Exiting the EU: Sectoral Impact Assessments

Debate between Hannah Bardell and Anna Soubry

Wednesday 1st November 2017 Commons Chamber

[Anna Soubry (Broxtowe) (Con)]

I rise to support the motion. I hope that the motion is put to the vote and I shall be walking through the Lobby in favour of it. If the Minister and the Government are not prepared to be bound by the terms of the motion, I gently say to them that we are not messing about here any more. This is grown-up, serious stuff. This is no longer a debate on the fringes of politics, where people can follow long-held ideological dreams they have had for decades. The country has voted— 52% of those who voted voted to leave the EU—and people like me accept that we are going to leave the EU. But I am not going to stand by and see the future of my children’s generation and the grandchildren I hope will follow being trashed and ruined without any form of debate and disclosure as to the consequences and, arguably, the options that might be available as disclosed in all these documents that cover so many sectors in so many ways.

So this is grown-up, serious stuff. I say to Members on this side that the days of carping from the sidelines have gone. I say to them: “You’ve won; you’re in charge of this; now you have to face up to the responsibility of delivering a Brexit that works for everybody in this country and for generations to come.” So what’s the problem? If the Government are not going to be bound by this motion, vote against it. If they abstain, they agree to it and they will abide by it. As I have said, these are serious matters.

[Hannah Bardell]

Will the right hon. Lady give way?

[Anna Soubry]

I will take the extra minute.

[Hannah Bardell]

I find myself in the strange position of agreeing with everything the right hon. Lady is saying. She is making a very sensible and rational speech. Does she agree that the irony is that some of our colleagues who so seek to have a sovereign, more powerful, more transparent Parliament are, by not agreeing to the result of this motion, damaging democracy and the ability of Parliament and those who sit in it to do their jobs?

[Anna Soubry]

I agree. Let us be clear: this debate has always crossed the political divide. Many in the Labour party supported leave and many Conservatives supported remain. This transcends the normal political divide. I agree very much with the hon. Lady.

Let me explain why it is so important that we know what is in these documents. I am getting a bit of a feeling here. I rather take the view that there might be stuff in these huge impact assessments that perhaps hon. Members on this side do not want to put out into the public domain. They can and should redact every piece of commercially sensitive material in the documents, and anything that could undermine the security of our country should also be redacted. However, I am getting a rather strong feeling that, if the Government were to say that, whatever the options might be for the final deal, everything in this wonderful new post-Brexit world that awaits us was going to be brilliant and rosy, those Members who favour no deal would be the first to stand up and say to the Government, “Disclose these impact documents! Let the people see what wonders await them in this wonderful new post-Brexit world.” So what’s the problem?

I must say to my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (John Redwood), as he represents all those fishing men and women who live in his constituency: how on earth can he say that we should not disclose all these documents because that would undermine the negotiations if he has not seen them—or even some form of summary of them—in the first place? The implication is quite clear: there is something in them that is not to be disclosed because it might actually prick this golden bubble, this balloon, that is the promised land of Brexit. My constituents are entitled to know the consequences of the options that are available to this Government as they negotiate the transition and then, most importantly, the final deal. My constituents are concerned about their jobs, and so are the businesses in my constituency.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Hannah Bardell and Anna Soubry

Tuesday 28th June 2016 Commons Chamber

[Anna Soubry]

The consultation has, of course, now finished. There were concerns, certainly among Government Members, that Opposition Members perhaps had not been as supportive about the future plans for Tata as we would have liked, but, as the hon. Gentleman knows, our doors always remain open to him. He has done great work to ensure that we have a sustainable steel industry in south Wales.

[Hannah Bardell (Livingston) (SNP)]

Many workers at BHS, such as those in my constituency, will no doubt have been watching in horror as events unfolded. What further support and assurance can the Minister give to the staff at BHS to support them through this difficult time? Furthermore, I have found—I am sure that other Members have, too—that BHS is not willing to engage with me as a local Member of Parliament. What can she do to ensure that it will engage with Members?

[Anna Soubry]

I am quite surprised that BHS will not engage, as the hon. Lady puts it; that is not at all satisfactory. We are working hand in glove with the Department for Work and Pensions to ensure that people are getting the support and opportunities that they need to get jobs. I am pleased that that work continues. In fact, government does continue, notwithstanding last week’s vote.

BHS

Debate between Hannah Bardell and Anna Soubry

Monday 25th April 2016 Commons Chamber

[Anna Soubry]

I thank my right hon. Friend for his wise comments. As ever, he provides a good, sensible insight into the situation. I agree with him: we must be sure that the PPF scheme is in no way abused by anybody. I welcome his comments and he can be assured that this team of Ministers takes these matters very seriously and will keep a keen eye on developments.

[Hannah Bardell (Livingston) (SNP)]

Let me associate myself and the Scottish National party with the comments made in relation to the BHS workers and families, and express our concerns for them. One of Scotland’s larger stores is in my constituency, and the store and workforce are well known and widely respected in the local community. We stand in solidarity with them today, and we are thinking of all the BHS workers and their families across the UK at this very difficult time.

The SNP is deeply concerned about job losses now that BHS has gone into administration. We acknowledge the centrality of loyal customers to a store which has been part of our high streets since 1928. Behind every closure and job loss will be a personal story. BHS workers have a diverse range of skills and many of them have given long service. In some respects, BHS’s predicament has more to do with the UK Government’s failure to stimulate economic recovery and the confidence of people across these isles than with Sunday trading, and I am shocked and surprised that the Minister, in one breath, tells Labour not to resort to political point scoring and, in the second, resorts to political point scoring herself.

Dig a little deeper into today’s media commentary and one finds some very worrying claims emerging. In a blog published this morning, the Financial Times asked:

“Would 11,000 BHS workers still have jobs if Tina Green hadn’t siphoned £1bn out of the business?”

The tax and business affairs of BHS and the gap in its pensions fund merit serious investigation, so I hope that the Minister and the Government will look carefully at this issue. Will she please tell the House, the nations of the UK and, most importantly, the workers of BHS what the UK Government will do to facilitate the sale? The Scottish Government will do all they can to support the workers in Scotland, but we want a commitment to leave no avenue unconsidered in a bid to secure the future of BHS and its workers.

[Anna Soubry]

As I said, our thoughts are with the workforce. It is important to point out, however, that the stores are still open and people still in work—they have not lost their jobs—so we must not talk down the business. We want somebody to come forward and buy the company and to make sure it has a good, sustainable future. That is where my thoughts are at the moment. We want to help in any way we can to make sure a buyer comes forward. I pay tribute to the excellent workers at BHS not just in the stores but—not forgetting—in the various distribution centres around the country. I also have to say, however, that we are the Government who delivered 2.5 million new jobs in just five years.

Enterprise Bill [ Lords ] (Eighth sitting)

Debate between Hannah Bardell and Anna Soubry

Thursday 25th February 2016 Public Bill Committees

[Hannah Bardell]

Perhaps I am misspeaking.

We are disappointed that more amendments were not accepted, but it has certainly been interesting and engaging and, as the hon. Member for Cardiff West says, I am sure that there will be extensive debate when the Bill returns to the Floor of the House. I thank you again, Sir David, on behalf of myself and my hon. Friend.

[Anna Soubry]

Further to that point of order, I add my thanks for your chairmanship, Sir David, and for that of Ms Buck. It has been a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship.

I should put it on record that the first time I ever sat on a Public Bill Committee was to consider what became the Health and Social Care Act 2012. It took me quite a long time to recover from it; it was one of the longest-lasting Committees ever to sit in this place. I say that for the benefit of new hon. Members—you have had it very easy. That Committee took a long time and, Sir David, as you might remember, there was quite a long pause—as the Government called it—and then we all had to come back. It seemed to go on for ever.

This has been a very good Bill Committee. I know that the hon. Member for Livingston is a little disappointed that some of the amendments have not been accepted, but I think it is fair to say that there has been more agreement than there has been disagreement, which is certainly to be welcomed.

I thank all the Clerks and staff, and the staff of a number of Departments who have helped me prepare for my contributions. I also thank my hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Planning, a fellow Minister but at the Department for Communities and Local Government. It is always good to work with him. A feature of this Government—we were laughing privately about this, something that people perhaps do not understand—is that Ministers all like each other, get on terribly well and are genuinely friends. We do not need to go into more detail, because there are others I need to thank.

I thank the Doorkeepers. They have been lucky, because we have not had too many Divisions. They have kept us safe and we are grateful for them.

Finally, I thank all hon. Members, including the Whips—rightly, because people do not realise the job that the Whips do, which is to keep things moving smoothly. I pay tribute to my PPS, who has been struck down by a vile lurgy. He sat here for almost the entire day, only to discover that he was not required to vote, so he has gone home to his bed, properly so. I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Charnwood, who I think is engaging in his first PPS duties. We look forward to many more such instances—a gentle hint to the Whip.

The Committee has been enjoyable and, although I do not know whether it is a first, we have actually finished early. We cannot all go home, but we can certainly all go and have a cup of tea. Thank you, Sir David, it has been a pleasure. We look forward to Report stage and to the many further debates on the Bill as it passes through the House.

Enterprise Bill [ Lords ] (Sixth sitting)

Debate between Hannah Bardell and Anna Soubry

Tuesday 23rd February 2016 Public Bill Committees

[Anna Soubry]

Forgive me, but I thought I had made it absolutely clear that this is about settlement agreements. Obviously we do not want people to go to tribunals; we want people to settle. In the case of a settlement agreement—this is the point—there is not a determination by a tribunal. Conciliated by ACAS or agreed privately, there is no finding by a tribunal, but the claim may not be genuine, so appropriate scrutiny is essential before making exit payments over the cap. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North says that I have not said that, but I have just said it again. Guidance will be in place to assist relevant authorities in determining when to use their discretion to relax the cap, so it will be made absolutely clear. If a public authority employer is of the view that somebody has been unfairly dismissed either because they are a whistleblower or because they have been discriminated against, guidance will make it very clear that they should relax the cap to allow for an extra-large payment to be made.

[Hannah Bardell]

Unison has raised concerns that a perverse incentive will be created for employees to avoid settlement via the early conciliation process, which is the optimum stage. What is the Minister’s view of that?

[Anna Soubry]

That is exactly what this is all about. It is about ensuring that, when two parties reach their settlement, the employer understands that it must not impose the cap. If the employer is admitting, “You have been made redundant in the wrong way. We accept that you are a whistleblower. Somebody said that they were going to make you redundant, and they did the wrong thing,” it has to make that clear when deciding the amount of damages to be awarded: “We find that you were a whistleblower. We find that you were discriminated against.” By doing that, the employer can relax the cap without any hassle or difficulty. I do not think it could be more clear.

Enterprise Bill [ Lords ] (Fifth sitting)

Debate between Hannah Bardell and Anna Soubry

Tuesday 23rd February 2016 Public Bill Committees

[Anna Soubry]

The debate has been wide ranging, and I make no criticism of that. A number of questions have been asked that I intend to answer at this stage, but our discussions will continue in our consideration of the next clause.

The Green Investment Bank was a success and a product of the previous Government. We are proud to have introduced it. It is right that it is doing well. From market testing we know that there is a thirst and a desire out there to purchase it. We will sell it sooner rather than later and for all the right reasons. The bank has proved that investing in green projects is a financially sound and right thing to do. Many would say that it has led the way. As I said, the bank has proved that the sector is worthy of investment, which is why it is now time for us to sell it.

Specifically on the question asked by the hon. Lady whose constituency I will remember in a moment, when prompted—

[Hannah Bardell]

Livingston.

[Anna Soubry]

The hon. Member for Livingston—

[Anna Soubry]

Behave!

The hon. Lady asked whether the Government would guarantee that the bank will keep its headquarters in Edinburgh. GIB management have made it perfectly clear that Edinburgh is the best place for the bank to do business and why would they not say that, because Edinburgh is indeed a fabulous city in which to do business. Lord Smith, who is the chair of the bank—I will refer to him in our next debate—wrote to the Scottish Government, John Swinney in particular, to confirm his personal commitment as chairman of the Green Investment Bank to Edinburgh. We cannot of course force the bank to remain in Edinburgh, but I can see no good reason why on earth its management would not want to stay there.

The hon. Member for Wakefield asked whether we would publish the market testing. No, we will not. It is commercially confidential, as might be imagined, so that is perfectly normal. By the way, I congratulated the hon. Lady last week on her election—I add that in case anyone thought I was being churlish for not mentioning it.

The right hon. Member for Don Valley asked whether the Government would retain a minority stake in the bank. We intend to sell a majority. It is crucial that the Green Investment Bank is classified as being in the private sector—that is absolutely what we want. We may retain a stake, but at this stage we cannot commit to that. When we debate the next clause I will explain why and what we are seeking to do—in essence, to protect the green credentials, as so many hon. Members agree that we should.

To turn specifically to the amendment, once GIB is sold it will be subject to normal company law, under which a company of the size of the Green Investment Bank—GIB is a horrible term—that is not quoted and listed on the stock exchange is required to include aggregate information on total remuneration and specific information on the highest-paid director. Those are the minimum requirements—please note “minimum”.

The Green Investment Bank is currently required to report to higher standards, which is right, because it is entirely publicly owned. It currently reports the details included in the amendment and it may choose to continue to do so once it is in private ownership. I cannot see any reason why it would want to move away from its established principles.

When the Green Investment Bank is privatised the Government will not control its remuneration policy. We cannot control key aspects of corporate policy, such as remuneration, in a private company, and rightly so. There is no reason why the privatised Green Investment Bank should be singled out by the Secretary of State to report on its remuneration to Parliament, especially if it is not spending public money. If the Government do not hold any share in the Green Investment Bank, we would have no power to compel it to provide the amendment’s level of information if it chose not to do so.

[Hannah Bardell]

I hear what the right hon. Lady says, but does she not agree that this could be the start of something great? We could start a domino effect of companies being more open about their remuneration, which would send a very strong message about how we could do that and support it.

[Anna Soubry]

The thing is that we do have requirements for private companies, and I have explained what they are, but we cannot make the Green Investment Bank do anything more unless it chooses to lead the way. There are many companies, for example, that will only deal with Fairtrade products; many companies choose to do things in a certain way and can in many respects, it can be said, change the culture. I am firmly of the view that this amendment is not necessary and should be resisted.

Enterprise Bill [ Lords ] (Second sitting)

Debate between Hannah Bardell and Anna Soubry

Tuesday 9th February 2016 Public Bill Committees

[Hannah Bardell (Livingston) (SNP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairwomanship, Ms Buck.

I want to speak briefly to amendment 38 and new clause 16. Small and medium-sized enterprises have a vital role in driving the UK’s economic recovery, and it is a vital task of Government to ensure that finance is available to them to encourage investment and growth.

We welcome the findings of the British Business Bank’s small business finance markets report, which was published this month. It paints an encouraging picture of lending to small businesses in the past year, with an increase in equity finance for smaller businesses—there was growth of 43% in the year to October 2015. Bank lending, which continues to be the main form of finance for smaller businesses, continues to improve too, but obviously there are still significant challenges there.

However, as was mentioned earlier, 56% of smaller businesses are looking to grow their turnover this year. It is essential that suitable finance should be available to support those growth ambitions and that the Government should not rest on their achievements of the past year. By accepting the amendment, which we support, the UK Government would give the small business commissioner the power to champion lending for small businesses and to make constructive recommendations to the Government on how to encourage lending to SMEs.

As for new clause 16, we recognise that new rules were introduced for venture capital trusts, enterprise investment schemes and seed investment schemes by the Chancellor, and that the scheme would be a mechanism for incentivising investment in small enterprises. Again, we support the new clause, and encourage the Government—I hope we can see some cross-party consensus—to bring forward details and guidance about the availability of the scheme. What we are talking about is somewhat of a marketing exercise, but it is a question of getting the information out. All too often—certainly when I worked in the private sector, in the oil industry—the schemes that were available were various. Companies were not aware of what was available. It is important that we market schemes and put them out there, so that as many companies as possible take up opportunities.

[The Minister for Small Business, Industry and Enterprise (Anna Soubry)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Buck. I join the hon. Member for Sefton Central in welcoming you to your Committee Chair role for the first time. I am sure that we will all do all we can to make your experience one that you will remember enjoyably.

I will speak to the amendments—and oppose them—beginning with cash retentions. We had an extremely good debate just the other week in Westminster Hall. It was called by the hon. Member for Upper Bann (David Simpson), who rightly brought the matter before the House yet again. It is fair to say that there is absolute cross-party agreement about the need to reform cash retentions in the construction industry. I am very open about it: I think they are outdated and I do not think they are fair. They are particularly unfair to small businesses.

If the Committee will forgive me, let me say that the amendment has come too soon, and the reason is the work we are doing. We have set up a full review, and I am grateful to the Construction Leadership Council. Andrew Wolstenholme, the chief executive of Crossrail, is overseeing a full review of cash retentions in the construction industry. His work will not be completed until some time in March. His review will then come forward with recommendations.

It could be that the trust—an idea that I am familiar with—is the best way to make sure we sort out the problem of cash retentions, but there are other ideas that were debated in Westminster Hall. For example, a better way to do it might be some sort of bond scheme. Many hon. Members will be familiar with that from section 106 agreements in our work in our constituencies. To make sure that roads in housing developments are completed, the developer has to put money into a bond scheme.

There may be merit in what is being proposed, but now is not the time to do it. I think that the hon. Members for Livingston and for Kilmarnock and Loudoun have come to it too soon, because there may be alternatives. It may be that, as a result of Mr Wolstenholme’s review, other things might need to be added to legislation in the future. I think it has come too early, though I have huge sympathy for where it is going in its thrust.

--- Later in debate ---

[Hannah Bardell]

Following on from the hon. Gentleman’s comments, we also welcome, as we did on Second Reading, the creation of a small business commissioner, but as we said then and as we believe now, it is important that the commissioner has real power and teeth to arbitrate and to take on issues when they are brought to them, rather than just to give advice. The Federation of Small Businesses has said that it is important that the commissioner is endowed with real powers to assist small business. It is important for the integrity of the office of the commissioner that it is regarded by small businesses as a route by which they can achieve a meaningful outcome. The current suggestion of a commissioner making recommendations or highlighting particular cases is simply not enough if they are to gain a reputation as a small business champion. All too often, such bodies do not have the power to bring companies into line. If we want a fair system across the board, further powers, such as those in the amendment, are important.

[Anna Soubry]

It is important to refer to our consultation because it represents the voice of small business, and it showed us that small businesses want to understand what options are available through existing dispute resolution services. Small businesses have told us that there are plenty of existing resolution services and that we should not—here comes the word again—“duplicate” them. They need support to navigate the services more easily. The commissioner will provide general advice and information to raise awareness of alternative dispute resolution and direct firms to those approved mediators. Obviously, I am an old lawyer, though, of course, I was a criminal barrister, but one thing that has struck me about the changes that have occurred in the civil side of English law—I cannot speak for the situation up in Scotland—is the widespread use now of mediation, which means that people do not end up in court.

We know the cost of going to court, we know that it can actually be very traumatic. It is not just matrimonial or family matters; a business dispute can still exert a huge pressure, especially for a small business. There is a human as well as a financial cost. So the court system, certainly in England and Wales, has bent over backwards to encourage people to go to mediation, for all the very good reasons that I hope are obvious to everybody.

When we looked at the creation of the small business commissioner and what we were seeking to achieve, I was very keen to understand—I was worried, to be very honest—whether there were enough mediation services available to businesses in the event of a dispute. I was encouraged that there definitely are enough. So it is not the job of the small business commissioner to mediate, because, frankly, there are other people out there who will do the job and are doing the job.

I should say that I have not actually had the honour of meeting Mark Brennan, the Australian small business commissioner; unfortunately I could not attend the meeting, but I spoke to him at length on the phone. I will be very blunt about it: it was one of the best conversations I have ever had in this job. He spoke with all the frankness and robustness that I was hoping for—“This is difficult, you cannot legislate for this, but in tackling late payment, which is what this is all about, what we seek to achieve is to change the culture so that small businesses no longer feel the need to complain about this problem, because it does not happen, because we have changed the culture.” At the moment there are already laws to prevent unfair terms and conditions in contracts, late payment penalties and so on. There is a code of practice and, of course, if someone has already signed up to a contract and somebody has, in effect, breached the contract, they can go to law. So there are lots of protections there, but we want to change the culture so that people are not paid late in the first place.

Mark Brennan impressed on me that it is very difficult to legislate for this; this is why we are doing it in this way. He said, “The real power I have on late payments is that when I am aware of a trend or a practice by a particular business, I pick up the phone and speak directly to the chief executive”. He said that nine times out of 10—I think it was actually more than nine times of out 10, if there is such a thing—the chief executive took the phone call. That is why we need to make sure we have somebody big business respects; there was no messing about, they took the phone call. He said that as soon as he said to the chief executive, “Do you know what your finance team are saying to a whole group of small businesses?”, the chief executive said “What? They’re doing what? This is not how this business works, I had no idea this was going on” and then he or she sorted out the problem.

That is the huge power of the small business commissioner in Australia and that is what I want ours to have. I want them to have the respect of businesses—so they will take the phone call and listen to what is being said—as well as the confidence of small businesses.

[Anna Soubry]

I completely agree with my hon. Friend.

[Hannah Bardell]

I recognise what the Minister is saying and that there is a range of mediation services. Does she not recognise, however, that in the example she gave where the small business commissioner could phone up the chief executive, it would force the hand and have greater power if he or she were able to say, “If you can’t get this sorted out, we have an overarching power”?

Enterprise Bill [ Lords ] (First sitting)

Debate between Hannah Bardell and Anna Soubry

Tuesday 9th February 2016 Public Bill Committees

[Hannah Bardell]

The right hon. Lady is making a powerful speech and strongly advocating for the commissioner. We support the notion of the commissioner, but does she agree that if the commissioner does not have the powers or the teeth to enforce its decisions, it cannot ultimately do justice to its office?

[Anna Soubry]

That is not part of these amendments, and I want to confine my comments to these. We will have that debate later, as we discuss other amendments.