previous two occasions were venture capital firms in offshore tax havens. That was a cause of great concern, because their interests may well have lain in asset stripping, rather than in ensuring the integrity of our Land Registry system.

Let us look at just what an attractive proposition the Land Registry was. According to his own figures, the then Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, the right hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Sajid Javid), thought that the sale would generate £1.2 billion, yet at the time the Land Registry was bringing in a surplus of up to £100 million a year. I will not do the calculation in my head, but that is a return of something like 8% or 9%. In comparison, interest payments on the national debt lie somewhere under 3%—in 2016-17 they were 2.4% gross and 1.8% net—so selling the Land Registry really does not look like a good way of paying down the national debt, because it would mean turning down a long-term income stream to pay down something with a much lower cost of interest. The financials did not add up: going through with the sale would have meant taking an incoherent approach to economics. Happily, the Government backed down. The question is whether they intend to have another go, either now or in the future.

The Library briefing for the Infrastructure Bill, as it was in 2015, showed that the predicted cost of centralising the local search system was £48.5 million against a projected income of £134 million. It would therefore be highly profitable, and it would increase the attractiveness of the Land Registry to the venture capital sector for a potential sale, hence my comment about whether it amounts to fattening the calf for slaughter.

Turning to the proposal to centralise activities connected to local land searches, an amendment was tabled to the Infrastructure Bill in Committee in the Lords, calling on the Government to produce an implementation plan for making those activities central rather than local and to demonstrate the impact on local authorities. That amendment was withdrawn, but perhaps the Minister can tell us, with a little help from his friends, what the Government’s assessment is of how this measure will be implemented and what the impact will be on local authorities.

The same Library briefing suggests that 850 members of staff are engaged in local land charge activities up and down the country. There are often only two or three in each local authority, but what will happen to them? What will happen to the resources that local authorities currently rely on? What will happen to enable the Land Registry to carry out that work? Will 850 staff be transferred, or will the work be carried out by existing staff? Will fees and charges remain the same? Is this measure going to be cost-neutral, or will it generate the surplus suggested by the figures I quoted—£134 million income against £48.5 million costs—which on the face of it is sizeable? Perhaps the Minister can explain some of those points, look at the analysis and see how this is going to work in practice. Also, is it the case that at present the fees cover costs anyway, or will there be a detrimental effect on local authority budgets as a result? All those points were made in the Library briefing on the Infrastructure Bill.

Perhaps the Minister will give us the answers; in order to understand exactly what is going on, an explanation from him of the business case for moving from the local system to a centralised system will help. As he does so, perhaps we will reach our own conclusions, in addition to whatever answer he gives to my initial question, about whether the draft order is part of a longer term plan to move the Land Registry from the public sector to the private sector.

[Mr Gyimah]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for those questions. Having heard him speak in the House a number of times, I know of his usual scepticism about the private sector. My view, however, is that there are great organisations in both the public sector and the private sector; we need both to run our economy.

On the hon. Gentleman’s specific question about whether the draft order is part of a plan for privatisation, the 2016 autumn statement confirmed that:

“Following consultation the government has decided that HM Land Registry should focus on becoming a more digital data-driven registration business, and to do this will remain in the public sector.”

The Law Society welcomed that announcement. Its then chief executive, Catherine Dixon, said:

“This decision responds to the representations we, and other Land Registry users, made as to the risks of privatisation, and puts the public interests in this important institution first. We look forward to working with the Land Registry to assist it in delivering its ambitious modernisation plans.”

There is therefore no plan for privatisation, but it still makes sense to improve and modernise this fantastic organisation, which is why we need the draft order. As I mentioned in my earlier remarks, the Infrastructure Act gave the Land Registry powers to expand its operations, so consequential amendments to the trading fund are needed to take account of the additional revenues.

The hon. Gentleman asked a number of questions about the local land charges services and about implementation. The 1 March 2018 formal response to the consultation on local land charges rules marked a significant milestone and provides an exciting opportunity to modernise the service. In the first phase, the Land Registry is working with 26 local authorities in England to migrate their local land charges records to the national local land charges digital register service. It is also anticipated that the Land Registry will be able to launch a live service later this year for those 26 local authorities. With regard to how that will be implemented, the Land Registry is building the foundations for a national land charges register, which will happen over the coming year. It will be working with more than 30 local authorities in England to migrate local land charges records to a centralised digital register, which will launch in 2018-19, benefiting up to 125,000 home buyers.

The first phase of migration will establish the foundations for the national local land charges service and help the Land Registry better understand how it can make further migration of more local authorities’ land charges and how to do that more simply and faster, using data more effectively. In the meantime, local authorities are still expected to undertake activity to keep the register up to date.

The hon. Gentleman asked whether any powers have been extended to support the future privatisation of the Land Registry. The answer is simply no. I hope that satisfies him.

[Bill Esterson]

rose—

[Mr Gyimah]

Clearly not, so I will take an intervention.

[Bill Esterson]

I asked about the impact on staff numbers. I quoted figures indicating that there are 850 staff across England and Wales. How many staff does the Minister anticipate will be needed in the Land Registry, and what will be the impact on staff in local authorities? Will fees stay the same or change? Does he accept the figures in the Library briefing, which indicates that this measure will cost £48.5 million and generate £134 million of income?

[Mr Gyimah]

Of course, as I said, the trading fund will have to ensure that its income from fees covers its expenditure under normal operating conditions. The hon. Gentleman asks about the number of staff and what exactly will happen to them. As I wait for inspiration on that point, I will expand on some of the other points that he raised. Local authorities will receive a new burdens payment to assist with this migration so that they are not negatively affected financially, and we are working with new businesses to assess how it will be implemented. [Interruption.] The inspiration seems to have arrived just at the right moment. On average, there will be a reduction in the fee for consumers, and we do not expect this to impact on staff increases at all. I hope he is satisfied—

[Bill Esterson]

rose—

[Mr Gyimah]

Clearly not, so I will take another intervention.

[Bill Esterson]

I think I heard the Minister say that there will be an impact on local authority budgets because there will be an interim period during which there will be support. Is he saying that local authorities will have their budgets cut as a result of this move? Also, there are on average two to three affected staff in each local authority. Will they lose their jobs, or will they transfer to the Land Registry? It would be really helpful to know whether the Land Registry will take on additional staff or use existing staff, because 850 people’s livelihoods are at stake.

Oral Answers to Questions

Bill Esterson Excerpts

Tuesday 13th March 2018 Commons Chamber

[Andrew Griffiths]

As the retail Minister, I recognise the real challenges faced by our high streets and, in particular, by independent businesses. In his spring Budget statement, the Chancellor announced a package of measures for business rate relief, including a £1,000 discount for pubs with rateable values below £100,000, £300 million for local authorities to fund discretionary rate relief, and a cap on rate increases, which means that businesses that lose their small business rate relief will not see their bills increase.

[Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)]

The Minister should stop being quite so complacent. Carillion was a signatory to the prompt payment code; Interserve still is. Carillion suppliers were paid on terms of 120 days, while Interserve subcontractors say that they are being absolutely hammered by late payment. Yesterday the Federation of Small Businesses again highlighted the damage done to growth by late payment. When will Ministers support smaller firms in the public sector supply chain, and enforce the prompt payment code?

[Andrew Griffiths]

We are certainly not complacent, which was why we set up the trade body group to assess the impact of Carillion. The hon. Gentleman will be delighted to know that yesterday I spoke to Phil King, who runs the prompt payment code, and I will be meeting him later this week to discuss how we can tighten up the code and give it real teeth. We are determined to help small businesses.

Pubs Code 2016

Bill Esterson Excerpts

Wednesday 24th January 2018 Westminster Hall

[Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)]

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

[Richard Harrington]

I hope she gets better quickly.

[Bill Esterson]

I will pass on that message from the Minister.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Drew Hendry]

It is a cross-party position.

[Bill Esterson]

Well, there is a Scottish Government of one minority party. Perhaps they will learn from what has happened here and get the implementation right.

We want to hear from the Minister, so I will make only a few further remarks. Tenants’ experience has revealed the process to be drawn out and complicated. Many have to turn to professional legal support, which is expensive and time-consuming. Most worryingly, there have been suggestions that the pubcos are knowingly gaming the code to make it more difficult for tenants to achieve market rent only. That essential plank of the pubs code sought to redress the balance between pubcos and pub tenants.

The adjudicator’s own independent report on the allegations suggested that pub-owning businesses may be operating the code in a way that makes it hard for tied pub tenants to access their MRO rights. It revealed the shocking lengths to which some pubcos go to wear down tenants, including intimidation, bullying and antagonistic, delaying and frustrating behaviour. Tenants are often given terms that make MRO appear as unattractive as possible, such as being arbitrarily forced to provide six months of MRO rent up front. Some pubcos have refused to allow the deed of variation of lease, thus forcing tenants who want MRO to agree a new lease under unfavourable terms. That is pretty damning. I give credit to the adjudicator for carrying out that review, but it is what he does with it and how quickly he acts that matters.

There is identified failure in the full implementation of the code, and Parliament’s intentions have so far not been followed. I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say, and I thank Members for their comments. I hope he can give us a proper assurance that there will be the action that is needed, and not just words.

Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy

Bill Esterson Excerpts

Monday 8th January 2018 Ministerial Corrections

The following is an extract from Questions to the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy on 12 December 2017.

[Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)]

Despite having the fifth biggest economy in the world—soon to be the sixth—the UK is ranked only 48th in the global enterprise league; 48th out of five really takes some doing. But this is not just about the lack of support for start-ups. Among small and medium-sized enterprises business confidence is falling and costs are rising, and, as the Bank of England’s figures show, access to finance is still at its lowest level since 2010. Do the Government have any excuse for their woeful failure to support our smallest businesses?

Draft Designs (International Registration of Industrial Designs) Order 2017

Bill Esterson Excerpts

Wednesday 20th December 2017 General Committees

[Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Sharma. I have a six-page version of my speech, for the benefit of the hon. Member for Lichfield, but I shall leave it on my desk.

The Minister has set out the importance to businesses of protecting our designs internationally. The intervention from the hon. Member for Lichfield was extremely helpful in reminding us how important design is in this country. We are world leaders and should do everything we can to protect intellectual property rights. The impact assessment and the explanatory notes set out well how the order will make matters better for smaller businesses in particular, by simplifying and reducing costs. It is right that we do so.

I cannot help but notice, in the way we are able to take this step now, the contrast with a previous statutory instrument that the Minister introduced. I asked him a written question about the challenges of securing our membership of the Unified Patent Court, which is another important matter. We do not know with any certainty whether we will be able to take the same approach to joining that court as to ratifying the Geneva Act of the Hague agreement.

The draft order has the support of the majority of business, and it is right and proper that we support it. The Opposition are keen to stand up for businesses in this country, especially smaller businesses. I wish all hon. Members a merry Christmas.