Subsidy Control Bill (Seventh sitting)

Debate between Bill Esterson and Kevin Hollinrake

Thursday 4th November 2021 Public Bill Committees

[Bill Esterson]

I suspect that more than one party would be very interested in repeating those remarks multiple times, certainly in two of the nations of this country. They are called nations within the devolved settlement; we have a devolution settlement that has “four nations” within it. It will be interesting to see how many times the hon. Gentleman is quoted saying that.

I will quote what George Peretz told us about why it matters that there should be a call-in power for all four nations:

“In a situation where an English local authority, the Secretary of State or another UK Government body acting as an English Department does something that is designed to benefit England but causes serious concern in Scotland or Wales, why should the Welsh or Scottish Ministers not be able to do the same thing if the concern is with competition or investment within the United Kingdom? I find it slightly hard to see what the argument against that is.”––[Official Report, Subsidy Control Public Bill Committee, 26 October 2021; c. 44, Q63.]

I have not heard from either the hon. Member for Clwyd South or the hon. Member for Aberconwy an argument against what he told us last week.

Rachel Merelie, senior director for the Office for the Internal Market at the CMA, noted:

“It is really important that all granting authorities are treated fairly and equitably, regardless of whether they are in the devolved nations or in England.”––[Official Report, Subsidy Control Public Bill Committee, 26 October 2021; c. 69, Q98.]

I am not the only one talking about the devolved nations by any means; we have it from the CMA.

[Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Bill Esterson]

The hon. Gentleman does not have a mask on, so I will not. He will be able to make a speech afterwards, as I think one of his colleagues said.

The devolved nations of the United Kingdom cannot be treated as second class when it comes to economic matters that could have potentially monumental impacts on the proper functioning of their markets. The devolved Administrations must have equitable powers with the Secretary of State to call in subsidies where they could be damaging to their own economies.

Subsidy Control Bill (Fourth sitting)

Debate between Bill Esterson and Kevin Hollinrake

Thursday 28th October 2021 Public Bill Committees

[Bill Esterson]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for adding some extremely important examples to my point.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

Can I give the hon. Gentleman some other examples?

[Bill Esterson]

Not yet; let me answer my hon. Friend first before I take what I am sure will be an incredibly important and insightful intervention, as always—it does not mean he is right. It is extremely important that we take nationally significant businesses seriously, that we have a regime that enables us to support them when appropriate, and that we take on board what is in the national interest. That is the purpose of our amendment. I will take the intervention from the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton, even though he is not wearing a mask today—he did partly on Tuesday.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I understand the hon. Gentleman’s point about national infrastructure and inward investment, but would he and the hon. Member for Aberavon not concede that Tata’s investment in the UK steel industry is important? Investments in Jaguar Land Rover, which was a failing business before it was taken over, were important for the UK and they protected and effectively created lots of jobs. If the hon. Member for Sefton Central thinks that foreign direct investment in the UK is bad—I know Morrisons is an important company in Yorkshire—is it also bad that our UK-based private equity businesses invest in other countries?

[Bill Esterson]

No, not at all. I have no idea at all why the hon. Member thinks that is where my or my hon. Friend’s arguments were going. We are very much in favour of foreign direct investment to this country and investing overseas as well. Indeed, the success of foreign direct investment in the north-east of England under the Thatcher Government has been put at risk by the attitude of this Government towards the Japanese and the rather strained relations, which hopefully are beginning to repair since the UK-Japan deal. However, let us not underestimate the reputational damage that was done by the way some of that was handled.

Subsidy Control Bill (Second sitting)

Debate between Bill Esterson and Kevin Hollinrake

Tuesday 26th October 2021 Public Bill Committees

[Kevin Hollinrake]

Q In terms of the thresholds for reporting—I think it is £500,000 and the minimum financial assistance threshold is £315,000—are they the right level to achieve the transparency you are looking for?

Jonathan Branton: I think probably yes. In terms of the small amounts of financial assistance, it is basically double what the EU’s de minimis has been. The feedback I have had so far across the piece is that the doubling has been a sensible, long overdue move. Frankly, that has been set by reference to what the TCA sets anyway, so we do not have a lot of flexibility to play around with that. Setting it at a fixed, sterling level is immediately sensible. There can be no debate about that.

In terms of the transparency, yes, you have to draw the line somewhere and the £500,000 seems like a sensible, rounded figure. I certainly do not have a strong view that it should be put at a different level—not yet, anyway.

Alexander Rose: The £500,000 is for schemes. I think that the question ultimately is that if you amend clause 70(2) in order to address this gap in terms of, essentially, accountability, you will need some level of incentive to use schemes. It appears that transparency has been chosen as that route.

Personally, I think that the £500,000 seems quite high, but you do need some kind of incentive; otherwise, people will not go down the route of using schemes, when clearly a decision has been made that that is a good idea.

[Bill Esterson]

Q I want to ask Mr Rose and Mr Branton about this. You have both talked about building the framework and the additional details have to come later. Are there any elements of the additional details that you think should be in primary legislation? I think that Mr Warren has ruled that out, but he may want to comment on that.

Looking at the other things you have said, rather than saying in general terms that the reporting period should be less than six months, do you have a particular figure in mind? Similarly, do you have a figure in mind to replace the one-month opportunity to appeal?

Jonathan Branton: I will take those questions in reverse order. There is the clearest possible case for extending as soon as possible the period in which someone can appeal—but not to more than three months, which is the standard time limit for judicial review. I think that is relatively clear.

On the six months, I have yet to hear a really persuasive case for why you need that long to publish the fact that you have made a award. Why do you need six months to get yourself together to publish that something has been done? I would think that that could possibly be as much as halved.

Contingencies Fund Bill

Debate between Bill Esterson and Kevin Hollinrake

Committee stage & 2nd reading & 2nd reading: House of Commons & Committee: 1st sitting & Committee: 1st sitting: House of Commons
Tuesday 24th March 2020 Commons Chamber

[Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)]

Desperation was the word used a number of times by my hon. Friend the Member for City of Chester (Christian Matheson) and, prior to him, my hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon (Liz Twist). It sums up the feeling of many people for many reasons. I think it also underpins what the hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Bim Afolami) did. I wish he was two metres from the Minister to demonstrate good social distancing in this place. He was right. This debate is about improving the schemes as far as we are able to do so, as part of our contribution to scrutinising the Bill.

My first point, which was mentioned by my right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell), is about construction sites. We have all seen the pictures, and some of us have passed examples today, of construction workers working in big numbers in close proximity. That cannot be right and it is certainly not what was intended by the Prime Minister’s guidance. Perhaps the Minister can take that point on board and consider how that situation might be prevented. It is a very serious matter, not just for those workers but in terms of spreading the virus elsewhere. We must all remember that, even if we are fit and healthy and do not become sick ourselves, it is not about the individual, but who we pass it on to.

On banks and loans, the problem, as has been stated by a number of Members, is that loans mean debt which cannot be repaid without the certainty of an income. My hon. Friend the Member for City of Chester just made the point about us not knowing the end date. If people do not know the end date, they will not be able to plan to pay the loans back. That is a real problem. If we then add on the uncertainty of having to provide personal guarantees, it becomes extremely problematic for many businesses to take advantage of the loan scheme. The suggestions made by Members for how the loan scheme might operate are really important, and it is really important that the Government go away and look into them.

On the behaviour of banks, in other debates we have heard descriptions of pharmacists and food retailers hiking up prices. The banks are doing exactly the same thing with interest rates. That cannot be allowed to continue. I thought the right hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Sir Edward Davey) was going to suggest nationalising the banks as a way forward. He was at one stage channelling his inner Marxist for the benefit of some in the Chamber. [Interruption.] There is agreement from my right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington on the Front Bench. The point is that the taxpayer bailed out the banks. People paid the money back through higher interest rates in the financial crisis. They are now about to repeat that behaviour at a much more dangerous and difficult time in our history. There has to be intervention by the Treasury, in whatever shape or form, to prevent that and to ensure that the banks behave responsibly, provide support and do not put apply onerous terms, whether through personal guarantees or ultra-high extortionate rates of interest.

There is also the trust issue. Businesses do not want to borrow because of their past experiences. During the financial crisis when I was running a business, I had the experience of having my overdraft facility recalled overnight. We were lucky that we were able to cover that out of personal savings, but very many businesses were not able to do so and went to the wall. People suffered grievously—some took their own lives. We have debated that many times in this Chamber, and we do not want a repeat of that over the coming months and years after the immediate crisis has passed. I therefore urge the Government to intervene now to get that right.

As well as taking advantage of the Government’s employee retention scheme, businesses will need to pay additional costs such as rents and insurances. My hon. Friend the Member for City of Chester made the point that businesses are being told that they do not qualify for business continuity insurance. The same applies to income protection for the self-employed and small business owners, because this disease did not exist when their policies were written. Those issues need attention. The vast sum of money that the Government are making available provides the opportunity to look at some of the other costs for businesses to see whether there can be help beyond that suggested for employees. Grants are certainly a part of that. Given how long this situation might last, the size of the grants will need to be constantly reviewed so that they are sufficient.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

The hon. Gentleman makes a very good point about grants. The biggest grant, of course, is the job retention scheme—that is a grant. It is Government funded, and there is no requirement for employers to pay anything towards it unless they want to do so, and they can top it up to that 20%. Therefore, will he concede that the scheme is a very important initiative by the Government and that it will be welcomed by many businesses?

[Bill Esterson]

Absolutely. It is important, and I certainly welcome it. None the less, there are some challenges with it. The fact that it is not available for the March payroll is a big problem for many businesses. We have already seen a significant number of businesses close and many workers laid off who will not now be eligible to be part of that scheme. The Government, totally understandably, have used examples of furlough schemes elsewhere in the world, but it will be difficult for the scheme to deal with the nature and the scale of this crisis.

Draft Freedom of Establishment and Free Movement of Services (EU Exit) Regulations 2019

Debate between Bill Esterson and Kevin Hollinrake

Monday 21st October 2019 General Committees

[Bill Esterson]

I absolutely agree. My hon. Friend is right to mention the lack of impact assessment or analysis of the proposed deal, which we are being asked to consider without being able to judge the line-by-line detail of what is in it. Somebody will have to remind me how many pages the new document is.

[Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)]

Two hundred and eighty-odd.

[Bill Esterson]

I will accept the hon. Gentleman’s comment from a sedentary position; does anybody want to go higher? The reality is that we do not have the information we need in order to make judgments, whether on the new deal or the consequences of no deal, and on these regulations. In the explanatory memorandum, the Government use the phrase, “It is anticipated”. What they are saying is that they do not know what the impact will be, and I am afraid that is a real problem. These regulations were drawn to the attention of the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

The hon. Gentleman may be familiar with the document we were given access to, which was held in the Treasury since November 2018. That contained an impact assessment of all kinds of different scenarios, and said that in all of them, the economy is expected to continue to grow. Does that give the hon. Gentleman some confidence that there is life beyond the European Union?

[Bill Esterson]

That is a slightly different point to the one we are discussing. We need to look at the detail. I am not sure whether that intervention was part of the hon. Gentleman’s pitch to be Chair of the Treasury Committee—others must judge—but I will touch on his point. The Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee speaks of the removal of treaty rights, and the fact that this is a policy change. That goes to the heart of the concern about what is being proposed, because when the withdrawal Act was passed, the Government promised that they would not use the Henry VIII powers in section 8 of that Act as a vehicle for policy change. They also said that it “almost goes without saying” that no change should be made to rights through delegated legislation, yet that is exactly what is being proposed.

The disapplication of the rights of EU, EEA, Swiss and Turkish nationals is clearly at odds with what was promised regarding section 8 of the withdrawal Act. That Act was not intended to address how, whether, and how quickly we should meet our obligations under the WTO, which is the reason the Government are giving for putting these regulations through. The purpose of section 8 of the withdrawal Act was to fix deficiencies in retained EU law—an explanation that, to be fair to Ministers, they have used to justify previous regulations in Committees in which I have responded on behalf of the Opposition. Why is that not the case on this occasion? Why is this not being addressed through primary legislation? Why is it not being done through an immigration Bill, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff South and Penarth asked, and why is that Bill stuck in Committee?

If free movement of people is to end via primary legislation, as the Home Secretary said on 5 September, why is the same principle not being applied to the freedom of establishment and free movement of services, and what are the consequences for those individuals who are self-employed, or who own or manage businesses in this country? A large cohort of the people delivering services or running businesses depend for their lawful residence qualification on being regarded as economically active. They have the right to that definition and to qualify. Their rights are derived under the 2016 immigration regulations, which the Minister mentioned, but that is because they are in accordance with article 49 of the treaty on the functioning of the European Union. These regulations disapply article 49, and therefore the 2016 immigration regulations.

It makes no sense to decide immigration rights for those who are self-employed or are running a business separately from determining the immigration rights of other people, but that is what these regulations do, despite the assurances that were given when the withdrawal Act was passed. If there is nothing to worry about, where is the legal analysis? Where were the Minister’s comments about the legal opinion that the Government have obtained? Where is the analysis that these regulations will not adversely affect the immigration rights of EU or EEA nationals? Thousands of self-employed, business-owning or business-managing providers of services need the assurance that they will not be disadvantaged and that their right to stay will not be questioned or removed. Where is the legal protection? It is not referred to in the explanatory notes, and the Minister did not refer to it.

I note from previous regulations passed in these Committees that on other occasions it has suited the Government to apply a principle of reciprocity. For example, I was responding for the Opposition on the matter of intellectual property regulations when the Government chose to allow EU and EEA firms the right to continue to have full access to our intellectual property regulations, and there was no guarantee that our firms would have those rights in return. Reciprocity was not a barrier on that occasion, but it seems that it is here, when the Government want to remove the rights of self-employed or business-owning or managing EU or EEA nationals.

Parental Bereavement (Leave and Pay) Bill

Debate between Bill Esterson and Kevin Hollinrake

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

[Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)]

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

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

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

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

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

[Kevin Hollinrake]

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

[Bill Esterson]

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

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

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

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

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

Land Registry

Debate between Bill Esterson and Kevin Hollinrake

Thursday 30th June 2016 Commons Chamber

[Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)]

Everyone who has spoken in this excellent debate has consistently come to the conclusion that the Government consultation should conclude that the Land Registry should remain in public hands, and that privatisation should be rejected. That has been the very clear message from speakers from all parts of the House. The proposal to privatise the Land Registry highlights the choice between a quick buck and long-term stability. It gives us the chance to consider the importance of an impartial register for the ownership of 24 million UK properties. It has revealed, yet again, overwhelming public opposition.

I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy) on securing both the debate and such strong cross-party support. His opening remarks were comprehensive. He said that in bringing this proposal forward the Government had shown that they were itching to privatise, that the status quo had not been offered and that the proposal amounted to profiteering. I am afraid that that is very good summary of what will happen should the proposal go forward.

I will respond to some of the excellent speeches we have heard. The hon. Member for Carlisle (John Stevenson) described the Land Registry’s natural monopoly and pointed out that just as we would not privatise the police service, so too this was a privatisation too far. I agree.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Alan Johnson) talked of considerable folly. He mentioned the benefits that the people of Hull have derived from the location of Land Registry offices there, which generate Government business and deliver good, well-paid jobs, helping to replace lost industry in Hull, not least the fishing industry. The locating of the Land Registry around the country is a good example of how Governments in previous generations have located offices up and down the country, in an attempt to devolve to and support the regions. I hope the Government will take note of his comments on the importance of continuing that policy in relation to the Land Registry, or indeed in relation to the offices of the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, such as the one in Sheffield which, sadly, is closing. He made the point well about how Government jobs and Government offices support the economy outside London.

The hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex (Mr Jenkin) talked about the importance to any country, not least ours, of having a reliable registry, and referred to what happened in Iraq. Another hon. Member made a similar point in an intervention about what happened in East Germany after reunification. This is an incredibly important point that underlines the importance of the Land Registry and secure data to the economy and to the reliability of property title.

My hon. Friend the Member for Swansea East (Carolyn Harris) talked about the importance to her constituents of the jobs the Land Registry delivers. She also talked about profitability and the harm that privatisation would do to Government finances, with annual profit being lost to the Exchequer.

The hon. Member for Colchester (Will Quince) said that he was elected to balance the books and was against this privatisation. I am pleased that he understands the economic argument between a one-off capital receipt and a sizeable annual return to the Exchequer. If we want to balance the books, we need to keep that strong annual flow of revenue to the Exchequer.

My hon. Friend the Member for City of Durham (Dr Blackman-Woods) talked about the importance of the register as a live document of the way that transactions are always being added, and the potential danger of a conflict of interest if a private company were to take over responsibility, especially given that it is a monopoly.

The hon. Member for South Dorset (Richard Drax) spoke of the potential destabilisation of the housing market that a sell-off could cause. He said that privatisation might lead to shortcuts by a private operator that could undermine the integrity of the data. He felt that the risks of such changes were too great to be considered.

The hon. Member for Glasgow South West (Chris Stephens) said—the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) made a similar point in an intervention— that the Land Registry would not be subject to freedom of information requests. He urged the Government to abandon what he called damaging plans. I completely agree with him on that.

The hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake) made the point that asset sales might cut the debt as a one-off, but that the loss of annual receipts would not help deficit reduction in the long run. I am pleased to hear Conservative Members recognising the importance of economic credibility. I thought, when he talked about BT, that he was going to recommend renationalisation, but he did not quite go that far.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

My point was in favour not of public ownership and renationalisation, but of the introduction of more competition into the telecoms market.

Enterprise Bill [Lords]

Debate between Bill Esterson and Kevin Hollinrake

Wednesday 9th March 2016 Commons Chamber

[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.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Bill Esterson]

I am going to make some progress, because unfortunately the Minister took up so much time.