Trade Bill

Debate between Bill Esterson and Catherine West

Report stage & 3rd reading & 3rd reading: House of Commons & Report stage: House of Commons
Monday 20th July 2020 Commons Chamber

[Bill Esterson]

The hon. Lady anticipates some things I am going to say a bit later. What she says is entirely consistent with what I said about the environmental aspects of the Bill.

There is widespread recognition across society that parliamentary scrutiny is essential in international trade agreements. The hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr Djanogly) and his colleagues deserve credit for their sterling efforts to build consensus. Their new clause 4 has many elements of good scrutiny practice that a modern, confident, outward-looking country should want to adopt: scrutiny of, and a vote on, the negotiating mandate; assessment against domestic standards; consultation with the devolved Administrations; and a vote on the deal by both Houses. These are a good place to start. We can also learn from good practice elsewhere. For example, a very different approach is taken in the United States, where advisory committees have access to negotiating texts, trade unions are represented as well as employers and confidentiality agreements ensure that consultation is at an appropriate level. The result is that agreements can be amended, as with the recent United States-Mexico-Canada agreement, of which a strengthening of the labour chapter is intended to end union busting in Mexico.

How do we compare? Oh dear. So-called expert trade advisory groups—ETAGs—in this country are completely different. The Government do not tell us the criteria for membership or who the members are, and trade unions are excluded from a number of groups that were not set up to scrutinise trade deals. Talk now of a room-next-door approach has raised concerns because of the over-restrictive nature of the non-disclosure agreements, which, as drafted, would prevent sensible consultation and analysis of the text, even by the existing self-selecting and very limited memberships of the ETAGs.

[Catherine West (Hornsey and Wood Green) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend accept that we can learn through failure as well? One reason that the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership failed was the lack of involvement of trade unions, industry and a number of different partners until right at the last minute, when people were asked to vote on something that they had not been brought along with.

[Bill Esterson]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I shall come to TTIP as an example of how not to carry out scrutiny and of why it is so important to have that wider engagement.

Financial and Social Emergency Support Package

Debate between Bill Esterson and Catherine West

Wednesday 25th March 2020 Commons Chamber

[Bill Esterson]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and of course those trains and buses are needed by our health workers to get to hospitals. If they are infected by being in close conditions with people who have the virus and who are going to work—not just in construction sites, as this is true of call centres and a number of other places of employment, because of the behaviour of some employers—we run the risk of spreading the virus right across the country.

Health has to be paramount, but if that is to be the case, rent has to be covered. We cannot have people feeling that they are at risk of being evicted; that has to be taken away completely. I am afraid that the Prime Minister’s assurances earlier went nowhere near far enough in demonstrating that the Government are serious about no evictions because, as has already been mentioned in this debate, evictions are already happening.

People who are desperate will do desperate things. I am afraid that it does not finish with people going out to work to earn money to put food on the table. What will happen in those cases, in a few days’ or weeks’ time, where people simply have nothing left to feed themselves and their families? I do not want to paint a picture of too much disaster, but I am sure we can all imagine what might happen if people took it into their own hands to go and get food just to survive, if they do not have the means of paying for it. “Everything it takes” must mean that we do not get to that situation in the coming days and weeks, and giving people the financial security to ensure that that does not happen must be an absolute priority.

I want to talk about some of the practical steps. The behaviour of the banks, in saying that they will put up interest fees from 9% to typically 39%—is nothing short of usurious and extortionate. The same applies to the credit card companies. Where people cannot pay back their credit card debt, there must now be a case for a delay in the repayment of credit cards and a number of different kinds of loan.

There are still gaps in the job retention scheme; many workers will not qualify. A number of Members have mentioned charities. Charities are going to need to carry on working, and we are going to need them to carry on working because they provide essential services and are an important part of the answer in dealing with the health crisis.

[Catherine West]

Is my hon. Friend aware of the situation for religious charities in particular? In cases where there is usually a weekly collection, some mosques, churches and other faith gatherings are really struggling to pay their own bills because they are not getting that regular income.

[Bill Esterson]

My hon. Friend makes an important point about those charities paying their bills. The point that I was getting to was that they will not be eligible for the job retention scheme because they and their workers will have to continue working—quite rightly, and we will want them. Therefore, alternative arrangements are needed to pay their bills, to which she refers, and their wages, if they are to play their full part in providing the support that we all need them to.

My right hon. Friend the Member for East Ham has covered universal credit in the technical detail that pretty much only he in this House can, and I thank him for that. Suffice to say that a constituent of mine said that, after three and a half hours on the phone, they were given a phone appointment for next Wednesday. They will then face a five-week wait before getting any money. They need the money now. They have no money; they need to put food on the table. That is typical of the kind of examples that we are all hearing, and it needs to be addressed.

That brings me to the self-employed. The Chancellor has made clear his preference for a targeted scheme—that applies to a number of the schemes that the Government are coming up with—that gives money to those in need. In normal times I would completely agree with that approach, but I am afraid that time is up. We cannot afford to wait any longer, and if a few people who do not need the money are given extra so that the vast majority—a far larger number—who need the money get it, and get it now, when they need it, so be it. That has to be the sensible way forward in this extreme emergency, and it is not without precedent in normal times. The entrepreneur’s relief gives money to very many people who actually do not need it, according to the Government’s analysis of the application of that scheme. If it is good enough for some wealthy entrepreneurs, it is certainly good enough for our constituents who are self-employed and, indeed, for constituents who need sick pay or universal credit now.

Then there is the behaviour of certain businesses—I can mention Virgin, Sports Direct and Wetherspoons. Travelodge, I believe, has already been mentioned for its behaviour in evicting homeless families. This must end. The Government must make it clear right now that any such behaviours that disadvantage people who will be put into difficulty cannot be tolerated. Intervention is needed, not just words from the Dispatch Box or on television.

I will quote the example of Village Hotels, because my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff North (Anna McMorrin) asked me to do so. She has had a solicitor’s letter from Village Hotels for raising on social media what was sent to her by one of her constituents who is on a zero-hours contract. They have been told by Village Hotels that they will receive no pay and she has been told to take down the post, which is entirely true because she has quoted and shown a copy of the letter. Such behaviour by the company is completely unacceptable, and it should withdraw its letter to my hon. Friend. Her constituent and everybody in that position on a zero-hours contract needs to be the same position as every other member of staff at Village Hotels and everywhere else, so that they can be part of the job retention scheme. I hope that my raising this in the Chamber will enable a change of heart.

I really do not want to say what I am going to say next, but I have now heard from doctors who are saying that they believe, and they have had this confirmed by senior people in the health service, that the time is fast approaching when they will be forced to decide who lives and who dies. We know, I am afraid, that that must be true because of what is going on in other countries. That is why it is so important that we reduce the impact on the national health service and minimise infection. The points I have made and the examples I have given, like those of all hon. and right hon. Members, are designed to do just that. We have to make sure that people are financially secure and have somewhere to live, whether they are self-employed or unemployed; whether or not they have recourse to public funds; and whether they are renters, mortgage holders, homeless or rough sleepers. The “stay at home, stay safe” advice is absolutely right, and we must make it possible for everybody to follow it.

Draft Companies (Miscellaneous Reporting) Regulations 2018

Debate between Bill Esterson and Catherine West

Wednesday 4th July 2018 General Committees

[Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)]

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

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

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

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

[Catherine West]

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

[Bill Esterson]

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

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

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Bill Esterson]

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

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

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

[Catherine West]

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

[Bill Esterson]

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

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