Draft State Aid (EU Exit) Regulations 2019
Debate between Bill Esterson and Andrew Griffiths(5 years ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Bill Esterson
It is always a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hanson, given your formidable expertise and experience, which you demonstrated in response to the points of order.
The Minister rightly made clear the importance of the draft regulations. Given the number of these SIs that are being debated in the main Chamber, it is highly odd that something so important, detailed, extensive and far-reaching, with so much impact on all our constituencies up and down the country, is not. However, there is nothing I can do about that. All I can do is make my comments and present my analysis in this forum.
Andrew Griffiths
Given that we are just transposing the current EU regime into UK law and providing for the CMA to take over from the Commission, can the hon. Gentleman tell us what the Labour party would do differently?
Bill Esterson
The hon. Gentleman tempts me down various different routes. I shall come to how the Government have diverged from their normal practice of straight transposition with these regulations. That applies particularly to the debate we had about the devolved Administrations. These regulations do not follow the normal pattern, as will become clear as I set out my argument.
State aid plays a vital role in our economy. Ensuring that we have a functioning state aid regime means that putting in place regulations that deliver exactly what is needed is very important. It is therefore essential that we carry out the detailed scrutiny this afternoon in the same way that the Lords did on 14 March. Given the scale of the regulations and their far-reaching nature, I will put on the record our concern about whether we have been provided with sufficient evidence of whether they deliver the technical details required for a functioning state aid regime that supports our economy and communities up and down the country. We will, however, do what we can to tease out some of the concerns that we have been able to identify about the technical nature of what is being proposed.
This set of regulations comes to 80 pages. I, and other Members, have been on Public Bill Committees that have been allocated many days, if not weeks, to consider far shorter Bills with line-by-line scrutiny, quite often following pre-legislative evidence sessions from expert witnesses. Yet we are given 90 minutes, of which about 64 remain, and we will have to do our best to identify the key areas for such scrutiny. It is a most unsatisfactory situation, but we will do what we can.
Bill Esterson
My hon. Friend is quite right to pursue that point further. I prepared a section of my speech on that, and I will pick up his point in detail when I reach it. I have identified some additional points from what he said earlier and the Minister’s reply.
Paragraph 6 of the explanatory memorandum covers the legislative context. It lists no fewer than 14 pieces of legislation affected by the regulations and underlines just how much of a challenge it is for the Committee to scrutinise these changes, which are vast in scale and have far-reaching consequences. The volume of legislation listed in paragraph 6.4 demonstrates why it simply is not possible for us to say whether the regulations deliver the technical changes the Minister claims are being made. It is not that she is wrong; it is that I have no way of telling whether she is right or wrong. That is an important distinction. [Interruption.] I am perfectly capable of reviewing the legislation, as the hon. Member for Burton points out. Unlike him, I do not have the legal background—
Bill Esterson
Oh, the hon. Gentleman does not have a legal background either—never mind. We are in danger of being diverted again.
In paragraph 6.10 of the explanatory memorandum, the Government say they will rely on EU case law in their application of state aid rules, but there is legal opinion that we may have to rely on case law from before we joined the EU—this point was picked up in the Lords—as we will no longer be bound by the treaties of the EU. That may be tested in the UK courts, and it may take years to resolve. That has been the case with other regulations passed in Committees like this, and Ministers have not been able to give a satisfactory answer—presumably because there are conflicting legal views about how it would be resolved. Before we joined the European Union, there was of course no comprehensive state aid regime to regulate what was and was not permitted, so the difference between the two options is very significant.
The information provided to us does not give us the evidence we need to make a reasonable judgment about the technical adequacy of the regulations. For a simple example of that, I refer Members to paragraph 6.14 of the explanatory memorandum. I have no doubt about the need to omit specific references to Germany in article 107(2)(c) of the EU regulation, but I also have no way of knowing whether such a technical change is appropriate. More to the point, we have no way of knowing whether all the necessary technical changes of a nature similar to those identified in paragraph 6.14 and a number of other paragraphs have been made.
A further example of our inability to form an opinion can be found in the wording of paragraph 6.28, which states that
“a large number of deficiency corrections were required to make the Procedural Regulation operable in a domestic setting.”
The explanatory memorandum does not describe in detail what that large number of deficiency corrections is, it does not say what the evidence base is for asserting the need for those corrections, and it does not give back-up expert witness evidence in support of that assertion. That sentence is a pretty fair indication that we have an impossible task and are being asked to approve something with a clear lack of evidence to support doing so.
The CMA is being asked to take on responsibility for oversight of the state aid regime from the European Commission. In paragraph 7.2 of the explanatory memorandum, the Government refer to
“the costs and benefits of setting up a completely new body or having an established regulator take this on”.
I note the information before us does not give the details of that cost-benefit analysis or why the decision was taken to choose the CMA rather than setting up a new body.
That takes me back to the points made in earlier interventions about the devolved Administrations. Paragraph 10.1 refers to the discussions with the devolved Administrations and the CMA. It sounded to me in those earlier exchanges as though the Minister was in danger of being right in the middle of a constitutional crisis. Without publication of the Secretary of State’s response to the letter from the Welsh Government, this dispute has not been resolved to anybody’s satisfaction. How can we judge what the outcome is or should be without sight of that response?
Draft Companies (Miscellaneous Reporting) Regulations 2018
Debate between Bill Esterson and Andrew Griffiths(5 years, 9 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Andrew Griffiths
The hon. Lady will know that, as part of our enforcement, we have doubled the amount we are putting into protecting those on the lowest pay. We are increasing resources in the Employment Agency Standards Inspectorate to protect agency workers. Through our work in relation to the Matthew Taylor review, we are specifically looking at what we can do to strengthen the protections for agency workers and give them more rights and more clarity in relation to who employs them and the pay that they should receive. It is part of a wider corporate governance package and a wider set of protections for workers such as those employed by the Employment Agency.
Bill Esterson
I am glad the Minister mentioned the Taylor review, which was published a year ago. There is a great deal of frustration about how long it has taken to get responses to it and for action to be taken as a result. Perhaps the Minister could indicate when the Government will come forward with proposals and a response to that work?
Andrew Griffiths
The hon. Gentleman is impatient. I announced our response to the Taylor review in my second week as the responsible Minister. The consultations closed two weeks ago, and we are busily working on a response to them, which we will come forward with as soon as possible. We are keen to ensure that we deliver a whole new set of rights and protections to workers across the United Kingdom, and we are keen to demonstrate that we do not need the European Union to protect workers’ rights. We are committed to extending and going further and faster in this country.
Andrew Griffiths
I thank my hon. Friend for those kind words, but there is no doubt that he has led the way on these protections. I commend him for the steadfastness and determination that he showed in ensuring that we bring in protections for some of the most vulnerable people in the workplace.
The hon. Member for Sefton Central pretty much asked why we are not implementing the Labour party proposal for a pay ratio of no more than 20:1. It is not for the Government to set arbitrary caps on individual companies. We will drive the transparency and accountability that can expose unjustified executive pay, and that is what we are doing with pay ratio reporting. The Labour party’s proposal is fraught with legal and other difficulties. Would a Labour Government extend the 20:1 pay ratio to non-UK companies bidding for Government contracts? That would raise state aid and World Trade Organisation issues. If they would not, that would put UK contracting companies at a clear disadvantage. There is no sense to the proposal that the Labour party puts forward.
In relation to prompt payment, on which we share common ground, we all want to ensure that small and medium-sized enterprises in particular in this country are paid promptly and fairly. Section 172 and the draft regulations require companies to set out their relationship with their contractors and how they treat their supply chain. Another part of this important corporate reform that the Government are bringing forward is payment practice reporting. That is now live and we are seeing real evidence of how bigger companies pay their supply chain. That will go a long way in providing the kind of evidence, transparency and changes in behaviour that we want in this country.
Andrew Griffiths
I think I have given way quite enough. We have been going for some considerable time, and as the temperature rises I know that right hon. and hon. Members would like us to draw this to a close.
I think the hon. Member for Sefton Central raised the issue of Persimmon and asked why there are not greater consequences. There were consequences for Persimmon: there was a vote of shareholder dissent—something that this Government introduced—that went on the register that this Government introduced, and the chair of the remuneration committee and the chairman of the company resigned. Those are consequences of its actions and they clearly demonstrate that there is real benefit to the reforms we are bringing in.
There was a question about enforcement and Government checks on compliance and non-compliance. If Companies House finds that a company has not submitted a report, for example by shareholders, and a company fails to comply, the Insolvency Service can bring forward measures from its criminal enforcement team. The Secretary of State has authorised the Financial Reporting Council to report proceedings concerning effective accounts, directors’ reporting and strategic reports, to obtain an order that directors prepare a revised report.
On clawbacks, particularly in the Carillion matter, the hon. Member for Sefton Central will know that many of the points he raised are addressed in our corporate governance Green Paper, to which we have had many responses. It looks specifically at clawbacks, particularly in relation to director pay and bonuses. That consultation has now closed and we will respond to it in the very near future.
The hon. Member for Glasgow South West always makes important contributions in these kinds of debates. He rightly asked about the five-year deadline for a review. I alluded earlier to the fact that this is a constant iteration and reassessment of whether corporate governance rules are effective and doing the job we want them to do. It is perfectly possible that, if we see an area of corporate governance that is not working, we will revisit it sooner than in five years, to ensure that it is working properly.
The hon. Member for Glasgow South West also raised the subject of public sector procurement, which the Government are keen to address. I point him to the speech made by the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere (Oliver Dowden), last week when he brought forward new measures on public sector procurement, not only to ensure that it is easier for SMEs to bid for and win public sector and Government contracts but to look at the wider good of a company’s activities. That can include charities and third sector groups. There will be much more flexibility for smaller businesses to make a real contribution to their economy and community if they win public sector contracts.
The draft regulations will give shareholders important new information about executive pay and encourage boards to consider carefully how it relates to the pay of other employees. For the first time there will be specific reporting on how directors have regard to stakeholder and other matters in section 172 of the Companies Act.
We will raise standards of corporate governance in large private businesses. Alongside changes to the corporate governance code, the regulations will improve how our largest companies engage at board level with employees, customers, suppliers and stakeholders. They will improve boardroom decision making, deliver more sustainable business performance and build wider public confidence in the way businesses are run. They will ensure that our corporate governance framework remains the world’s best. I commend the draft regulations to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That the Committee has considered the draft Companies (Miscellaneous Reporting) Regulations 2018.
Oral Answers to Questions
Debate between Bill Esterson and Andrew Griffiths(5 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Andrew Griffiths
I absolutely agree that it is important to ensure that our workforce are properly skilled, which is why that is an important part of our modern industrial strategy, but I am less pessimistic than she is. Retail employment has been stable at about 3 million. Yes, those jobs are changing, but retail sales totalled some £362 billion last year, and jobs are being created in the retail sector.
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)
Last week, House of Fraser announced that 6,000 jobs were at risk. Yesterday, another 5,000 jobs went at Poundworld. Since the start of the year, tens of thousands of retail workers have lost their jobs. Some 3.9 million people work in our retail sector. They, their employers and anyone who cares about our high streets want a retail sector deal, so when are the Government going to publish the strategy? More to the point, will it have any meaningful action?
Oral Answers to Questions
Debate between Bill Esterson and Andrew Griffiths(5 years, 12 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)
Project bank accounts ring-fence the money for suppliers in construction contracts yet were not used by the Government with Carillion. As a result, 30,000 mostly smaller businesses are likely to lose money, and some will struggle to survive, so will the Minister confirm that the Government will now use project bank accounts to protect businesses and jobs in their own supply chain and guarantee there is no repeat of the Carillion fiasco?
Andrew Griffiths
The hon. Gentleman will know that the Government took swift action, led by the Secretary of State, when Carillion collapsed, to ensure we understood the issues relating to the construction industry, including by setting up a forum with trade representatives. He will also be aware that we consulted on project bank accounts in the construction industry. That consultation finished just a few weeks ago. We are considering the responses and will respond shortly.
Oral Answers to Questions
Debate between Bill Esterson and Andrew Griffiths(6 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Andrew Griffiths
As the retail Minister, I recognise the real challenges faced by our high streets and, in particular, by independent businesses. In his spring Budget statement, the Chancellor announced a package of measures for business rate relief, including a £1,000 discount for pubs with rateable values below £100,000, £300 million for local authorities to fund discretionary rate relief, and a cap on rate increases, which means that businesses that lose their small business rate relief will not see their bills increase.
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)
The Minister should stop being quite so complacent. Carillion was a signatory to the prompt payment code; Interserve still is. Carillion suppliers were paid on terms of 120 days, while Interserve subcontractors say that they are being absolutely hammered by late payment. Yesterday the Federation of Small Businesses again highlighted the damage done to growth by late payment. When will Ministers support smaller firms in the public sector supply chain, and enforce the prompt payment code?
Andrew Griffiths
We are certainly not complacent, which was why we set up the trade body group to assess the impact of Carillion. The hon. Gentleman will be delighted to know that yesterday I spoke to Phil King, who runs the prompt payment code, and I will be meeting him later this week to discuss how we can tighten up the code and give it real teeth. We are determined to help small businesses.