Community Bank Closures
Bill Esterson Excerpts(6 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Ruth Smeeth) on securing the debate, in collaboration with the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Mr Wragg). It has been an excellent debate. Many examples were cited, and there was cross-party acknowledgment of the devastating impact on all our communities of the closure of branches of a variety of banks.
The point about the impact on accessibility was well made. Members spoke about the impact on individuals and communities. As the Social Market Foundation points out, 11% of the population rely completely on high street bank branches, and that is typically the older and poorer parts of our communities. This is an example of financial exclusion, and it is a real problem throughout the country. Only 30% of the over-65 population use online banking. That is of particular importance in constituencies such as mine, which is in the top 20 of constituencies for people aged over 65. That is a real cause for concern, to which I shall return later, with examples from my constituency.
Individuals and businesses need banking services to suit their needs. A British Banking Association survey found that 58% of people surveyed stated that access to a branch—using a branch—was important to them, and 57% believed that face-to-face relationships with their bank were important. Those figures go up for businesses: for SMEs, the figures are that 68% believe that a branch is important and that 66% find that face-to-face banking is important. Therefore, the impact of branch closures is felt by individuals in their personal banking and for business banking, with particular impacts on our high streets—our communities. The Federation of Small Businesses warns that it is a great worry for its members that many now struggle to do the banking that they need.
In my constituency, in the last few years alone, we have seen closures of RBS, TSB, the Co-op bank, HBOS and HSBC branches. Alongside those we have seen significant post office closures. I agree with the Members who spoke about the important role that the post office network plays in providing banking services. Unfortunately, I see no evidence of co-ordination between the banks and the Post Office to ensure that post offices provide services in place of banks when there are closures.
In one of the three towns in my constituency—the town of Maghull, where I live—we have seen significant closures, adding Barclays to the list that I gave. The RBS branch in Maghull now opens for only two days, Monday and Friday. As was pointed out to me today by a constituent whose business has to bank the takings every day, that is absolutely hopeless. What are businesses to do on Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday?
NatWest’s justification—it is online and anyone can see it—for the closure of its branch in Maghull includes the point that it is only 3.4 miles to the nearest bank, but that is hopeless if people cannot travel there by bus or car. For many older people, it is completely out of the question. NatWest also states that it consulted its local MP: it clearly thinks that everything is OK because it asked me whether it was all right to close the branch. I did not say that it was, by the way.
We have heard some excellent speeches today. My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent North made points similar to mine about closures in the towns that she represents. She spoke about the vital function of bank branches for businesses depositing the day’s takings, and about the impact of the proposed closure of the LINK network. My hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore (Chris Elmore) spoke about NatWest closures, and said that his constituency now contains only one bank to serve all the communities there. My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North East (Mr Sweeney), among others, mentioned the lack of awareness of post office services. My hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley made a powerful case—
Bill Esterson
I am very sorry—my right hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley. I am pleased to be able to set the record straight.
Bill Esterson
My right hon. Friend is working very hard on this campaign, as well as having worked hard to achieve that recognition in this place.
My hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian (Danielle Rowley) mentioned the RBS closures, as did other Members in all parts of the House. Some spoke in a very heated way and no love was lost on a couple of occasions. An important point was made about the limited response of RBS to the concern that was being expressed about the closures. My hon. Friend the Member for Bury North (James Frith) drew attention to the key role of banks in attracting footfall and trade for other local businesses. He rightly spoke of the importance of Labour’s regional banking offer and the opportunity that it presents for community banking.
Like other Members who spoke, my hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd South (Susan Elan Jones) represents an area that contains only one bank branch to serve all her constituents. My hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield (Phil Wilson) mentioned bus services and said that many of his constituents did not have access to the internet or phone. He also spoke about the impact on his local town centres. My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North East said that bank branch closures hit the poorest communities hardest. He also rightly observed that we might do well to emulate and learn from the successful arrangements in Germany.
These branch closures are happening at a time when banks are making healthy profits. We have to wonder who the customers are, and whether the banks have lost sight of the fact that it is the personal and business banking customers who are their customers. I always thought that putting customers first was the way for a business to operate and succeed. That was certainly a lesson that I learned when I ran a business.
Has the time come to put public good ahead of short-term profit? The challenger banks—such as Metro, which is open seven days a week, and the Bank of Dave, which results from the entrepreneurial approach taken by Dave Fishwick in Burnley—have demonstrated that it is possible to make a success of a bank branch. Is it time for banks and financial services to be seen as a utility, an essential public service that delivers for customers—for high streets, communities and small businesses? We regulate the financial services sector now, and I can tell the Minister that if the Government will not add to that regulation by addressing this issue, a Labour Government certainly will. We will ensure that no closure can happen without proper local consultation, and, crucially, without the approval of the Financial Conduct Authority.
I cannot conclude without mentioning the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), who mentioned RBS and GRG: the systematic abuse, the intentional and co-ordinated approach of management, the clear RBS board responsibility for the mistreatment of small businesses. That serves as another reminder that the current attitude and approach of banks is not what is needed by their customers.
Government must intervene so that the banks work for us. As a number of right hon. and hon. Members have pointed out, the banking access protocol has not delivered. There is an impact on communities, travel, public transport, the environment, economies and businesses from lowering footfall, and there is lower lending in places without bank branches. Some 10% of households do not have the internet, and only 9% of small firms approached their banks in 2016 for finance. All of these things are examples of why the banking system is not delivering.
This is not about the nostalgia of Captain Mainwaring or Walmington-on-Sea; it is about what is needed today. Face-to-face banking for business and personal customers matters, service matters, and bank branches matter and can be alongside the post office. If we put the public good first, we can be successful. The voluntary approach has not worked, and the only organisation that can ensure our banking system delivers is Government. It is time to act.
Trade Bill (Third sitting)
Bill Esterson ExcerptsThursday 25th January 2018
(6 years, 3 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Trade Bill 2017-19 View all Trade Bill 2017-19 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 25 January 2018 - (25 Jan 2018)
The Chair
Could you speak up, please?
Elspeth Macdonald: Yes. This Bill provides for carry-over from existing trade agreements between the EU and third countries. I think that the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill has some influence on this process, too.
Bill Esterson
Q
“the proposed new international trading arrangements…may be on disadvantageous terms compared to the current conditions.”
Could you say what your concerns are about the trade agreements covered in this Bill, and where you see the possibility of them being included on disadvantageous terms?
Gary Stephenson: I assume that refers more to the EU situation, in that in Scotland, a large proportion of our exports are to the EU, and we are clearly looking potentially at more challenging conditions from the standpoint of, “Will the UK be added to the EU list of approved countries?”, and registration of approved establishments. At the moment, it is probably the sheer volume of materials having to pass through customs and border inspection posts and so on that is likely to cause increased trading challenges, unless we get that right, and that is a critical piece.
Bill Esterson
Q
Gary Stephenson: For the EU free trade agreements, I do not necessarily see them being as challenging. The only issue would be—take Korea. We used to export to Korea before the free trade agreement. The free trade agreement came in and basically removed the tariff, so the only difference, hopefully, would be that we are back to a tariff situation, which we did not have during the free trade agreement.
Bill Esterson
Q
Gary Stephenson: I think the issue here is that the EU will still have a say in this. To what extent do we want to negotiate bilateral agreements with these free trade association countries? Or do we want a trilateral-type agreement, which would be a sort of joint EU-UK-third country negotiation?
Bill Esterson
Q
Gary Stephenson: My view would be that a trilateral would be a better option, because you are not looking at changing anything.
Bill Esterson
Q
Elspeth Macdonald: Certainly, in relation to regulatory standards—technical standards—for food, industry and consumers are generally fairly confident and satisfied with the standards in the current EU regulatory framework. Certainly, when we talk to businesses and the public about the regulatory standards governing the food that they eat, and the food that they buy and use in their businesses, in Scotland, there is a generally high degree of satisfaction with EU standards. Any changes in future that began to change those regulatory standards away from those that currently provide a high degree of public health protection and consumer protection would be of some concern.
Bill Esterson
Q
Elspeth Macdonald: My organisation’s perspective on this is probably more around the non-tariff side. Certainly, businesses that we regulate in Scotland will be concerned to ensure that they have as little disruption as possible to their access to markets.
Bill Esterson
Q
Gary Stephenson: That is probably more in the food manufacturers’ area, because how the tariff rate quota is divided up is obviously for negotiation between the UK and the EU. I know that the World Trade Organisation has some influence on how it is divided up. This is where the specific industry sector should be consulted on what it believes would be the fair quota. Any of us is probably not in a position to set out a position on any specific quota. Take lamb as an example: what is a suitable quota that the UK would take back from the EU? It is a complex area, and I think it is best to ask that question of the sector responsible.
Hannah Bardell (Livingston) (SNP)
Q
Gary Stephenson: Wow, that is a big one. There are a number of elements to this. My company is in a fairly unique position in the food industry, in that we already import product into the EU, so we understand the complexities of that process. It is about whether the region you are from is authorised on the EU legislation side. Is your business registered within the EU as a registered business to produce that product? Other countries have similar issues. The US has similar legislation, which requires overseas suppliers to be registered with the Food and Drug Administration.
There is an additional piece: the export health certificates, which are not needed for the EU at present, but will be. Each one of those costs the business. It is not just the cost of the certificates—the vet must come to inspect. Have we got enough vets in the UK to provide that service? That is an additional challenge.
Martin Vickers
Q
David Scott: I appreciate that, but I do not believe that we can. I think the current system works in the best interests of the UK. The Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency is regarded as a powerhouse within the regulatory sphere. If we tried to set up a secondary or different regulatory system, it would not be to the benefit of the UK in terms of how we operate in the global marketplace for some pharma services.
Bill Esterson
Q
Gordon MacIntyre-Kemp: Yes, and I think there is a great deal of confusion around it. I do not believe that there is sufficient clarity in the Bill about what is defined as a free trade agreement, for instance. If you do a deal with a nation that has multiple elements including an element of free trade, does that mean that the Minister would have full powers to do a deal that runs contrary to or overruns devolved powers? What is a specific trade deal? That needs to be defined, so as to limit the scope of the regulatory powers being granted by the Bill. A lot more clarity needs to come through in terms of the legal writing of it.
Bill Esterson
Q
David Scott: From my perspective, it would be good to engage with Life Sciences Scotland, the industry leadership group there, to understand the concerns and any wishes likely to be put forward. There is also the Scottish Lifesciences Association. There are a number of bodies in Scotland that should be spoken to and asked to come provide evidence from that perspective, so you can get a wider perspective on how Scotland’s life sciences community feels, not just in pharma and chemical but in animal health and across the broad remit of research and all these sorts of things, and get some information from the whole body of Scotland that is representative of the wishes of industry and business from that perspective.
Jonathan Hindle: I do not have a particular Scottish perspective on this. Generally speaking, the furnishing and furniture industry is keen to achieve what I am hearing from a lot of other industries: stability and consistency, equivalence and mutual recognition across the process. We are keen to advocate dialogue wherever we can have it to achieve that transition as smoothly as possible.
Bill Esterson
Q
Jonathan Hindle: I cannot say that our industry is concerned at the moment that there will not be consistency; in everything that we are reading, we are told that attempts are being made to make that transition as smooth as possible. We do not currently endure any significant issues. There are some issues with policing and surveillance of some of the standards that we have mutually agreed; that is a current scenario and a problem now. I am hoping that the formation of the Trade Remedies Authority will allow for some more robust investment in policing and surveillance of the standards where we currently endure problems, but I would not say that we are suffering from dumping in the fullest sense of its description in this context, although we are a very substantial net importer. There is a big trade gap that we as a nation endure in our industry.
Gordon MacIntyre-Kemp: You have raised an important point. Business for Scotland represents mainly small and medium-sized enterprises in Scotland. We surveyed 758 businesses and asked for their opinions on how the trade deals in Brexit have been processed and handled. There were 199,000 employees, half of the companies exported, and 41% had at least one non-UK-born EU national on their staff. We found that only 8% of Scottish business owners trusted the UK Government to deliver a deal that works best for Scottish business. Interestingly enough, 76.81% to 77% thought that calling a halt to Brexit would be beneficial to the Scottish economy. I think you have got an issue there: business does not really understand what is going on and there is a great deal of uncertainty. There is more uncertainty and more negativity towards Brexit in Scotland because Scotland voted to remain, and therefore there is less confidence in business as a direct result of that; so you will see that follow through.
I think the period between the point where we are still talking about deals and the point where we can actually start looking at trade deals has to be used for a massive consultation exercise with all the sorts of bodies that David mentioned before, but right across the UK. If we are going to do that we need to be preparing for it now. We need to be talking about it now. We need to be saying, “How are we actually going to deliver this?” Business for Scotland will be able to help, from a Scottish perspective, as much as we possibly can.
Bill Esterson
Q
Gordon MacIntyre-Kemp: Yes.
David Scott: Can I echo that? I think uncertainty is a killer at this point, specifically for my customers, whom I trade with on a global basis. They have a global supply chain and have to make contingency plans to ensure that whatever medicines they make are available to patients. Those contingency plans cannot wait until the eleventh hour or the last minute of any negotiations of any sort. I can tell you that they are starting to put those contingency plans in place now, and that they will have a massive effect on companies such as mine, and companies across the UK that support pharmaceutical R&D and the development and release of products on to the European market.
Hannah Bardell
Q
Perhaps I can start with you, David, and pick up on what has been said about confusion. The way I read your comments was that you were talking about concerns about legislative change under the Bill, and the ability to make changes in primary legislation. As we know, the Law Society of Scotland has raised issues concerning the timescale that that might mean for your organisation and sector. Could you talk about that a bit? Also, I notice from your photograph that you are MHRA and Food and Drug Administration approved. On the impact of leaving, and potential disjoint—we have already lost the European Medicines Agency to Amsterdam—can you talk about the impact on your sector and company?
David Scott: Yes, the potential impact is massive. The whole of the medicines regulation is about harmonisation and working under one single set of standards, which are beneficial and mean that the speed to market of life-saving medicines is reduced. If we try to come up with a different set of regulations or way of working, and have duplication of effort, which is what would happen under the current proposal if we became a third country outside the EEA, pharma will look at us and think, “Is the market big enough?”
We are now a net exporter of pharmaceuticals into the European Union and have a trade surplus. We want to avoid anything that puts us into a deficit. If we cannot get some harmonisation and cannot stick with the current harmonisation, I am concerned that we will lose our reputation—or not our reputation, because the MHRA is one of the best in the world, as far as I am concerned, but the ability to get joined-up connectedness. That would have a massive impact on my industry and my company, without question. I would then be forced, contingency-wise, to say “What do I do? I can’t serve some of my customers’ needs in a different regulatory system.” It is a massive thing for us.
Trade Bill (Second sitting)
Bill Esterson ExcerptsTuesday 23rd January 2018
(6 years, 3 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Trade Bill 2017-19 View all Trade Bill 2017-19 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 23 January 2018 - (23 Jan 2018)
The Chair
Thank you. At quarter to three, I will stop you talking, even if you are mid-sentence.
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)
Q
Dr Fowler: First, Parliament needs to be very clear whether it is happy that the Bill only covers the replicated agreement. You might want to decide that you are happier with these agreements and then do something stronger for the completely new agreements that the UK will be negotiating. I believe that is something that the Secretary of State has indicated he would be open to, but I suggest that Parliament might want to get that nailed down in some way at this stage.
As I have mentioned before, the main issues are the weakness of the CRAGA procedure at the moment—
Bill Esterson
Q
Dr Fowler: For example, you might simply want to have an affirmative motion, a motion for resolution, rather than the negative power that is applicable at the moment. That might be one option that the Government need to bring a motion for affirmative resolution. That is one possibility. Even more important is the preceding stage, which is processes around the signature of the new agreements, particularly where they might have been changed significantly from the existing EU ones. Again, there are things that Parliament could do about transparency, possibly having an approval motion, or recreating some kind of scrutiny reserve, possibly through a Committee. There are all sorts of institutional options, but I think the House might want to look at a set of processes around signature that the House might want to look at.
The Chair
We have a few seconds—I take the opportunity to thank our panel. You have been extremely clear and interesting and will greatly add to Members’ understanding of the Bill. Thank you very much for your evidence. Perhaps if you would like to shuffle off in one direction, the next lot will shuffle in.
Examination of Witnesses
Professor Alan Winters, Michael Clancy and George Peretz gave evidence.
Bill Esterson
Q
George Peretz: Not all WTO law is clear, but what is pretty clear is that we could not simply automatically carry over existing trade remedies imposed by the EU and say, “These remedies will apply to the UK now that it is a separate WTO jurisdiction”—if I can use that term loosely. We cannot do that for one very simply reason: it is a condition of all trade remedies that there is a domestic injury. A domestic injury is defined, and the UK is obviously not the same as the EU. It is potentially an issue that applies the other way around, incidentally, but that it a problem for the EU rather than for us.
As far as I understand it, the Department for International Trade is feeling its way to dealing with this problem. As a first step, it is asking industries that benefit from an existing trade remedy to set out why they think it should continue and to explain what the domestic injury is. There is probably also a need for the UK to discuss with the European Commission what the position is. After all, in its investigation of all these remedies, the Commission will have built up a case file that will include quite a lot of information about what the injury is, some of which will be pinned down geographically. It will be able to say that that is evidence of an injury in the UK. Perhaps that could be used to justify carrying on the remedy after we have left the EU, but it would have to be the judgment of the new Trade Remedies Authority whether that evidence was good enough to withstand domestic scrutiny and appeals and, ultimately, a possible WTO challenge. There is a very difficult set of issues there, which will be a challenge for DIT and the TRA.
Craig Whittaker (Calder Valley) (Con)
Q
George Peretz: I do not claim to be a great expert in parliamentary procedure, and I am not sure that I can add very much to what Brigid Fowler said about that—she is an expert on parliamentary procedure.
Plainly, there is an opportunity to challenge a statutory instrument that uses the negative resolution procedure, but clearly it is less likely to be challenged—just look at the statistics—than a piece of primary legislation, because one fundamental point about any statutory instrument is that the vote is simply an all-or-nothing vote on the instrument. There is no ability to have the primary legislation to say, “We agree with most of this clause but we don’t like clause 5, therefore we would like to amend that.” It is take-it-or-leave-it. The problem with a lot of this is that you will be told that the clock is running and you need to decide very quickly what to do.
Professor Winters: There is very little time, so be realistic about what the cost of a challenge would be and the pressures that that would generate.
Michael Clancy: It is the balance between speed and scrutiny—that is the whole point. To get that right is quite difficult with a negative or indeed an affirmative resolution procedure. Although theoretically each of these could be debated, I think it would be very difficult to get each of these debated. There simply is not enough time to do that—we are told that there are between 800 and 1,000 orders in relation to the EUWB. I do not know how many of them might be here—63 existing trade treaties, maybe more, and other things as well. That is the difficulty.
What are the defects? The defects are that we have an alternative procedure of super-affirmative if we need extra time to look at something—that is where the sift comes in. If the sift identifies a particular order as being important, it might then get better scrutiny, and better scrutiny might mean the affirmative resolution procedure on a super-affirmative basis. We do not know that the sift applies to these orders because the sift is not mentioned in this Bill. Will it be? Are you going to propose amendments? Is the Government going to take that forward to this Bill? That is another story for another day perhaps.
Then there is the issue—I think it is in one of the Hansard Society papers—of the difficulty, in fact the incapability, of amending these orders. They have to be taken back by the Minister and re-presented. That induces time and delay, and we are running out time and inducing delay.
Barry Gardiner
Q
Cliff Stevenson: Yes, what would definitely be of importance is to have a substantial report submitted to Parliament on an annual basis. In the Taxation (Cross-border Trade) Bill, there is a provision on reporting. There is already a proposal for there to be an annual report. The EU anti-dumping regulation is quite specific about what the European Commission must report to the European Parliament in terms of the statistics it must provide. A little more detail ensuring that certain things were provided in this report would be useful.
Tom Reynolds: The question about Parliament’s ongoing role with the Trade Remedies Authority is an interesting one, but so is Parliament’s role in setting up the rules for the system. The point made by Jude Kirton-Darling earlier on about the level of involvement of MEPs in scrutinising and offering amendments on, for instance, the new anti-dumping methodology and the TDI modernisation, which was mentioned, has been integral in improving that legislation from the Commission’s original proposals. I would be more comfortable if there was a more rigorous approach for parliamentarians to get involved in the setting of the rules for the system as well.
Bill Esterson
Q
Gareth Stace: Do you mean the board?
Bill Esterson
Yes.
Gareth Stace: The board needs to represent interests. From my point of view, I would like to see someone from industry and someone from the trade unions on that board to provide that balance, clarity and expertise as well. That could be set out in primary legislation. It is not there now.
Tom Reynolds: One of the most successful acts of Parliament in setting up a non-departmental public body over the years has been the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974, which stipulates that the Secretary of State, in making appointments to the commission—now the HSE board—must consult with organisations for three of the members. There could be representatives of the employers, and three of the representatives could be from the trade unions. That sort of model might lend itself well to the establishment of the Trade Remedies Authority and the appointments made to the non-exec board.
Gareth Stace: However, we would not want anything that you would add to it that would then create more work and delay measures in place or delay the investigations that would take place by the authority.
Bill Esterson
Q
Gareth Stace: There is a whole range of “if we don’t get this right”. If we get this very wrong, we become the dumping ground—not just in Europe, but for the rest of the world. Think of the steel sector, which thrives on free, liberalised trade. That is what we are. Over a third of all steel produced travels across borders globally.
Also, something crucial, in particular for the steel sector, is that in 1994 we agreed as a sector with Governments to abolish all customs tariffs for steel for developed countries. There are no tariffs. So when you think about us coming out of the EU, whatever agreement or not is put in place, we as steel will not be subject to customs tariffs. That is not an issue for us—non-tariff barriers are an issue for us, but not tariff barriers. That enabled us to be even more liberalised in terms of trade. What supports that? Trade remedies support that: they are the safety valve that enables free trade to take place. Sometimes the debate turns the other way round, as if trade remedies were there to provide protectionism. We would say that if there were not a strong trade remedies regime in the UK or anywhere else in the world then you would see a rise in protectionism, with weak trade remedies.
There is a whole range of things that could go wrong. When the investigations take place in the end, will they find that there is no injury or dumping for whatever reason, even if there is? If they do find that there has been injury or dumping, what are the tariff levels that are set? Are they high enough to stop the illegal trade in the UK—the dumped steel that is against WTO rules? If the endgame is not that those tariffs are high enough, then we have a problem.
Bill Esterson
Q
Tom Reynolds: We have a very similar experience. We are a sector that thrives on international trade: we export over half a billion pounds’ worth of products each year. We are not protectionist. However, as the Government have rightly pointed out, free trade does not mean trade without rules, and unfortunately some of our trading partners do not play by those rules. Examples from our sector include cases involving tiles and tableware. In the case of tiles, imports rose from a fairly stable level of around £4 million worth of tiles a year from China up to 2004, and rocketed in less than a decade to over £30 million worth of imports from China. If you were to look at volume, it was an even sharper rise.
The European Union introduced anti-dumping measures in 2011, which were not enormous—they are not the 230% tariffs that the United States has looked at. They were between 13% for co-operating companies in China, up to just short of 70% for non-co-operating companies. The introduction of those measures allowed our UK industry to stabilise and invest. As a result, employment has gone up by 40% in the sector, with even further boosts to the supply chain as well. All that could be at risk if we get things wrong.
It is worth noting that in 2011 the UK Government voted against the tiles measures in Council. That was understandable because the UK’s role within the European Union was as a liberal counterweight across the 28 member states. As we forge an independent trade policy we have a different role, but some of the most experienced civil servants and experts are steeped in that heritage of the UK being the liberal counterweight within the European Union. That is why we come back to this point about a non-exec board being a watchdog, ensuring a balanced system in the UK. It is an integral part of getting things right.
Bill Esterson
Q
Tom Reynolds: It is not something that the BCC or the Manufacturing Trade Remedies Alliance has made a submission on; it is something that we would have to consider, and maybe we can write to the Committee.
Faisal Rashid
Q
Cliff Stevenson: Obviously, the wording is not effective at the moment in terms of ensuring that there is a balanced composition of those members. If you look elsewhere and compare, the closest major trade remedy regime to the UK’s proposed system is Australia’s. It has a separate anti-dumping commission that works in a similar way to how the Trade Remedies Authority would work, but there is a big difference in the sense that it is headed up by one person, an anti-dumping commissioner: there is not a committee or a group of members in the way that is proposed for the UK.
One concern I slightly have with this is that it is an extra level of decision making. There is no detail on how the members might make a decision—whether they would vote if they disagreed—and that could hold up investigations, which are always subject to very severe time limits given the amount of work that has to be done.
In the US and Canada, for example, there are examples of independent bodies such as the United States International Trade Commission, which does the injury determination for the cases. It is a completely independent body that has six commissioners who vote at the end of the investigation. If there is a positive finding of injury and three out of six vote in favour, it will be an affirmative determination. In that case, where there is a quasi-judicial system where it is completely separate and not under any political control, there are these commissioners taking a vote on the basis of the technical information.
Gareth Stace: You have to look at what the TRA and the whole system is trying to achieve. Why is it being set up? It is being set up because we are leaving the EU. Is that an opportunity to have a system that is fleet of foot, quite simple and employs fewer people than the European Commission does?
That is why a year ago we, as UK Steel, said that actually what this arm’s-length, independent body could be doing is just looking at the dumping margin, because that is a really simple, straightforward—almost—calculation. It is what they do in the US, which is seen as a champion of free trade, and we want to create strong links with the US going forward. There was that opportunity to do that, and so the make-up of the TRA and the committee would not be as important as if it was then doing the injury calculation—that is much more of a black box. You stick a load of numbers in, and you hope that something will come out. You twiddle some dials as well, and the tariffs come out of that. So you probably do then need some independent committee to look at it, but how much are they going to influence—[Interruption.]
Faisal Rashid
Mr Jones, would you like to add anything?
Stephen Jones: No, I have nothing specific to add in relation to Africa in general.
On a more generic point in relation to the Trade Bill, it is obviously focused on existing trade agreements and economic partnership agreements. From a services perspective, we need to look beyond that and reflect on arrangements that exist beyond that, which are critical to the cross-border flow of trade in services, because there are very few provisions and services agreements in trade treaties that relate to services. There are lots of mutual recognitions and memorandums of understanding that relate to infrastructure, to recognition and co-operation between supervisors, to the flow of data and to the recognition of exchanges, but which do not exist within the context of a trade agreement. They nevertheless facilitate cross-border trade in services that already exists between the EU—including the UK—and other jurisdictions. It is very important that we do not lose sight of those specific provisions, but seek to mirror them so far as the financial services industry is concerned, simply because the existing trade treaty provision is so poor in services.
Bill Esterson
Stephen Jones, you are the UK Finance representative. Sorry, it has been a long day. Can I ask about the written evidence you gave to the Procedure Committee, where you indicated the benefits of a triage or sifting process and stated how you might apply those when looking at new trade agreements? For the purposes of the phrase “new trade agreements”, given some of the evidence we have heard today, can we include anything that changes the agreements that are part of this Bill? Can you explain what you think the merit of such an approach would be, how you might apply it, and the importance of such a sifting process?
Stephen Jones: Given the time available in the context of Brexit, from the perspective of the financial services industry, clearly continuity, speed and the correct process and scrutiny to transpose the existing trade arrangements that the EU has with the rest of the world to the UK are incredibly important for continuity. That does not directly benefit the financial services industry. It benefits mostly the customers of the financial services industry, but in that context it is very important.
To the extent that your question relates to prioritising whether one should seek to amend the agreements in order to ensure more robust coverage of services within the context of those agreements, I think that in the first phase that is unrealistic. There is not enough time. What we need is as much certainty as we can get. Business in general needs as much certainty as it can get in terms of the transposition of the existing EU arrangements.
In terms of the ongoing amendment of those treaties to seek to extend them and prioritise what should be done—the sifting process, if you like, for services—we can develop a modus operandi in terms of markets that are important. However, as I say, there are significant factors beyond trade agreements that influence the ability to conduct cross-border business between the UK and the rest of the world. Those are a susceptibility to inward investment; strong regulatory and supervisory co-operation; aspects of data protection and the willingness to mutually recognise the cross-border sharing of data; and infrastructure, with the recognition on a cross-border basis of critical market infrastructure in each jurisdiction, such that member firms in each place are able to access and utilise the infrastructure in the other country. To the extent that that can be captured within a trade agreement, that is great.
To date, that has failed and our focus very much is on an ambition for the UK with the EU to seek to build an ambitious free trade agreement that has not been attempted in services anywhere else in the world. But we believe it should be attempted in the current context, simply because of the importance of the cross-dependencies that already exist and the fact that we are starting with a fully converged rulebook, which is extremely unusual in a trade negotiation context. So we believe that there is the prospect of an ambitious mutual recognition-based trade agreement in services between the UK and the EU and that potentially should be the first focus, to the extent that we are talking about prioritisation of negotiation of trade agreements.
Bill Esterson
Q
Stephen Jones: I think we are talking about beyond transition. From a transition perspective, the only realistic thing that we believe can be achieved is a prolongation of the acquis, which is a full adoption of the existing rule book lock, stock and barrel. The chances of seeking to amend or renegotiate that in the time that is available are wholly unrealistic, and what is far more important is certainty through the transition period. The only way you can deliver that certainty is simply to take forward the existing rule book.
Bill Esterson
Q
Stephen Jones: In terms of the prolongation of the acquis—that is, the adoption of rules on day one—in a sense those rules are already on for the purposes of transition. Those rules have already been adopted by the UK. I recognise the sovereignty of Parliament and the importance of scrutiny, but to the extent that the rules are not being changed we are simply extending arrangements that continue to exist. The Bill’s provisions relating to Ministers’ 10-year power to use secondary legislation to renegotiate those rules strike me as pretty broad-brush, and they potentially should benefit from greater parliamentary scrutiny than is currently contemplated.
Bill Esterson
Q
Stephen Jones: Broadly, I do not think it is realistic to expect changes. In that context, the secondary legislation ministerial power provisions are broadly acceptable, but beyond that, to the extent that arrangements are adapted to the UK as an independent country with its own trade policy, I would suggest that they merit parliamentary scrutiny.
Bill Esterson
Q
William Bain: The nature of the transition impinges on terms in the Bill, and the retail industry is keen to have a standstill transition in all elements—in terms of the current customs rules, the current tariff rules and the current SPS rules—but it also applies to the trade facilitation that we get from the bilateral trade agreements, which fit into part 1 of the Bill. I cannot stress how important it is to the retail sector, which imports products from countries like Chile, Peru, South Africa and Turkey, that we do not have a discontinuity in our trading arrangements at any stage after 29 March 2019. There are some connections and points of commonality with the kind of transitional deal that is done, but in a sense this is a slightly separate question. It really demands clear attention from the Government in order to get the job done by 29 March next year.
Barry Gardiner
Q
We are talking about 100 separate agreements between the EU and Switzerland alone, some of which include free movement of people. There are going to be some major changes, such as those we talked about with Turkey and the customs union, and with Norway, free movement of people and the four freedoms. Do you not think, given that you have already recommended a sift Committee in one form, that a similar sort of mechanism for trying to distinguish between what is and what is not vital, and what should have parliamentary scrutiny, is a sensible way to proceed?
Stephen Jones: Yes, sorry; forgive me for the lack of clarity. My reference was really to the existing provisions between the UK and the EU in relation to financial services. In my assessment, for the purposes of transition and of business services in financial services, the chances of change, and therefore of the need for sift, are zero. There just is not the time. In the context of other areas, where there is an assessment that change is possible, the sift Committee strikes me as a very sensible mechanism to prioritise and assess those changes and the degree of scrutiny that is required.
RBS Global Restructuring Group and SMEs
Bill Esterson Excerpts(6 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)
I hope the Government will listen to the overwhelming case that has been well made on both sides of the House—including by speaker after speaker on the Government Back Benches—for action on behalf of small businesses in our constituencies.
We started with a powerful speech from my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich South (Clive Lewis), and I commend him and the all-party parliamentary group on fair business banking and finance for bringing this issue forward. I also thank all Members who have taken part in the debate and particularly my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff Central (Jo Stevens), my right hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Mr Campbell) and my hon. Friends the Members for West Bromwich West (Mr Bailey), for Bridgend (Mrs Moon), for Manchester, Withington (Jeff Smith), for Vale of Clwyd (Chris Ruane), for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Ged Killen), for City of Chester (Christian Matheson), for Poplar and Limehouse (Jim Fitzpatrick), for Ogmore (Chris Elmore), for Gower (Tonia Antoniazzi), for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green) and for East Lothian (Martin Whitfield).
When Carillion went bust at the start of the week, it struck me that there were similarities with the way that RBS treated its small business customers. In both cases, smaller businesses—Carillion’s suppliers and RBS customers—have been imperilled by the actions of much larger players. I know of at least one business that, having been put into GRG, is still in the successor division, years later, and as of this week is owed tens of thousands by Carillion that it is never going to receive. It is not good enough. The mistreatment of smaller firms must stop.
The news that banks are to provide additional support for Carillion’s suppliers is of course welcome, but this must not be just a short-term, headline-grabbing announcement. It must mean longer-term support, of the sort that was sorely lacking in RBS GRG and of the kind that was put in place by the Labour Government to support suppliers with the creation of the taskforce following the collapse of Rover in 2005. That is a good example for Ministers to follow.
What happened at RBS GRG was nothing short of a scandal and a disaster for the victims. Businesses were ruined, families were torn apart and people took their own lives. My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff Central reminded us of the criminal convictions at Lloyds HBOS. There are many—some mentioned it today—who believe criminal investigations to be the appropriate way forward at RBS GRG. Justice is a vital step in the long process of rebuilding trust in business lending, which in 2016 was still so low that only 9% of smaller firms approached their bank to borrow money—and they did not all borrow. It is crucial to the success of our economy that there is a healthy relationship between the banks and smaller firms. We need our smaller firms to play their full part in contributing to the prosperity of this country. Relationships of trust are crucial.
The next Labour Government will introduce a network of regional development banks to support smaller firms, but those firms also need the help of the traditional banking sector and they need it now. Let us remember that, according to the Promontory report, 83% of businesses that were put into GRG were the subject of inappropriate treatment. Two thirds of businesses were viable, yet depending on which figures we look at, only 5% or 10% survived the process. The figure for inappropriate treatment of those who were potentially viable is higher, at 92%.
According to the then head of global markets, RBS decided to exit non-core markets. In practice, that meant getting businesses off its books as fast as possible, not by telling its business customers so that they could move to a new bank, but by putting them into intensive care—or rather, a slaughterhouse or mortuary, or on death row, to borrow the phrases used by my hon. Friends—charging exorbitant fees, using their own valuations and using interest rate-hedging products. Then there was the freezing of personal bank accounts, something that happened to my constituent John Pile. Mr Pile had never previously missed a mortgage payment on his commercial properties, yet the result for him and his family was the bank claiming that he had defaulted, despite having substantial sums of money in his personal account, which was frozen. He could have used that money, but was prevented from doing so by the same bank.
Customers who were making decent profits, whose rental incomes were well in excess of their interest payments, were put into GRG on the spurious grounds that their loan-to-values had suddenly dropped, on the basis of revaluations carried out by the bank’s own valuers. Then there was the overnight demand of repayment of overdrafts that were a key part of the day-to-day operations of many businesses. This was not proper turnaround practice—it was not turnaround practice at all for the customers. It was more like the turnaround of the bank at the expense of its customers. Perhaps the name, Global Restructuring Group, was a clue. It was a division responsible for the restructuring of the bank, not the small businesses that banked there.
Which brings me to the call for a full independent inquiry. Promontory carried out part one of its investigation for the Financial Conduct Authority. RBS does not want the report published, although much of it is now in the public domain, but nor does RBS want Promontory to carry out part two. Instead of sticking to its guns, the FCA has complied with the demands of the bank that it is supposed to regulate and gone for the in-house option. The suspicion will remain that such an approach means a lack of independence on RBS by its regulator. We know that the FCA is afraid of legal action if it publishes part one of the Promontory report because it told the Treasury Committee that, but it will simply not help to rebuild trust if the regulator is in fear of a bank and feels restricted in its ability to provide full oversight.
There are still many questions to be answered. Why were viable business customers put into GRG? At Ulster Bank, a substantial part of its business was deemed non-core and its customers were nearly all put into GRG. Meanwhile, there are disturbing parallels at other banks, affecting Dunbar Bank business customers and Acorn Finance, and we also heard about Bibby. They all tell a similar story to the RBS GRG story. Why did RBS not tell its customers when they were no longer core business and give them the chance to move to other banks? Who in management knew? Where was the oversight in the Treasury? Promontory says that management knew, so when will those responsible be held accountable? Why did GRG not follow turnaround procedures? This all needs to be in the public domain and properly acknowledged.
Until those questions are answered and those responsible held accountable, the victims will be denied justice, we will remain at 9% of smaller businesses asking their banks about borrowing money, and investment, productivity and prosperity will all be undermined. As my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich South says in the motion, the call, which has been well evidenced today, is for a robust system of dispute resolution. It is needed to overcome the imbalance of power in the relationship between smaller firms and their banks. That is also why the call for an inquiry into the treatment of SMEs by financial institutions and the protections afforded to them is the right call. And yes, it should look at all banks, not just RBS. No one else can intervene and ensure fair treatment. The regulator has had to restrict its activities under RBS pressure. Unless and until the Government intervene, this injustice and the long-term economic effects will continue to hold back a crucial part of our economy.
The issue of how RBS GRG treated its smaller business customers will not go away. The victims will not go away. Those of us across the House who want to see justice will not go away. The Government must now ensure that justice is done and seen to be done.
Draft Deregulation Act 2015, the Small Business, Enterprise and Employment Act 2015 and the Insolvency (amendment) Act (Northern Ireland) 2016 (Consequential Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Regulations 2017
Bill Esterson Excerpts(7 years, 2 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Pritchard.
I welcome the Whip, who I understand is taking the place of the Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, the hon. Member for Stourbridge because she is unable to join us for family reasons in what are sad circumstances. I am sure that he will deputise for her extremely well. He was certainly very brief in his comments. I suspect that I shall be slightly less brief, but here goes.
The Government made some significant changes to insolvency law in 2015 through the Deregulation Act and the Small Business, Enterprise and Employment Act, and in 2016 through the Insolvency (Amendment) Act (Northern Ireland). The Government’s intention in making the changes was to decrease undue regulation and reduce cost. However, the primary legislation that enacted the changes was not applicable to all kinds of financial services, as the Minister said, because such organisations tend to have special insolvency regimes, given their unique position.
The Opposition will not oppose the statutory instrument today, but we have some specific concerns about the provisions, which I hope the Minister will be able to address. The regulations extend section 17 of the Deregulation Act 2015, which made changes to the licensing regime for insolvency practitioners, to financial services. Previously, practitioners were granted an insolvency licence that allowed them to act in relation to both corporate and personal insolvency cases.
My concern is that bankruptcy is very different from corporate insolvency. As some insolvency practitioners have pointed out, if someone acts only on bankruptcy, how can they understand corporate insolvency? Likewise, if someone has been doing corporate insolvencies all their life, how can they understand adequately what is involved for a sole trader or a partnership, or for personal bankruptcy as a whole? I would be interested to hear the Minister’s analysis of that point.
A question was asked in the Deregulation Public Bill Committee about the impact on the quality of professional work of requiring practitioners to pass only one part of the insolvency exams. It is an extremely rigorous set of qualifications. I worked for an insolvency practitioner a very long time ago, and the qualified insolvency practitioners in the firm generally came from a cohort of which only 2% passed the professional exams, such are the high standards in the profession. There has been great concern about the impact of these changes on the profession.
Similarly, the Opposition had serious concerns about section 118 of the Small Business, Enterprise and Employment Act 2015, which is also extended to financial services through this statutory instrument. That section amended the Insolvency Act 1986 to allow a liquidator or administrator to assign causes of action that arise on a company going into liquidation or administration. Opposition Members said of the section:
“This clause would allow the office holder to assign not only the right of action but the proceeds of such action. By ensuring that the purchaser would stand to gain fully from potential benefits arising from the action, alongside bearing all the risk and cost of pursuing the claim, the Government are assuming that a clear incentive will be created to pursue more wrongdoers. The clause may well deliver in that regard. However, there may be other, unintended consequences.”––[Official Report, Small Business, Enterprise and Employment Public Bill Committee, 4 November 2014; c. 445.]
I would be grateful if the Minister gave us examples of how the section has been implemented thus far to help us understand its extension to financial services.
The statutory instrument includes measures to support unsecured creditors, but may I ask about the impact on staff? Staff are ring-fenced in insolvency proceedings and have been for some time, but there is a limit to how much money is recovered for redundancy payments during insolvencies. We have seen that in high-profile examples, such as BHS and Comet. I had a Comet store in my constituency, so I know how much money staff members were still owed after the Government-backed scheme was exhausted. Will the changes to the support for unsecured creditors make any difference in helping staff to recover the excess amounts not covered by the Government schemes, or is this just a more general set of changes for unsecured creditors?
Similarly, there is the opportunity for administrators to take action against directors for fraudulent or wrongful trading. Will the Minister give us examples of where the provisions that have already been approved outside financial services have been applied? That will indicate whether there will be successful additional action when they apply to financial services.
I mentioned two high-profile cases, but there are a number of others. There is great concern inside and outside Parliament about the actions of some directors. Philip Green is a notable example; we are all familiar with his having agreed a sum of £363 million out of a £571 million pension shortfall. Is that an example, or are there other examples, of where the changes in regulations will enable action to be taken against directors to ensure that they act in the way that most people would expect them to? Do the terms “fraudulent or wrongful trading” cover those sorts of examples? Can we be given some assurance that the changes, which the Opposition broadly welcomed when the original legislation was passed, have started to create the intended improvements and have been helpful in supporting creditors and ensuring that directors take a more responsible attitude to business?
With those remarks and questions, I am happy to say that we broadly support the changes that have been introduced. We were pleased that the Government introduced them at the time. Having put our concerns on record, I look forward to the answers. We will not oppose the regulations.
The Chair
Of course, this is Parliament and I want to encourage as full a debate as possible, but for the guidance of Members, we are expecting a series of votes in about nine or 10 minutes.
Stephen Barclay
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Sefton Central for his broad support for the regulations, which essentially focus on tidying up measures relating to the financial services sector. He referred to Philip Green. The focus of the regulations is to target not the retail sector as a whole, but the financial sector specifically.
The hon. Gentleman raised a number of points. In the absence of the Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, my hon. Friend the Member for Stourbridge, I will answer them as best I can. First, he referred to section 17 of the Deregulation Act 2015 and the difference between bankruptcy and corporate insolvency. He asked whether those who are trained to act on one will understand the other. The key point is that we intend that there will be a general paper, and that people can specialise within that. We are separating out the authorisations to allow insolvency practitioners to specialise in one or the other, but there will still be an initial general paper covering both.
I am happy to write to the hon. Gentleman to provide clarification and further detail on his points about fraudulent or wrongful activity and the extension to financial services. The key point to make to the Committee is that we have had a much wider debate on the changes that are being made to insolvency, and I do not want to revisit that wider debate today. We are here to debate the specific impact on financial stability and how we amend the legislation to fit with those wider reforms.
The hon. Gentleman asked about the impact on staff and the extent to which we ring-fence for insolvency procedures. He mentioned the Comet case specifically, which I know caused numerous concerns. The reforms are intended to benefit creditors by removing red tape. Therefore, as far as insolvency procedures are concerned, staff are often creditors and will benefit from the reforms. I hope that that reassures him that where instances like Comet arise in future, there will be some benefits from this exercise.
I am grateful to the Committee for its consideration—
Bill Esterson
The Minister kindly offered to write to me on one matter. Perhaps when he does, he could flesh out some of the other points a little more. In particular, can he give details of how staff will benefit, rather than the more general point that he just made? I appreciate that he is probably not in a position to tell me that in detail now, so perhaps that will be an opportunity to address the point more fully.
Stephen Barclay
I am happy to provide the hon. Gentleman with a much fuller example, and I commit to writing to him on that basis.
Subject to there being no further comments from Members, I am very grateful to the Committee for its consideration of the regulations today and for the points that have been made. In summary, the regulations make consequential amendments to the special insolvency procedures for financial sector firms to take account of the reforms that we have discussed. I ask the Committee to support the changes.
Question put and agreed to.
Oral Answers to Questions
Bill Esterson Excerpts(7 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Hammond
The Government will, of course, consider all proposals for infrastructure investment on their merits. When the industrial strategy Green Paper is published, it will set out the Government’s approach to prioritising infrastructure to support the economy.
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)
When the Chancellor considers the effect of bringing in quarterly reporting, will he look at the figures showing that only 25% of our smaller businesses have maintained electronic accounting records and that 38% lack basic digital skills? Will he listen to what the Chair of the Treasury Committee said when he described this as a potential “disaster”?
Jane Ellison
I always listen to what the Chairman of the Treasury Committee says. I am considering the Committee’s very useful report carefully. Of course, it acknowledged that the digitisation of the tax service represents the direction in which we should be travelling, but we are looking carefully at the possible impacts on small businesses, many thousands of which we have already exempted through our existing announcements.
Oral Answers to Questions
Bill Esterson Excerpts(7 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Hammond
My hon. Friend is absolutely right and of course flood defences are categorised as economic infrastructure precisely because they are a critical enabler of business activity and are critical to protect transport, communications, infrastructure and so on, and we will continue to invest in them.
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)
It is about time we heard from this Government about support for our coastal economies because we have just seen, in last week’s autumn statement, a catalogue of six and a half years of abject failure, whether on infrastructure, skills or support for businesses. The coastal communities of Formby and Crosby in my constituency need to hear a lot more from the Chancellor. They need support now and in the future.
Mr Hammond
If the hon. Gentleman had been listening, what he would have heard last week was a catalogue of 2.7 million new jobs created over the last six and a half years, a deficit inherited from Labour at a peacetime record high slashed by two-thirds, a million new jobs created in the UK, record employment levels and 865,000 fewer workless households, all of which will have made an important contribution to improving living standards and prospects in coastal communities throughout the UK.
Enterprise Bill [Lords]
Bill Esterson Excerpts(8 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Brandon Lewis
No, I am not going to take an intervention. We need to allow other hon. Members to have their say.
We have listened to the principled opposition to our plans. I have listened to colleagues who have made strong, passionate and clear proposals to us, and we are amending them accordingly with our proposal for an exploratory evaluative phase, which we will lay amendments for in the other place—a draft is available for colleagues to look at now. I therefore call on all Members to support the Government’s amendment and to vote against amendment 1.
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)
Welcome to our deliberations, Madam Deputy Speaker. I should refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.
That really was the “Trust me, I’m Honest Brandon” speech: “We’ve got it wrong so far. We promise to do better next time, so I’m begging you to support me, despite making such a mess of things so far.” Honestly, have we ever heard anything quite so absurd?
The Minister asked why we did not vote against the measure in Committee, so I will read him what my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff West (Kevin Brennan) said then:
“I will cut short my comments and simply say that we are against these proposals—”
that sounds pretty clear to me—
“but we will not vote against them at this stage because we want the opportunity to test the opinion of the whole House on Report.”––[Official Report, Enterprise Public Bill Committee, 25 February 2016; c. 328.]
Today that is exactly what we are doing.
Joan Ryan
Is my hon. Friend aware of any provision that allows Government Members to pre-empt a decision in the other place, or to offer this strange variant on a deferred Division on a proposal that nobody anywhere—other than those on the Government Front Benches, and possibly not all of them—actually wants?
Bill Esterson
My right hon. Friend makes a good point, and the Government have had ample opportunity in the Lords—[Interruption.] As my hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield (Yvonne Fovargue) reminds me, this provision was not even mentioned in the Lords. It was not in the original Bill, and it was not mentioned until Second Reading, when the Secretary of State announced for the first time that the Bill would cover Sunday trading. The Minister had plenty of time to table amendments then, in Committee, or today, but he chose not to. Why should we believe a word he says?
Mr Shuker
Let me underline the point made by the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr Burrowes). If we want enhanced provisions, surely the logical thing is to vote for amendment 1. There is nothing to prevent the Minister from bringing his provision forward in the House of Lords, regardless of the vote, other than the fact that we have not amended the Bill and it stands in the way he has presented it to us today.
Bill Esterson
Let me answer my hon. Friend. Perhaps the Minister will answer the similar point made by the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope). Why does he not go back to the drawing board, start again with a new Bill, and bring it back to us once it has been properly considered? Both Houses should have ample opportunity to consider this issue properly, debate it fully, and get the right conclusions and legislation. He could start again.
Brandon Lewis
Let me help the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues. I outlined the measures in the way I did because, if amendment 1 is accepted, the Sunday trading clauses will not apply. We need to support the Government amendments in order to amend the Government amendments in the House of Lords. From a technical point of view, that is why we did it in that way. I want to ensure that we run these pilots for the benefit of local economies.
Bill Esterson
That is complete nonsense. The Minister had long enough when he was on his feet to demonstrate the nonsense of what he is saying. The only way to do this is to start from scratch, and enough hon. Members across the House have made that point. The Minister should listen, particularly to his own Members, who have made that point well.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
Are we moving towards talking about a hypothetical amendment with hypothetical evidence, when in fact this provision could create huge risk for neighbouring areas that will not be part of the pilot? In 12 months’ time, those businesses may no longer exist.
Mark Durkan
Do we not have a choice today between a clear amendment that we can understand, feel and touch, and, not just a flat-pack pilot scheme, but an artist’s impression of a flat-pack pilot scheme? It would be ludicrous for the House to buy that.
Bill Esterson
In both his interventions the hon. Gentleman has made the point as well as anybody, and I completely agree with what he said.
Several hon. Members rose—
Bill Esterson
I really should make progress and I will take more interventions later.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr Burrowes) and all who have signed his amendment. He gave an excellent speech with a measured and appropriate tone. I commend the Keep Sunday Special campaign for its hard work in making sure all the arguments were marshalled, given the Government’s failure to provide evidence in a timely fashion.
Sunday is the one day a week when workers in larger stores do not have the prospect of having to work long hours. It is the one day a week when those workers have the prospect of spending at least a part of the day with their families. For many people of faith it is more than that: it is the most important day of the week. For many people of faith and otherwise, Sunday is a day of rest. It is also the one day a week when smaller retailers have a slight competitive advantage and can stay open longer if they wish.
Nearly 3 million people, one in 10 of our workforce, work in the retail sector. This matters a great deal. There will be profound changes to the lives of many people, both at work and outside, if the changes go through.
Mrs Main
I would like to ask the hon. Gentleman the same question I asked my hon. Friend the Minister. What discussions has he had on what is effectively the pilot operating in Scotland, which we can look at to see how beneficial, leaving aside what is being paid to the workers, liberalisation has been to the Scottish economy? Has he looked at that?
Bill Esterson
I am sure SNP Members will answer the hon. Lady’s question. The reality is that we have a great British compromise that allows different situations in different parts of the United Kingdom.
Before the election, as we have been reminded a number of times, the Prime Minister’s office confirmed that the Prime Minister had no plans to change Sunday trading. The Conservative party manifesto did not state that it would change Sunday trading. Many Conservative candidates—a number of them have told me this—wrote in good faith to constituents to confirm that the Government would not be implementing such changes.
In Committee, the Minister justified the changes by saying the current rules date from a time before the internet—1994, to be precise. In a Populus survey from January this year, however, not a single respondent said that restrictions on Sunday trading were a reason for them shopping online—not a single person out of 2,008 people in a representative sample. Yet online trading is given as a key reason for needing to extend Sunday trading. For good measure, not a single industry or media analyst suggested that the recent poor Christmas trading results were caused by a lack of opportunity for shoppers on Sundays. Unbelievable!
The Minister told us in Committee that the reason for the change of mind was that when the Prime Minister’s office wrote the letter it was as the Prime Minister of a coalition Government, but that now he is the Prime Minister of a Conservative majority Government everything has changed. Presumably, he intended to become the Prime Minister of a majority Government when his office wrote the letter and when it wrote the manifesto, and I rather doubt that that cuts much ice with Conservative Back Benchers who support the Keep Sunday Special campaign.
The Minister also told us that the proposed changes were about devolution and decisions being taken by local people. However, as council chief executives have clearly said, in most areas, the changes would be applied to out-of-town shopping centres, to the detriment of high streets. Those same chief executives have also pointed out that, if one council introduces changes to Sunday trading, their neighbours will have little or no choice other than to follow suit, or run the risk that trade would migrate to businesses in the neighbouring authority. This is not the localism the Government claim. It is passing on the blame for an unpopular measure that only one in eight people support, according to a Populus poll last September. We were told that the changes would help the high street.
John Stevenson
Does the hon. Gentleman not think it is right that the people of Carlisle should decide whether shops are open on a Sunday, so that they can compete on an equal footing with Scotland, which is only nine miles away?
Bill Esterson
If the hon. Gentleman wants to organise an Adjournment debate about the people of Carlisle, I am sure the Minister will answer him. The reality is, however, that if one—[Hon. Members: “Answer!”] If hon. Members will let me answer the question, I will. If one council changes its rules, neighbouring authorities will feel under pressure to do exactly the same thing. They will have no choice. If a Tesco opens on a Sunday until 10 o’clock at night, then the Tesco, Asda or Morrisons in the borough next door will have to open until that time, too.
Bill Esterson
I am going to make some progress, because unfortunately the Minister took up so much time.
Sammy Wilson
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the hon. Member for Carlisle (John Stevenson) has just made his point for him? If the people of Carlisle were to decide what happened in their area so that they could compete with Scotland, the next-door council would make exactly the same argument. The shadow Minister is exactly right: that would have the effect of ensuring that this was not localism, but a national decision.
Bill Esterson
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. The hon. Member for Kensington (Victoria Borwick) asked the Minister about zoning and whether London could be a single zone, but why stop at London? Why not designate England as a single zone, given that that is exactly what would happen because of the domino effect of the proposal?
Barbara Keeley
My hon. Friend is making a very good speech. The Trafford centre is a large shopping centre situated next to my constituency. It attracts an enormous amount of traffic, so if it extends its hours my constituency will never get a moment’s peace. Moreover, building work on the Government’s motorway project can take place only when the Trafford centre is not busy. [Interruption.] It is not my council. If the Trafford centre opens 24/7, the logistics will make things impossible for my constituents.
Bill Esterson
There are similar examples up and down the country. My hon. Friend is absolutely right.
Let me turn to some of the evidence we have been given in the lead-up to this debate. During the Olympics, convenience stores experienced a fall in Sunday trade of up to 7%. There was also a displacement of trade to different times of the week, but, instead of an increase in overall trade, there was a slight fall. The Government assumption that people will have more money to spend just because the shops are open longer does not bear scrutiny once we start to look at the evidence.
Meanwhile, the extra Sunday hours would increase costs in those large stores that stay open longer, and while there will be some displacement from convenience stores to larger retailers, as happened during the Olympics, there will be little or no overall increase in trade to pay for the increased cost in most shops.
Bill Esterson
I am going to make some more progress before I take any more interventions.
The larger retailers that open longer will have to find a way to reduce costs, which means removing the premium for shop workers. Given that the major retailers operate UK-wide, a change in pay and conditions in England and Wales will mean changes in Scotland and Northern Ireland as well. Premium pay on Sundays is viable across the UK because large retailers in most of the UK are restricted to six hours’ opening. The time and a half paid to many shop workers will be under threat to make up for staying open longer across the UK, which, of course, is why this is a UK-wide matter and why it is entirely appropriate that Members from across the UK have a vote on this very important proposal.
Removing time and a half would cost shop staff who work an average shift in Scotland £1,400 a year, which in anybody’s money is a very significant hit, particularly for those on low pay in the retail sector. The proposed changes in England in Wales would have a profound effect on workers in Scotland, and I am glad that the SNP recognises that Scottish workers will be hit. I was a bit surprised when the hon. Member for Livingston (Hannah Bardell) told us in Committee that, while her concerns focused on Scottish workers, the SNP welcomed the additional employee protections in the Bill, which she ascribed to
“the strong and principled action of the SNP”.––[Official Report, Enterprise Public Bill Committee, 25 February 2016; c. 322.]
We will come to how those protections will not do what the Government claim they will, but I am glad that the letter from my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition and the leader of Scottish Labour, Kezia Dugdale, has had the desired effect. I welcome the SNP’s confirmation that its Members will vote against the Government, and I look forward to them joining us in the Lobby.
Hannah Bardell
On a point of clarity, the hon. Gentleman can read the record for himself, as can members of the public and Members of this House, but we have been very clear. We engaged with all sides of the argument up until the point where we took a decision at our group meeting as part of a democratic process.
Bill Esterson
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for that intervention. All I will say is that I am glad that she and her colleagues came to the right decision in the end; it does not matter how they got there.
Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)
Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Bill Esterson
I am not going to take any more interventions at the moment. We have not got very long, because the Minister took so much time, and a lot of Members want to speak.
The Minister claimed that the Bill would help workers, but 91% of shop staff oppose longer Sunday opening hours and only 6% want more hours on Sundays. Listening to the Minister in Committee, we might have been forgiven for thinking that the figures were the other way around. The Minister says that he is improving workers’ ability to opt out of Sunday working. Let us just go through some of what happens now. Staff who apply for jobs with some retailers are asked whether they will work Sundays. Failure to say yes can mean no interview. Staff who are still in their notice period who try to opt out of Sunday working can and do lose their jobs. Staff who try to opt out of Sunday working can and do lose hours. Staff who want to opt out come under pressure from managers and colleagues not to do so. The reality is that staff already have to work on Sundays in too many large retailers when they do not want to, when they would rather spend more time with their children or—as most people want to do on Sundays—enjoy leisure time or rest. What happened to the family test?
Bill Esterson
No, I am not going to give way.
The Prime Minister said that the family test should apply to all legislation. I understand that it is in the impact assessment. I have not had time to read it in detail, because we had only two hours’ notice of its publication, but I understand that it says that when it comes to the family test, the overall impact is unclear. It is clear enough to families of shop workers up and down the country that the measure will have a profound effect on them and on what happens on Sundays.
Bill Esterson
I am not going to give way at this stage.
Because of the cost of going to an employment tribunal, it is beyond the means of most workers to challenge their employer, especially if they have just been fired. The changes to employee rights will not change the realities faced by shop workers, and they will not change the difficulty of getting access to justice at an employment tribunal. Shop workers will, all too often, have no choice, just as they often have no choice at present. They will have to work longer hours, in many cases, whether they want to or not.
What of the evidence for the reforms? We have heard the farcical answers about the consultation, and how the Department cannot publish the details because people chose to write their answers in their own words. What absolute nonsense. There are so many things to choose from in this farce, but that really sticks out. The Government have claimed that a majority of large businesses are in favour of the changes. That is one bit of the consultation that they have bothered to publish. However, retailers, including Sainsbury, Tesco, John Lewis, Dixons and Marks & Spencer, expressed their opposition to the Prime Minister at a meeting last week and pointed out that their customers do not want to be able to shop for longer on Sundays.
Until noon today, we awaited the publication of the impact assessment, on which, presumably, the Sunday trading clauses are based. We were told in Committee that it would be published soon. It has been published, as of two hours ago, so Members have had less than three hours to consider the Government’s impact assessment on a piece of legislation. Seriously, what a way to do business. It really is an outrage.
The measure represents a broken election promise. It will have a domino effect among local authorities. High streets will be harmed, not helped. Smaller retailers will lose business. Staff will be unable to refuse to work longer hours. There will be cuts to premium pay in Scotland, as well as in the rest of the UK. That is all backed up by the lack of any published evidence to support the measure until the last minute, and I am not convinced that it does back it up. Remember that the Bill started life in the Lords, and Sunday trading was introduced in the Commons only at the very last minute. The measure has not had any scrutiny in the Lords. This is a significant change for businesses, shop workers, faith groups, families and all who want to keep Sunday special. The Government have not made the case for their proposal, and the suggested possible amendment, which may be introduced at some time in the future, will not do so either.
We know that the Government want to make this change, although many large retailers do not. If they really insist that this is right and that there are serious reasons to introduce something so far reaching that was not in the manifesto, they should do so with full scrutiny and with evidence. They should give Members of both Houses the opportunity to make sure that any changes made are done with great care, given the far-reaching consequences of what is proposed. That does not mean tabling a last-minute manuscript amendment in a desperate bid for a last-minute deal.
As far as what is proposed on the amendment paper today and the way in which it has been proposed is concerned, Labour Members will stick to the consistent line we have had all along. Let us keep our great British compromise on Sunday trading and support the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate.
Several hon. Members rose—
Enterprise Bill [ Lords ] (Seventh sitting)
Bill Esterson Excerpts(8 years, 2 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Anna Soubry
We need to remind ourselves, of course, that the Government have been clear that ending six-figure payments should apply to all public sector organisations, with few exceptions. Of course, it is the taxpayer who picks up the cost of exit payments and employees who have specialist skills should not automatically be exempt.
I was a little troubled by the contribution from the hon. Member for Wakefield, and not because I disagreed with her for one moment about the dreadful accident the day before yesterday at Didcot and the subsequent fatalities. It is undoubtedly the case that many people do dangerous jobs. I am reminded, of course, of all those who work in the fire and rescue service; we often forget that the fire brigades provide the rescue service as well. They do incredibly dangerous work, not only when they are fighting fires but when they are rescuing people. Although it is extremely rare, if it ever happens, that we make firefighters redundant, nevertheless they are also included in this new provision. I do not think that the fact that someone does a dangerous job should in some way exempt them.
The list of exempt organisations will be set out in the regulations, not in the Bill itself, and of course they will need the approval of both Houses of Parliament. The guidance accompanying the regulations will set down the criteria that Ministers, or those who have been delegated the responsibility, must consider in decisions to relax the cap. In other words, there are exemptions that can be made, but they will be determined in a list that, as I say, will require the approval of both Houses.
Regulations relaxing the cap can apply to individual cases and to groups of individuals, to cater for cases where Ministers may wish to consider organisational cases for relaxing the cap. So there is already a mechanism in place for organisations to be considered for exemption. Therefore, the amendment is unnecessary.
The regulations implementing the cap will be in force from October 2016 at the very earliest. However, as I think I have explained—it has certainly been explained in correspondence, but now I will make it very clear again—Magnox employees who are in the current redundancy programme and due to exit by September 2016 will not—repeat, will not—be caught by the cap, and the cap will not affect the core terms of the pension scheme available to Nuclear Decommissioning Authority staff, in other words Magnox employees, such as the retirement age or the basis on which their pensions accrual rate is set.
The hon. Member for Cardiff West used a particular example, of course, from somebody who had quite properly written in, which is absolutely the right thing to do. In relation to that point, I will say that I have indeed had meetings with MPs. I have not met the unions, not because I have any difficulty in meeting unions, but only because—unfortunately—my diary is pretty hectic.
However, I particularly made the point when I met the MPs, and I have made it clear to the unions by way of a letter, that people should please use their MPs to make full representations to me. As we all know, in this place Members can lobby a Minister in a corridor, or anywhere we bump into each other. That is the quickest and easiest way, but it is not a slight on the unions. I have specifically said to Members of Parliament, “Get back to them, and tell them about our meeting. Use your good self to communicate through.”
Anna Soubry
In just a moment. I have drifted off, and I want to come back to my point on Magnox pensions. These are employer-funded costs that form part of the exit payment, and the cap does not affect the core terms of the pensions. That is important, and everyone is beholden to ensure that employees get the facts, not the myths or the spin. The cap does not affect the core terms of their pensions, such as accrual rates and normal pension age. I hope that might be of some assistance.
Bill Esterson
I want to make a few remarks as the Minister did not allow me to intervene earlier. My hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield made a point about consistency and the treatment of workers, whether they are senior bank executives or Magnox workers. Reasonable people might expect similar and decent treatment from the Government, whether they work in a bank, in decommissioning in the nuclear industry, or anywhere else. That is the grave concern about some of what we have heard and about the clauses tabled by the Government, which we want to amend. I tried to intervene on the Minister’s comments on trade unions. I do not doubt her desire to engage with trade unions or her understanding of the importance of talking to the trade unions.
The Minister is right that constituency MPs have a crucial role in discussing with Ministers the impact of legislation on their constituents. Workers in the nuclear industry who are extremely worried, with good reason, about the proposals in the Bill are rightly being represented by their Members of Parliament and by members of the Committee. Indeed, representations were made on Second Reading and will be made on Report in two weeks’ time. The Minister made comments about the pressures on her diary, but I gently say to her that partnership between Government, business and the workforce, especially through its trade union representation, is a hallmark of successful economies.
As success comes in large part from the relationship between the Government and the trade unions, in order to do the Magnox workers justice, the Minister should have made it a priority to meet their trade union before we got to this point in Committee. It is a great pity that she did not.
Kevin Brennan
I thought the Minister’s response was disappointing, given the weight of the evidence submitted to the Committee and the strength of feeling among hon. Members and their constituents. The workers have made their plans and taken decisions on the basis of guarantees and promises given by Government. As far as we can surmise from the limited information that the Minister is prepared to provide about the Government’s intentions, it now appears that the Government are going to take action that will affect them.
To listen to the Minister, one might think that the workers would not be affected at all. She seemed to be dealing with all sorts of shibboleths that were nothing to do with what is in the new schedule, rather than telling us directly whether the workers’ pensions and prospects would be affected by the exit payment cap. The Minister rehearsed arguments about all sorts of scares, which may have been put about by mythical people she was not prepared to name, but going by the evidence submitted to us, the workers in question will be affected—and to quite a large extent.
We represented those arguments and made the case on the workers’ behalf, and quoted, albeit selectively, from a heavy weight of evidence that they submitted to us about their circumstances. All we got from the Minister was a response to issues that had not been raised in the workers’ letters to us and a vague reference to secondary legislation at some later date that will name some as yet unknown entities that may be excluded from the cap.
I am sorry, but I was brought up not to buy a pig in a poke, and if I were the Magnox workers I would not fall for that for a second. It is the oldest trick in the book for Ministers to say “We might do something at a later date, but let something through in the meantime.” That is not why we are here. We are here to get on the record the Government’s position, and whether they accept the arguments about Magnox and other workers that we have set out in the new schedule. We want to know whether they are prepared to exclude those workers, through secondary legislation, from the exit payment cap. At the very least, will they give a strong indication that that is how they are minded to act?
All we got from the Minister was an empty sheet of paper, with nothing written on it. I am afraid that is not good enough for the constituents who have written to us and who are directly affected.
Brandon Lewis
Actually, we are enhancing the position for both employers and shop workers. We are improving shop workers’ rights and giving better access to and understanding of those rights; we are putting a bigger duty on employers to notify their staff of their rights; we are increasing the penalty for employers who do not abide by the rules; and, importantly, we are giving wider opportunity and choice to local economies and people who wish to work longer on a Sunday or to spend time with their families either by shopping on a Sunday or before or after they have shopped.
Let me be clear to the Committee more generally: if a shop worker suffers detriment, or is dismissed for exercising, or even just planning to exercise, their opt-out rights, the employer will be breaking the law. It is important that that is on the record so that anyone can see it.
Bill Esterson
How does the Minister envisage the rules being enforced? One concern that has been expressed is that the Government can legislate all they want on these sorts of things, but in the end it comes down to the balance of the relationship and whether anyone is prepared to challenge their employer. When a law has been broken, it comes down to whether anything meaningful—anything with teeth—can be applied. How will it work and how realistic are the proposals?
Brandon Lewis
I say gently to the hon. Gentleman that, if during the lunch break he looks back over what I said just a few moments ago, he will see that we are increasing the penalties on employers who do not abide by the rules. Not only are we increasing the financial penalty and, therefore, the benefit for an employee who is unfairly treated, but we are giving further responsibilities to the employer on the notice period that they need to give.
It is important that people understand what workers’ rights are, which is why we are increasing the number of ways for people to understand them and know how to exercise them. I say it again: a very large number of people in this country want to work longer hours and want the flexibility to be able to work more hours on a Sunday as opposed to other hours in the week.
Some retailers I have spoken to have been clear that in some areas Sunday is the easiest day of the week for them to recruit staff who want to work. It is good for family opportunities, and it is particularly good for women and students who want to work. We want to ensure that we create that opportunity for more local areas so that they have economic growth and create more jobs, and so that there are more opportunities for people to work if they want to, all while retaining the flexibility for both the local area and shop workers to have the choice.
Brandon Lewis
I can see that the hon. Gentleman is very keen to intervene again.
Bill Esterson
Well, it is an incredibly important point. I was talking about the penalties. How likely is it that the rules will be enforced and the penalties used? We are told that there has been an impact assessment, but it has not been published yet, so we are in the dark as to just how effective the remedies are going to be.
Brandon Lewis
I can repeat what I said for the hon. Gentleman very clearly. First, where the employer fails to comply with the notification requirement, the notice period for both opt-outs will reduce automatically: from one month to seven days at large shops, and from three months to one month at small shops. Secondly, we are enabling an employment tribunal to make a minimum award if an employer is found to have failed to notify shop workers of their opt-out rights in the context of a related successful claim. With that, I commend the new clause to the Committee.
Bill Esterson
Finally, we have the long-anticipated debate on Sunday trading. Until the eve of Committee stage, uncertainty reigned as to whether we would be debating it at all—as it was, of course, only the week before that the Secretary of State had announced that Sunday trading would be part of the Bill. From what the Minister just said, it seems that the new clause might be more correctly called the “Harrods clause”, given that Knightsbridge is the only part of the country he could cite where there is support from the high street for the Government’s proposals.
Brandon Lewis
As I am sure the hon. Gentleman will recollect, I explained the matter to him. Think of the impact across the country. Even in a constituency such as mine, where tourism in its high street is looking to compete with out-of-town shops and online, it is a massive opportunity. I gave an example to highlight just how big these numbers are and how many jobs will potentially be created. I hope he understands that.
Bill Esterson
Those are points I will come to. I did not know that Harrods had a shop in the Minister’s constituency or that it contained the Knightsbridge of the east.
The other description might have been the “domino clause”. The Minister talked about local leaders having the opportunity. The Opposition fully support the proper devolution of powers and responsibilities, and the ability to make a difference in the local area. Although he talked about local leaders, he did not talk about the views of the local community, the workers affected or the small independent retailers and the impact the proposals will have on many small shops.
The problem is that, when talking to local authority leaders and chief executives, as some organisations have done, one main reason given for saying they may well end up implementing these provisions is that they feel they have no choice. Their neighbours having allowed Tesco, Asda or out-of-town shopping centres to have extended opening hours on a Sunday, they fear that loss of trade within their own boundaries will force them down the route of using these provisions in their own local authority area.
The Government knew full well that any attempt to reform Sunday trading legislation would spark significant debate and opposition from a wide range of stakeholders. The Prime Minister’s spokeswoman wrote on 20 April last year to the campaign group Keep Sunday Special assuring them that the Conservatives had no plans to relax Sunday trading laws. Indeed, it was not in the Conservative party manifesto. She wrote:
“I can assure you that we have no current plans to relax the Sunday trading laws. We believe that the current system provides a reasonable balance between those who wish to see more opportunity to shop in large stores on a Sunday, and those who would like to see further restrictions.”
There we have it. Presumably, in the Conservative party, the Government and the previous coalition Government, when the Prime Minister’s official spokesperson spoke it was on his behalf and we should take as gospel what she said at the time. The country as a whole should have trusted what we were told on 20 April. The Government knew this would be opposed and were that worried about it that they went so far as to reassure the country before the election that they had no plans to change Sunday trading laws. They knew it would be opposed, cause problems and break the consensus that had stood for 22 years, since the Sunday Trading Act 1994.
The amendments we are considering include a change to the name of the Bill in amendment 77, as the Minister has just said, to include Sunday trading. We have to wonder what is going on when a Bill started in the Lords and went through the entire Lords proceedings without any mention of Sunday trading. Only on Second Reading in this House was Sunday trading mentioned. In fact, it was so late that Members who oppose changes to Sunday trading did not even know the Bill would consider it.
I spoke to a number of Members on the Government Benches on the day of Second Reading and they had no idea that the issue was in the Bill because they were not in the Chamber to hear the Secretary of State mention it in his opening speech. Had they been, they could have made their opposition clear and raised their concerns but there was no such opportunity for Government Members. That is a great shame.
Stephen Barclay (North East Cambridgeshire) (Con)
With the leave of the Chair, I beg to move that the Committee be now adjourned.
Bill Esterson
My speech would take us all the way through the lunch period, which may not be popular with Members.
The Chair
I understand that Mr Esterson will have the opportunity to make a second speech if he wants to return to the topic later in the debate. He may wish to avail himself of that opportunity.
Bill Esterson
Thank you. I will take advantage of that.
Ordered, That the debate be now adjourned.—(Stephen Barclay.)
Small Businesses: Tax Reporting
Bill Esterson Excerpts(8 years, 3 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
George Kerevan (East Lothian) (SNP)
I commend the hon. Member for Hertsmere (Oliver Dowden) for bringing the matter to our attention. As is usually the case with Petitions Committee debates, we come here to speak on behalf of not ourselves or our parties, but the 100,000-plus individuals and small businesses who have expressed their concern.
I heard the Minister’s words in the Chamber about the Google issue and I take his point that small businesses are not being asked to commit to quarterly full tax returns. That is understood, but the very fact that so many people have signed the petition—every Member will be able to cite examples of constituents and local businesses who have expressed their worries—shows how worried people are, and that indicates clearly that the Government need to consult further.
This is not about whether we should implement a fully electronic, real-time tax system on the internet, as all that would provide benefits. The issue is not the technology, but bringing that technology into play and taking small businesses and the electorate with us. The charge against the Minister and the Government, which is not new or made in a cavalier way, is that there is a rush to judgment.
The Minister simply has to tell us that there could be a delay in implementing the quarterly information updates and that, rather than setting a band at £10,000, there could be a variation as to when small businesses of various sizes are brought into the system. He could tell us about checks and balances with regard to the delivery and effectiveness of HMRC’s system that must be addressed before activities such as updating quarterly are triggered. He could provide all sorts of safeguards so that we could reassure our constituents and give all-party support to the introduction of the new technology.
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)
Like the hon. Gentleman, I and, more importantly, my constituents would be fascinated to learn how increasing the rate of reporting to quarterly—whether that involves a full report or an update—reduces the amount of administration faced by businesses. That is a crucial point. Did he hear the estimates at the time of the Chancellor’s announcement that HMRC would collect an additional £600 million as a result of the policy? Is the purpose of the change really to increase tax returns from small businesses? Deals such as that with Google, which was the subject of today’s urgent question, have caused great unease and real anger not just in my constituency, but right across the country.
Philip Davies (in the Chair)
Order. Before Mr Kerevan resumes his speech, may I say that interventions should be somewhat shorter than they have been?