Trade Bill (Sixth sitting)

Debate between Mark Prisk and Bill Esterson

Committee Debate: 6th sitting: House of Commons
Tuesday 30th January 2018 Public Bill Committees

[Bill Esterson]

I am glad that the Minister has confirmed that we voted to support the creation of a Trade Remedies Authority and that he voted against it. I think that was very clear in that lengthy intervention.

As the explanatory statements make clear, amendments 21, 22 and 23 would have the effect of giving Parliament the power of consent over the appointment of a chair to the Trade Remedies Authority set up by the Bill. They would establish a procedure for the appointment of non-executive members to the authority, and ensure that the TRA includes representatives of key stakeholder bodies among its non-executive membership—all things that the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford requested.

[Mr Prisk]

I actually said that the non-executive members need not to be beholden to a sectional interest and they need to be able to make a corporate decision. My worry is that amendment 23 does precisely the former. There are some 5.3 million people in the west midlands and some 5.6 million in Scotland. Presumably, according to the logic with which the hon. Gentleman has drafted the amendment, we should also have somebody from the west midlands. I am sure that people from Yorkshire would then like to have someone from Yorkshire. My concern is that ultimately we will end up with one person representing not the broad picture, but a sectional interest. I am very happy to have people who have links and connections to those areas, but to appoint them on the basis of where they come from or to represent one sectional interest would be wrong. Merit should win.

[Bill Esterson]

Perhaps the appointment of the non-executives can cover all those areas.

Trade remedies and the Trade Remedies Authority are a key element of our trade policy. Gareth Stace of UK Steel told us in one evidence session that

“If we get this very wrong, we become the dumping ground—not just in Europe, but for the rest of the world.”–––[Official Report, Trade Public Bill Committee, 23 January 2018; c. 66, Q127.]

It is therefore essential that we get it right, and the Bill is our opportunity to do that. The Government have spent the past few days in Committee trying to convince us that the Bill is a technical little Bill that is not trying to do much other than put in place necessary frameworks. On the Trade Remedies Authority in particular, they have gone to great pains to stress that they are simply setting up the necessary structures to carry out our trade defence once we have left the European Union. This much is true: the Trade Bill does set up the Trade Remedies Authority, which will be a key component of our trade policy once we leave the European Union, when we have to carry out our own trade remedies.

Trade Bill (First sitting)

Debate between Mark Prisk and Bill Esterson

Committee Debate: 1st sitting: House of Commons
Tuesday 23rd January 2018 Public Bill Committees

[Bill Esterson]

Q What other countries do you think we should be looking to for the way they do these things?

Nick Dearden: We know that post-Brexit we want to be doing a trade deal with the European Union and the United States, so they are good places to start. Both political entities have set out in detail a number of ways in which they negotiate and give Congress or Parliament power over trade deals. In the United States, a 700-strong citizen advisory board is allowed to see all the texts. They have to have very specific public consultations. At the very least, Congress gets an up-or-down vote at the end, and if it does not fast-track trade deals, it gets substantially more power than that.

In the European Union, the Parliament gets to feed into a mandate—the Council gets to set a mandate. Various parliamentary Committees get to look at, scrutinise and give recommendations to the Executive for how a trade deal would affect jobs, the economy, the environment, human rights, or whatever else we may be concerned about. At the end, the Parliament is given a proper debate and an up-or-down vote.

On top of that, as I have already said, many trade deals are required to go back to member Parliaments for them to have a say, too. If you look at how Denmark, Germany, the Netherlands or Finland operate, they already exercise far more scrutiny over external EU trade deals than the UK does.

[Mr Prisk]

Q Mr Dearden, you say that Parliament should approve Government entering into negotiations. Given that the Government are talking to at least 100 countries at all times about trade, how would that work in practice?

Nick Dearden: There are various ways in which you could do it. One of the ways is to have a Committee set up particularly to scrutinise the Government on this. When the time comes to enter negotiations on a deal, it will discuss with the Government what their priorities are and they will say, “We think this is acceptable and this is not acceptable.” It will be brought in from the very beginning.

I think that is important, because the Secretary of State has said a number of times, “I really want to avoid a TTIP-style situation, where we end up with a deal in discussion that has lost public support and lost a lot of parliamentary support.” To do that, we must have that buy-in from the very beginning, and that must require some degree of parliamentary discussion about what the objectives for this country should be in a trade deal with country X.

Draft Small Business Commissioner (Scope and Scheme) regulations 2017

Debate between Mark Prisk and Bill Esterson

Tuesday 21st November 2017 General Committees

[Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Sharma. I, too, welcome the appointment of the commissioner. I know Paul Uppal from his time in the House. He has a strong business background. Having been a member of the governing party may have helped him, of course, in securing the post—I could not possibly comment on whether there is any truth in that scurrilous accusation.

The Minister pointed out that there are £26.3 billion-worth of late payments in the private sector according to the latest figures from Bacs, but she did not mention that the time businesses wait is 72 days on average. Members on both sides of the Committee have mentioned the sadly all-too-common game playing by larger companies in dealing with their smaller suppliers. It is fair to say that a reduction in that kind of game playing is one of the many things that I would like to see Mr Uppal and his team address. If he is to repay the faith that has been shown in him, perhaps that is something he can take on board and investigate, to see what recommendations he can come back with on how to address some of those endemic problems.

The relationship damage done when a small supplier challenges a larger customer is a serious block in challenging late payments. It is one of the reasons why, in the Enterprise Bill Committee, we pushed the Government extremely hard on alternatives to the very mild voluntary system that has been set up, which the Small Business Commissioner has before him and his team. The Australian system of binding arbitration, with proper fines behind it, appears from the evidence we discussed in Committee to have been a significant success in bringing down the number of days that small companies waited to be paid. I again urge the Minister not to rule out moving to such a system over a period of time, and urge the commissioner to consider whether that is the sort of system we should consider in this country as well at some stage.

I have previously raised concerns that the system is restricted to the private sector, and I raise them again. The public sector is a source of significant late payment concerns for smaller businesses. The Minister mentioned the prompt payment code; signatories to the code tend to be in the public sector, with some larger private sector firms, but they do not cover the entire public sector and it is too early to say how effective they have been in reducing the time that small companies must wait to be paid.

There are examples of Governments in other parts of the world—the United States is one that springs to mind—using the procurement system to ensure prompt payment. The rules in the United States are that if a company trades with the federal Government, it has to pay its suppliers promptly. I wonder whether that is something the Minister would take on board. Again, that is something we said in the Bill Committee during the passage of the Enterprise Act 2016 that created the post. All too often in this country, companies that procure from Government are paid within 30 days, often as quickly as five days, and then delay their own payments. That is an opportunity within the commissioner’s terms of reference and something else for him to investigate, because those are private sector companies potentially using their position to improve their own cash flow at the expense of their smaller suppliers, and using Government money to do so. That is a particular area where the Government should be interested and could act. As I say, if it is part of the agreement in America, why not in this country?

[Mr Prisk]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising an important point. My understanding is that most transactions in America are for payment on receipt of goods or services, so there are no 30-day or 60-day terms in most common business practice. Is that something he recognises? It would change the nature of his question.

[Bill Esterson]

The hon. Gentleman is more familiar with what goes on in America than I am in that case. Certainly, the evidence that we were presented with when we discussed the matter in the Bill Committee suggested that that was not true of every contractual relationship in America. Perhaps we could discuss that outside and look further at the evidence. Payment on delivery is one way of addressing the point we have just been discussing.

Some questions emerge from the regulations before us. My understanding is that the commissioner, as constituted, has the power to name and shame. I wonder whether the Minister can shed some light on what the intention is for the use of those powers, and how quickly she feels the commissioner should look to set up some kind of naming and shaming system.

How many complaints does the Minister envisage the commissioner will be investigating every year? How many complaints does she expect him to receive every year? How many complaints could his office deal with every year? That relates to how many staff he has and what his budget is, which the Minister could perhaps address.

From some of the representations I have received, it appears there is a question mark over whether the construction sector will be included in the Small Business Commissioner’s work. Given that a significant number of the problems of late payment lie in the construction sector, can the Minister clarify whether that is true? The concerns around retentions of 5% or even 10% over a number of years are a very important part of why construction should be included.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Mark Prisk and Bill Esterson

Monday 8th July 2013 Commons Chamber

[Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)]

4. What recent estimate he has made of the number of families with children living in temporary accommodation.

[The Minister for Housing (Mr Mark Prisk)]

On 31 April this year there were 40,450 families with children in temporary accommodation. Under the previous Government the number reached 74,180.

[Bill Esterson]

We are talking about this Government’s abysmal record. Some 76,000 families are living in temporary housing. Of those, the number in bed-and-breakfast accommodation has gone up from 630 three years ago to 1,970 at the end of March this year. These figures show that the Government are not even following their own guidance, which says that B and B accommodation is not suitable for families with children. The truth is that this Government are failing families with children up and down the country as regards providing decent housing.

[Mr Prisk]

I reject that argument. After all, the number of families in bed and breakfast for more than six weeks, to which he referred directly, has gone down by 14% in the past six months. However, we are not complacent; there is a lot to do. It is appalling for families who find themselves in those circumstances. This Government are determined not to reach the peak, which was treble the current level under the previous Labour Government.

Housing

Debate between Mark Prisk and Bill Esterson

Wednesday 5th September 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Prisk]

I think that was, “Yes but, no but, yes but, no but.” It is interesting; I am delighted and will obviously want to talk to the LGA group to see if it shares the hon. Gentleman’s view. I hope it is the case that the entire Labour party will adopt the right-to-buy scheme and recognise that we should all be standing behind aspiring tenants. I would love to be a fly on the wall at the hon. Gentleman’s next meeting with the LGA Labour group.

Let me move on to the issue of building new homes. I am alert to the fact that time has passed, and I wish to ensure that Back-Bench Members have the opportunity to speak, especially given the ruling from Mr Deputy Speaker. In many parts of the country, there is a difficult housing market. We are under no illusions about that and one has only to look around the world to see housing markets in real difficulties. Much of that is a result of the financial consequences of the housing boom and bust that took place under the previous Administration.

That is why we have launched the £570 million Get Britain Building investment fund that will unlock stalled sites for up to 16,000 homes and hopefully create up to 30,000 jobs. In addition—we have had a lot of support from many Back-Bench Labour Members on this—we set up the £770 million Growing Places fund for local enterprise partnership areas to fund infrastructure projects that will help to unlock some of the more troublesome sites.

We are accelerating the release of surplus Government-owned land, with capacity to deliver up to 100,000 new homes on brownfield land to the benefit of communities around the country. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington mentioned that point, and I shall look again at his representations. I must ask, however, why over 13 years the previous Labour Government did not do that already? Why did they wait until they were in Opposition and then try to lecture us on what should happen in the future? It is a shame, but I would always be happy to hear a positive representation on the issue.

[Bill Esterson]

I welcome the Minister to his new post. Does he agree with the Prime Minister and Chancellor on the need to build on green belt, especially given that his 2005 ten-minute rule Bill specifically showed his opposition to that? Does he agree with the Prime Minister and Chancellor or does he stand by what he said seven years ago?

[Mr Prisk]

The Prime Minister and Chancellor are not saying that. If I have learned anything, it is not to believe everything I read in the newspapers.

Alongside the measures I have just described, it is important to ensure that we help local areas, but not in the same way as the previous Government. For example, we could help those local areas that wish to deliver locally led large-scale new developments in a way that helps their communities. Unlike the previous Government, whose eco-towns were promised and never happened, this Government do not intend to dictate to people or impose on them. We want to work with them, which is an important principle.

Let me give an example of how that policy has worked. I pay tribute to my predecessor, because last week, the Government helped to unlock plans for 23,000 homes on the brownfield site of Eastern Quarry in Ebbsfleet. Those plans had been stuck on the drawing board for a decade, but the homes can now be built.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Mark Prisk and Bill Esterson

Thursday 27th October 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Prisk]

Absolutely. That is an excellent campaign by the FSB, and it shows why we are focused on matters that concern those real-life entrepreneurs: cutting their costs; tackling red tape; and of course improving access to finance. There is a lot more to do, but they know that we are on their side.

[Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)]

Another excellent campaign from the FSB and also the Federation of Master Builders is the “Cut the VAT” campaign, which supports a cut in VAT on home improvements to 5%. Such a move would also be good for entrepreneurs. Will the Minister support that campaign?

[Mr Prisk]

We are doing a lot of things to help small businesses. I notice that, although the Labour party is now saying that such things should be done, in 13 years in government it did not do it. Why not?