Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Bill Esterson and Lindsay Hoyle

Tuesday 12th November 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Chair of the Energy Security and Net Zero Committee.

[Bill Esterson]

The last Government held a consultation on electricity market arrangements, but despite having said that that was their flagship policy in this area, they did not publish the results of that consultation. Does my hon. Friend agree that electricity and, indeed, energy market reform is crucial to achieving the Government’s stated 2030 clean energy targets and to reducing bills, and can he say whether this Government will publish the results of the last Government’s consultation and if so, when?

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Bill Esterson and Lindsay Hoyle

Tuesday 29th October 2024 Commons Chamber

[Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)]

The creation of the national wealth fund, and the record success of the £63 billion of investment announced at the investment summit, comes on top of investments that Ministers have just announced in carbon capture in the north-west. Those are examples of the success—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. The hon. Gentleman is a very good Member who has been here a long time. Please try to look at me occasionally; it would be helpful.

Southport Incident

Debate between Bill Esterson and Lindsay Hoyle

Tuesday 30th July 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

The hon. Member for Southport (Patrick Hurley) is in the constituency, so I am going to call the most immediate neighbouring MP, Bill Esterson.

[Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)]

Thank you, Mr Speaker. My hon. Friend the Member for Southport is at the vigil that is taking place as we gather here. I am sure that he and his constituents are grateful for the visits of the Prime Minister and the Home Secretary earlier today. He and they will also be grateful to the Home Secretary and the shadow Home Secretary for what they have said this evening.

This is about Bebe, it is about Elsie and it is about Alice. It is about three young children who were murdered. The Prime Minister talked about a collective trauma for the people of Merseyside, and I think that is exactly what is going on. My constituents are reflecting that, as are the people in Southport. I want to pass on the thanks of my constituents to the emergency services for their response, and for the fact that they are back at work today, as the Home Secretary said. I also want to thank those local people who intervened, as the shadow Home Secretary mentioned.

I want to add to what the Home Secretary said about the importance of the responsibility of everyone here and everyone more widely, and to the concerns that she and the shadow Home Secretary expressed about what has been said on social media. I think the best way to respond to it is to look at the overwhelming sense of love and support that is seen at the vigil, and in the many messages that have been left in the floral tributes and online from the vast majority of people, not just in Southport but across the country. That is the appropriate way to support those victims and their grieving loved ones this evening.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Bill Esterson and Lindsay Hoyle

Thursday 16th May 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)]

At the last Transport questions, the Secretary of State suggested that drivers know what they are getting with a Conservative Government. Well, drivers know one thing they are getting from this Government: more potholes—a hundred times as many as there are craters on the moon. In 2023, RAC patrols attended 33% more breakdowns related to poor road maintenance than in 2022, and AA call-outs were at a five-year high. The road repairs backlog has gone up to an eye-watering £16.3 billion, which is far greater than his allocation of money from scrapping the northern leg of HS2. Is it not abundantly clear to drivers, and to everyone else, that it will take the election of a Labour Government to fix Britain’s roads, just as it will take the election of a Labour Government to fix Britain?

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Bill Esterson and Lindsay Hoyle

Thursday 21st March 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)]

If the Secretary of State wants to improve connectivity between our great northern cities, he might want to start by repairing the roads. The backlog of local road repairs has gone up by 16% this year alone to £16.3 billion. The Network North announcement is spread over 11 years, and its average annual contribution accounts for only a third of the £2.3 billion annual increase in the backlog. That is not all going to roads anyway, and it will go nowhere near addressing the damage done since 2016, when the Government slashed the road repair budget in half. When will the Secretary of State apologise to road users for the damage that his Government have caused and admit that they have failed to repair the potholes?

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Bill Esterson and Lindsay Hoyle

Thursday 8th February 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)]

The Secretary of State seems to have forgotten the extensive cuts to the road repair budget that his Government have presided over. Let us consider the example of Northamptonshire, where the Government have cut £16 million from highways maintenance since 2020 alone. That is leaving 330,000 potholes unfilled. He knows that the Network North announcement will give Northamptonshire back only £2.5 million of that £16 million over the next two years. As for Wellingborough, the last time Peter Bone mentioned road repairs was in 2015. After 14 years of neglect by the Conservative Government and their former Conservative MP, is not the best advice for people in Wellingborough who want action on potholes to vote for Labour’s Gen Kitchen next Thursday?

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Bill Esterson and Lindsay Hoyle

Thursday 14th December 2023 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)]

The Secretary of State told the Transport Committee that electric cars are cheaper to run than their petrol and diesel counterparts. He also knows that sales of new electric cars fell by 17% last month.

The Minister has just mentioned the ZEV mandate, and I remind him that it was passed only because Labour MPs voted for it. He also knows that it addresses manufacturers, not consumers—supply, not demand. How do the Government plan to reassure drivers that buying electric means cheaper motoring? How will he undo the damage that the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders says was done to consumer confidence by his Prime Minister’s comments on the end of the sale of new petrol and diesel cars?

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Bill Esterson and Lindsay Hoyle

Thursday 26th October 2023 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)]

Pothole repairs halved since 2016; insurance premiums up; fuel prices up; electric charge point roll-out 10 years behind schedule; £950 million EV charge point fund still not open three years after being announced; 10% trade tariffs threatening consumers and manufacturers—which of those is not an example of where this Government have failed drivers over the last 13 years?

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Bill Esterson and Lindsay Hoyle

Thursday 29th June 2023 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)]

The Minister said that she recognises the vital role that steel plays in this country, but the UK is the only country in the G20 where steel production is falling. It is also the only G7 country whose Government do not insist on using domestically produced steel in defence contracts. Meanwhile, UK steel producers pay 62% more than their German counterparts for electricity. Labour’s £3 billion green steel plan will give our industry the bright future that other countries are offering their steel sectors. Labour believes in our steel; why do this Government not?

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Bill Esterson and Lindsay Hoyle

Tuesday 18th April 2023 Commons Chamber

[Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)]

British businesses pay among the highest energy bills anywhere in Europe, yet Make UK said the Government’s plan

“does little to tackle the real and immediate threat manufacturers face with rocketing energy bills.”

If the Government really wanted to support business, they would implement Labour’s plans, help small firms with energy efficiency, cut business rates and invest in renewable electricity generation for the long term.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Minister.

[Bill Esterson]

The Labour party is on the side of business—

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Bill Esterson and Lindsay Hoyle

Tuesday 29th November 2022 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)]

On 16 November, the Government awarded the contract for the new fleet solid support ships to a Spanish state-led consortium. Around £700 million of that contract will go to overseas industry when our steel and shipbuilding sectors are crying out for support. Also on 16 November, the Minister for Industry and Investment Security wrote to me to say that the future of UK steel companies was a commercial decision. Will this Minister explain why the UK Government did not take the commercial decision to deliver £700 million of work to UK steelmakers and shipyards?

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Bill Esterson and Lindsay Hoyle

Tuesday 25th October 2022 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)]

Labour is committed to maximising the vast opportunities that exist in developing the UK’s onshore and offshore wind industries. In sharp contrast, the Conservative Government’s 12 years of low growth, low investment and low productivity saw the UK’s largest wind tower factory at Campbeltown close. Labour will increase onshore wind capacity. We will deliver jobs, lower bills and energy security, and we will set up a publicly owned Great British energy company. Is the truth not that Labour’s industrial strategy is the credible way forward for UK energy production?

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Bill Esterson and Lindsay Hoyle

Tuesday 12th July 2022 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister, Bill Esterson.

[Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)]

Rare earth minerals are essential to our economy, not least in low-carbon sectors and in defence. The Japanese Government developed their rare minerals plan as long ago as 2010, in response to a blockade by China. I know the UK Government say that they will publish a critical materials strategy in the autumn, but if other countries have been building resilience since 2010, what confidence can we have that this Government will develop an effective strategy for our economy and our national security when, as the Secretary of State has just admitted, they have only just woken up to the scale of the risks that we face?

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Bill Esterson and Lindsay Hoyle

Tuesday 29th March 2022 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister, Bill Esterson.

[Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)]

The spring statement did not

“address the complex challenges facing the manufacturing sector”.

It just is not

“tenable for thousands of businesses”

and it is

“kicking the can down the road”.

Those are the words of three businesses that are asking for help. So how about this: first, cancel the 10% increase in national insurance payroll tax; secondly, cut energy bills by up to £600 per household; and, thirdly, set up a £600 million energy-intensive industries contingency fund? Our plan is following the evidence from the business community of what is needed. Why will this Government not help businesses that are crying out for support?

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Bill Esterson and Lindsay Hoyle

Wednesday 23rd March 2022 Commons Chamber

[Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)]

Q13. The Prime Minister met the chairman of P&O owners DP World to discuss setting up a freeport in London. Just last year, the Foreign Secretary also met DP World. DP World runs ports in the UK that employ more than 600 workers. If the Prime Minister wants to remove the latest suspicion of his conflicts of interest, will he tell his Dubai millionaire friends that if they want contracts to run freeports here, they must reinstate P&O workers and guarantee the jobs of DP World workers too?

[Mr Speaker]

Order. We need to use more moderate and temperate language in this Chamber.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Bill Esterson and Lindsay Hoyle

Thursday 24th February 2022 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Don’t get too excited. You should be going to Lancashire for food.

[Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)]

5. What steps he is taking to facilitate open and transparent public procurement.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Bill Esterson and Lindsay Hoyle

Tuesday 11th January 2022 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)]

Buying British is a great way for the Government to boost productivity, so why are they buying so many covid tests from China? Many of those tests have only temporary approval from the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency and are now banned in the United States. In contrast, the MHRA is delaying approval for British test manufacturers, who have approval and can sell around the world but not here. Surely the Secretary of State is not going to tell us that the MHRA has a different set of standards from those in all other countries. When will he get behind British manufacturers who want to play their part in fixing the shortage of covid tests?

Exiting the European Union (Consumer Protection)

Debate between Bill Esterson and Lindsay Hoyle

Tuesday 2nd April 2019 Commons Chamber

[Bill Esterson]

I think the hon. Gentleman is wandering a little from the issue under discussion.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Lindsay Hoyle)]

I think he is trying to tempt you.

[Bill Esterson]

I think he might be. Suffice it to say that that deal has been rejected three times, on the first occasion by the largest margin by which a Government have ever been defeated in the known history of Parliament. Quite apart from the undesirability of what is in that deal, I think we should probably move on. I have a sixth sense that it will come back for fuller debate on another occasion.

The Minister made a very strong case for cross-border co-operation, for maintaining the regulation and for a mutual recognition agreement so that we can maintain protections for consumers and businesses. I hope she will confirm that when she responds to the debate.

I am not able to confirm with absolute certainty that the revocation will deliver what the Government intend it to do. We have to accept the Minister’s word that it will do so. I have no reason not to accept it, but I do not have the technical expertise. The papers in front of us do not allow me to say any more than that, so I have to put on the record my reservations and those of my party. As ever with the statutory instruments we are being asked to approve, there is no impact assessment. The lack of published consultation responses also makes it that much harder for us to analyse what we are being asked to approve.

Businesses and consumers need confidence and certainty. I note from the explanatory memorandum that a number of business organisations were consulted. Perhaps the Minister could provide more detail on what they said. She has done so on previous occasions, so I look forward to hearing what was said in those consultation discussions.

The regulations that we are being asked to revoke are designed to prevent discrimination based on location. They exist to stimulate the internal market of the European Union and to support the free movement of goods and of free trade through the digital sector. They address the possible restriction on competition between businesses across the European Union market and ensure that consumers have access to the best offers, prices and conditions of sale. They do not limit trade for consumers to goods and services in their own country—that is a very important distinction—and that is precisely what has happened since the regulations were introduced at the start of last year. They also prevent website redirection away from businesses that are not in the consumer’s member state.

If we leave with no deal, the draft regulations will revoke the geo-blocking regulation completely. No deal would end the protections for UK businesses and consumers, as they would not be protected in the European Union. The Minister set that point out very well in her opening remarks. As she said, retaining the regulation in the UK would mean that we could be blocked but would not be able to block against discriminatory practices from within the European Union. Those points are well made in paragraphs 2.4 and 2.5 of the explanatory memorandum. Paragraph 2.4 makes the point that

“if we did not revoke the Geo-Blocking Regulation, UK traders would continue to have obligations to EU customers under the Regulation while UK customers are unlikely to receive any of its benefits.”

Paragraph 2.5 states:

“To avoid this asymmetry of enforcement obligations in the EU’s favour, we are revoking the…Regulation in the UK.”

I accept those points, which is why we will not oppose the revocation.

The revocation of the regulations would at least minimise discrimination, but that is a bare minimum and a low base from which to operate. It would be far better not to have to do this and to have mutual recognition after we leave the European Union and continue with an arrangement that protects our businesses and consumers against discrimination as far as possible.

The draft regulations are an example of what no deal means. After yesterday’s latest failure by Members from across the House—but from some parties in particular—to be prepared to find a compromise to avoid no deal, we are one day closer to the dire prospect of that outcome. Of course, the Government should have taken no deal off the table, so that MPs did not have to do so, to avoid what in all honesty are desperate, last-minute no-deal preparations. That is the only way to describe what we are being asked to do today, 10 days before a likely no-deal departure.

The CBI was one of the business organisations referred to as having been consulted. Although I do not have its response to the consultation—I hope to hear it shortly from the Minister—I do have what it wrote to the Prime Minister, in a joint letter with the TUC, about the consequences of no deal. Is it not refreshing to see the leaders of the employers’ largest representative organisation and the leaders of the workers’ representative organisation working so closely together, signing a joint letter to the Prime Minister? That is what leadership in this country looks like and it is a great shame that we have not seen more of it from politicians.

The joint letter makes it clear that no deal would be disastrous for the country—for businesses and for workers—and that also applies to the draft regulations, should they ever be needed. On a no-deal outcome, the CBI-TUC letter states:

“Firms and communities across the UK are not ready for this outcome. The shock to our economy would be felt by generations to come…avoiding no deal is paramount.”

They describe no deal as causing “reckless damage”—[Interruption.] It is a shame that those Members commenting from sedentary positions on the Government Benches did not support some of the alternative options available to us yesterday. The TUC and CBI call for a plan B, which has been rejected by those Members who have been heckling me for the past few seconds.

Budget Resolutions and Economic Situation

Debate between Bill Esterson and Lindsay Hoyle

Thursday 17th March 2016 Commons Chamber

[Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I wonder whether you can give me some guidance. I understood that when a Minister had a major announcement to make on policy, as I think the Secretary of State just said she had about education policy, they are supposed to come to the Chamber and make it first before it is reported elsewhere. Why has she not done that as part of her speech?

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Of course, all statements of policy come through this Chamber.

Debate on the Address

Debate between Bill Esterson and Lindsay Hoyle

Wednesday 8th May 2013 Commons Chamber

[Bill Esterson]

The Institute for Fiscal Studies is clear that the lowest 20% of income groups are being hammered by the Government’s various changes. How can the right hon. Gentleman justify disabled people being hit, as they have been, by a combination of the bedroom tax, the council tax localisation scheme, work capability assessments followed by their appeal, and having their benefit cut during that lengthy process?

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. We are now on 17 minutes. I was working on speeches lasting no longer than 16 minutes per Member.

Fuel Duty

Debate between Bill Esterson and Lindsay Hoyle

Monday 12th November 2012 Commons Chamber

[Bill Esterson]

rose—

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

Order. Those who think they are bottom of the list will also have minutes removed.

[Bill Esterson]

I am always happy to be guided by you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman is aware of the research—

Health and Social Care Bill

Debate between Bill Esterson and Lindsay Hoyle

Tuesday 13th March 2012 Commons Chamber

[Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)]

My right hon. Friend is, as ever, making the case for the NHS, not for the privatisation that the Tories and their Lib Dem friends are pursuing. We are talking about the future of the NHS, so let me quote Victoria Roberts, a student nurse from Merseyside, who starts her training in two weeks. She says:

“I am a student nurse due to start my training in 2 weeks. This is not the NHS I want to serve or work in, but rather will help only those who can pay the most.”

Does my right hon. Friend agree with that assessment of where the Tories are taking the NHS?

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. We must have shorter interventions. A lot of people want to speak and we have got to get on with it.

Points of Order

Debate between Bill Esterson and Lindsay Hoyle

Thursday 19th May 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

What I can say is that we do not discuss security issues in this Chamber, and quite rightly so, as Sir Gerald will know, given that he is a very senior Member of this House with great knowledge. I suggest that he meet with the Serjeant at Arms to discuss the issues. He has put them on the record for the rest of the House to consider, but the right way to proceed is to sit down with the Serjeant at Arms. I will, of course, also pass on his comments to Mr Speaker.

[Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I am glad that the Secretary of State for Transport is still in his place to hear my point of order. Have you had any indication from him that he intends to make a statement to the House to clear up the confusion caused by his comments on television and in The Times today? Coastguards at Crosby and across the country, and the public whom they serve, are extremely concerned about the proposed changes, as are Members of all parties across the House, and we would all appreciate some clarification in a statement from the Secretary of State.

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

That is not a matter for me, but the hon. Gentleman has placed his comments on record.