Dieter Helm Energy Review

Stephen Kerr Excerpts

Tuesday 24th April 2018 Westminster Hall

[Dr Alan Whitehead (Southampton, Test) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Blackley and Broughton (Graham Stringer) on securing this debate. He is well ahead of the Government in having the first response to the Helm review—as he rightly said, a response from the Government who commissioned the report in the first place is currently conspicuous by its absence. Given how these things proceed, it is a little odd that the Government’s initial response to the Helm review into the costs of energy was essentially to call for evidence on the cost of energy. I am not quite sure where we are with the Government response to the report they commissioned, although I am sure we will hear about that from the Minister. Because we have no indication of what the Government intend to do with the Helm review, we are slightly at sea in terms of how best to respond to it at this stage. Should we consider the commissioning of the report, its terms of reference, the recommendations within it, or, indeed, what the Government will do with it?

[Stephen Kerr (Stirling) (Con)]

A good place to start would be Dieter Helm’s conclusion that there is apparently nobody in government or any other sphere who can explain all the interventions being made in the energy market, such is the clutter of interventions in that market.

[Dr Whitehead]

The hon. Gentleman makes a strong point. That point is also made strongly in the Helm report, which has a list of the various interventions in play. Indeed, I think we can add a few more to those in the report, some of which have appeared more recently, such as energy intensive industry, underwriting and so on. What the Helm report says is right: we have vastly over-complicated many of the areas that we consider necessary as policy levers. Indeed the temptation, not just for the current Government but for successive Governments, has been than when they see a shed that is slightly leaning, they build another outhouse on the side to stop the shed leaning. They subsequently have to do something with the outhouse, and then we get the current extraordinary complexity of the whole process.

To get a feel for exactly how complex the market is, I refer hon. Members to a recent chart produced by the University of Exeter about the various interactions that the energy market now undertakes. Helm makes that point strongly. The question is this: if we are simplifying the market and how it works, how do we do that? How do we dismantle the complexity as we simplify the market, and what will be the consequences of that simplification?

All other things apart, this review was a hospital pass for Dieter Helm, and, as the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Patricia Gibson) emphasised, it was, frankly, an unbelievably rushed job. It was commissioned on 6 August last year, and concluded on 25 October last year. Not only was it commissioned on 6 August, but it had terms of reference that ran to one and a half pages. If hon. Members read them, they will see that not only do they greatly curtail what the review could have covered, but they are internally contradictory regarding what they ask the review to do. For example, the review states that the Government have

“the ambition for the UK to have the lowest energy costs in Europe”,

but, as the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Alan Brown) emphasised, the review merely talks about power. Although we are supposed to have the lowest energy costs, the review is only supposed to consider power, and not heat or energy efficiency; that point was made by the hon. Member for Wells (James Heappey). The review has apparently wide ambition, but in practice it covers a constrained area of examination. It is essentially a review of the cost of electricity, and that is what it concentrates on.

Given where energy is now, if we talked properly about its overall cost we would have to mention that, as the Helm review lays out in some circumstances, the cost of energy is higher in a number of other European countries but the cost to consumers is much lower. That is because of the difference in energy efficiency in those countries, and the interaction between different forms of energy—what happens to heat, for example—and the power sector. If we take the lowest energy costs in Europe as our theme, it is not immediately clear what we are talking about. What will those lowest energy costs be compared with? If we restrict ourselves to the power sector, how can we complete that examination in terms of overall energy costs? That is a bit of a theme of the report, hospital pass that it is, although given the short time span and the terms of reference given to Professor Helm he has done a tremendous job.

Nevertheless, we should be clear that the report in essence represents an extended opinion piece: the opinions of Professor Dieter Helm on how the energy market and the electricity market in particular will work in future. He has been expressing those opinions—I am familiar with a number of them—forcefully for a considerable period. I strongly agree with some of his opinions and I do not agree as much with some, but they are mostly there in the report, one way or another.

The question we have to ask about the recommendations that Professor Helm makes in the report is, how are they backed up with evidence? Having read the recommendations or even the executive summary, we might confidently assume that in the report we would find not only evidence to back up the recommendations, but talk of their consequences. However, we do not find that. What we find is material to back up why Dieter Helm’s opinions are right. As a satisfactory answer to the question asked, the report falls rather short of what one wishes might have been achieved. That is a problem in responding to it fully.

I strongly agree with some of Professor Helm’s conclusions, but some I do not agree with at all. However, I would have liked to see in the report what informs his conclusions, what the consequences of those conclusions are, and how they will be worked through. Professor Helm, for example, talks about the legacy costs of energy and of interventions by Government. As the hon. Member for Stirling (Stephen Kerr) intimated in his intervention, the extent of those potential legacy costs is laid out for us in the Helm report.

The solution provided is that those legacy costs should be discontinued as something that goes on people’s bills, as they do at the moment, but that they should be all bundled up and put somewhere else. Where are they put? There is nothing in the report to tell us that, except that they will be socialised across consumers and not across to industry. One way or another, the bundle of legacy will reach back on consumers’ bills, in just the way that the social and environmental costs that appear on bills now are also borne by customers. Not only that, that cost will land on customers’ bills in a more concentrated way because, according to Professor Helm’s recommendation, industry will be exempted from the impact of the legacy costs. That means that customers’ bills will go up considerably and not down considerably over the period, as I assume is the intention of that particular proposal.

Similarly, one suggestion is that generators that produce power intermittently might be required to back that up by commissioning their own power resources to ensure that the intermittency is not spilled across the rest of the market. That sounds like a good idea except that if we do that, with each of those power generators independently commissioning their own power back-ups, that is a recipe for extreme inefficiency in the market over time. The market would have a series of near-redundant back-up power stations, not socialised across the piece but responsible only to those people who commission them and, therefore, in the market as a whole probably substantially increasing rather than decreasing the cost of energy.

There are a number of things in the report—the question of who runs the distributed energy service, how that is best run in the public interest, the simplification of the system over the period, and how the carbon price can be used in future to manage the transition to a low-carbon economy—but I am not convinced that it is much other than a good talking point as far as future energy policy is concerned. The report is a good, elegant and well-constructed talking point, but nevertheless it is a starting point and not a conclusion by any means.

I hope that that is how we see the report in future, because there is a long way to go before we get to the conclusions necessary to back up what the hon. Member for Wells described as the difference between the caterpillar turning into the pupa but still ending up as a caterpillar, or the caterpillar turning into a butterfly. As I think I have already mentioned to the hon. Gentleman, I personally prefer the example of the axolotl, which is a Mexican salamander. As I am sure hon. Members know, unlike other salamanders, it does not undergo the metamorphosis necessary to become a land-living amphibian; it stays for the whole of its life unmetamorphosed, with gills, under water. We do not want the energy market to end up like the axolotl. We are in a process of rapid transition—

--- Later in debate ---

[The Minister for Energy and Clean Growth (Claire Perry)]

It is a pleasure, as always, to serve under your chairmanship, Mr McCabe.

I understand about axolotls and chrysalises, but I did not know what a hospital pass was. I assumed that it was something people put in their windscreen when at Great Western Hospital. It made me very grateful that we unveiled the statue of Millicent Fawcett today— 11 blokes and now one woman in Parliament Square. Perhaps we can have some terms everyone understands in the future.

I thank the hon. Member for Blackley and Broughton (Graham Stringer) for securing the debate. We could discuss the issues of science and climate change, but that is not why we are here. The points he made were very good ones. The challenge of how to make policy in a way that keeps the lights on and the costs down, does not burden future generations with unnecessary costs and achieves carbon emissions reduction targets, involves important questions for debate, so I am grateful.

Before I get on to some Helm comments, I will set out a couple of ground-preparation points. We are at a tipping point. When we used to talk about low carbon, it was axiomatic to think about high cost. As we heard very eloquently from my hon. Friend the Member for Wells (James Heappey), those trade-offs increasingly are going away. I accept that renewable energy without the necessary level of battery, solid state or liquid storage will not keep the lights on and give us the hot showers we want, which is why I am such a proponent of gas, particularly clean gas, in the system in future.

Tackling our climate change issue and delivering on our carbon commitments, which are world leading in their scope, does not mean that we are looking forward to a high-cost, low-economic productivity future—quite the opposite. As we have set out in the clean growth strategy and continue to debate, we are employing more than 400,000 people in the low-carbon economy, which is bigger than aerospace in the UK. That economy is growing very rapidly, creating great export opportunities, and is doing so in the knowledge that we have decarbonised more and grown our economy more than any other G7 country. That is something of which successive Governments should be very proud.

I want to reassure the hon. Member for Blackley and Broughton that when we think about technological investments in the future, we are trying to apply a triple test. First, what happens to the carbon emissions? Can we see emissions actually coming out—can we count them? Secondly, can we see a cost-effective pathway to deployment? Can we deliver technology that will reduce costs rapidly? Thirdly, does this give us a competitive advantage based on what we are doing well in the UK, which we can export? It is not just us on this low-carbon journey; the world is pivoting to a low-carbon economy. Trillions of dollars are being spent on low-energy production and transport.

The hon. Gentleman talked rightly about coal; as a founding member of the Powering Past Coal Alliance, I wish we could persuade all countries that it is the fuel of the past. Equally, it is not right for us to dictate to some of the emerging economies their energy mix. We have to encourage and support them. India has said that it wants its entire car fleet to be electric by 2030. That will have a material impact on the price of that technology around the world. All that creates a reinforcing, positive spiral. If we can demonstrate leadership in technologies and other countries do, too, the price will drop, as has been seen with solar panels. That means that more countries can adapt and we get ourselves to a better place.

The focus on low carbon is not a win-lose situation; it is a win-win situation. The emphasis on innovation cannot be made strongly enough, which is why we have committed £2.5 billion over this Parliament just for this area of low-carbon innovation, which is part of the biggest increase ever in public spending on UK science research and innovation.

We can debate strategies, and we will, but we need to focus on costs now. Reducing costs both for consumers and for businesses is the heart of what we want to do. We have seen and heard what has happened to the input cost going into the system; I accept the point about onshore wind—the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Alan Brown) and I have debated that. We have a manifesto commitment that we do not believe large onshore wind is right for England, but I am aware of other parts of the country and we are working to see what we can do.

We have seen a dramatic fall in the cost of low-carbon energy. Indeed, we have just celebrated our second period of coal-free power generation—a record of 57 hours not using coal to power our electricity in the UK. There are some other more subtle points, too. Network costs, which make up a quarter of dual fuel bills, have fallen 17% since privatisation, and the pressure is downwards on those. We have seen a dramatic increase in the level of competition in the retail energy market—there are now more than 65 suppliers. Switching levels are hitting record highs.

As hon. Members will know, I will bring back to the Floor of the House the Report stage of the Domestic Gas and Electricity (Tariff Cap) Bill next week. It sounds as if we will have strong support from all Members present. We believe that we need to do more to help that market move towards a more price-competitive place, and we want that cap to be in place for this winter.

On household energy bills, it has not just been about consumers and taxpayers investing in the future of energy generation and low carbon. Much of that investment has been offset by improvements in fuel efficiency in homes, which I believe the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Patricia Gibson) alluded to, often directly through measures such as the energy company obligation. In fact, although prices have gone up as a result of the investment in future forms of technology, the average bill in homes has dropped by £14 since 2012, because we have become much more efficient.

[Stephen Kerr]

The Minister has not mentioned smart meters in her list. When does she feel she might be in a position to tell us where we are going with the SMETS2 meters and the connection with the Data Communications Company?

[Claire Perry]

My hon. Friend has anticipated my speech; I was also going to mention the very dramatic, large roll-out of smart meters. We know we need to move to SMETS2 and make sure that that is done as seamlessly as possible for consumers who already have a SMETS1 meter—I am happy to take that offline.

GKN

Stephen Kerr Excerpts

Tuesday 24th April 2018 Commons Chamber

[Greg Clark]

This is the first time that any such commitment has been given on the ownership of assets for a period of five years. I have been active in establishing this regime, and I think the hon. Gentleman knows that, in my engagement with manufacturing and other industries, I have considered carefully the strategic importance of continued investment and stability. In the final analysis, there was a greater commitment to stability of ownership from the bidder than there was from the incumbent management. On the question of enforceability, I will place in the Library of the House the deeds that have been entered into in favour of the UK Government by the company. Some of them are under the Takeover Panel regime. As I said to his colleague on the Labour Front Bench, the effect of this new regime is that there will be sanctions up to imprisonment for a breach of those undertakings.

[Stephen Kerr (Stirling) (Con)]

I welcome the encouragement that my right hon. Friend gave to the Chair of the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee to look at the issues surrounding this takeover, and I am sure that the Committee will do that. Importantly, he also pointed out that this was a contest between two British management teams. Does he agree that the British taxpayer should expect companies that receive public money, either through contracts or through research and development, to be prepared to give an undertaking to take a long view when it comes to investment decisions?

[Greg Clark]

That is right, and I would also welcome consideration of these matters. Right from the beginning, I have made a commitment to the House that I would take a considered, comprehensive view and use the powers that I have, and that where I did not have statutory powers, I would say what I expected. When it comes to research and development, to the ownership of assets and, for today’s purposes, to national security, a long-term commitment is required, and it has been important to obtain undertakings in all those areas. I hope that the Committee will take a look at this.

Industrial Strategy

Stephen Kerr Excerpts

Wednesday 18th April 2018 Commons Chamber

[Drew Hendry (Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey) (SNP)]

I always enjoy listening to the Secretary of State; I find him a courteous and well-mannered person who tries to put forward a positive view at all times. I find the same to be the case when I work with his team.

This long-awaited industrial strategy is welcome—it is good to see something—but it lacks the substance that we should see in a document that would make a meaningful difference for people, and it misses the mark on fairness and ambition. I hope to delight the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Kwasi Kwarteng), because along with my criticisms, of which I have many, I am going to try to be constructive and suggest some points that the Secretary of State might want to consider.

On inclusive growth, the Scottish National party has long argued that ideologically-driven measures not only are harmful to society, but actively hinder business development, growth and investment. Inclusive growth must be at the heart of any economic strategy, yet the Government continue their obsession with a failing austerity dogma, and nothing in the industrial strategy signals a change of direction. The Institute for Fiscal Studies has forecast that austerity could last until the mid-2020s, meaning that Scottish businesses, households and public services could ultimately face 15 years of austerity measures—and that amid the harsh realities of a hard Tory Brexit. The UK is facing the biggest increase in inequality since the 1980s, the worst wage stagnation in 70 years, which the IFS described as “dreadful”, and a huge increase in child poverty as a direct effect of tax and benefit reforms.

In the context of Brexit, the Global Future study was released just today. After looking into all four options available to the Prime Minister, it established that, in the long term, the amount available for spending on public services will fall. Under the so-called Norway option, there would be £262 million less a week. Under the Canada model, there would be £877 million less per week, while under a no-deal scenario, there would be £1.25 billion less per week. For the NHS, there would be 22% less funding available if there was a bespoke deal, and 9%, 31% and 44% less under each of the other options. Of course, it is not just about the public sector. As we have found from speaking to industry after industry and sector after sector, there are many concerns across the piece about the direction of the Brexit negotiations.

Unfortunately, the hon. Member for Glasgow North East (Mr Sweeney) is no longer in the Chamber, but I wish to reflect on what he said about Jack McConnell and the post-study work visa. I have a great deal of respect for Jack McConnell, who was and remains a far-sighted politician. He recognised that Scotland requires different measures when it comes to our immigration needs. For many decades, our problem has been one of emigration. We need people to come to Scotland. If we are to retain competitiveness and increase productivity, it is essential that Scotland’s immigration system is outward-looking and that it allows businesses to attract the necessary skills to boost growth and create jobs.

[Stephen Kerr (Stirling) (Con)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Drew Hendry]

I will give way briefly in a second, but I am mindful of what Madam Deputy Speaker and Mr Deputy Speaker have said about the time available for the debate. I shall make a little progress first.

The ability to attract workers to Scotland is a vital component of how we strengthen our economic advancement and tackle demographic challenges. Over the next 10 years, some 90% of our population growth is projected to come from migration, and that will be directly affected by Brexit dogma.

[Stephen Kerr]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that we need to attract people, new talent and high-end jobs to Scotland. I just do not know how the SNP Government wish to achieve that by having Scotland as the highest-taxed part of the United Kingdom.

[Drew Hendry]

Of course, in a discussion about the future of EU nationals, many of whom are very worried about their future, the hon. Gentleman tries to make a rather petty political point. What he should acknowledge is that Scotland is far from being a less attractive place. Thanks to the huge council tax hikes in England, which are the largest in 14 years—bills are up by some 5.1%—people are actually paying more tax in England than they are in Scotland.

There are roughly 181,000 EU nationals in Scotland. Half the welcome net increase in the Scottish population between 2000 and 2015 has come from people born in EU countries, yet the strategy overlooks the likely impact of immigration restrictions on UK industry. If there were a time to pause and think about the effects of immigration on people and industry, it should surely be this week, when we have seen the manifest failings of the UK Government’s current immigration strategy.

Some sectors in Scotland, such as the thriving food and drink sector, are particularly reliant on the employment of EU nationals. Many businesses across Scotland and the UK employ and rely on EU workers, but the UK Government’s regressive approach to immigration has failed to take proper account of that fact. It is simply not possible to replace straightforward access to the EU labour market with domestic recruitment, and replicating existing immigration rules for non-EU nationals would place significant and unnecessary costs and bureaucracy on business. As has been noted, we have had two very clear cases of people in my constituency of Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey who have been contributing to our local economy being booted out by the immigration policy of this Tory Government.

Let us now turn to the ambition of the industrial strategy. If we really want to deliver affordable energy and clean growth, it is astounding that the UK Government have failed properly to recognise renewable energy in the industrial strategy. The devastating predicted drop in renewable investment of 95% between 2017 and 2020 should be a wake-up call that urgent action should be taken to secure a thriving future for this dynamic sector. Of course, during that period, we have also seen the near decimation of the solar industry.

Scotland is proudly in the vanguard for the development of renewable energy projects and investment. The SNP Scottish Government have set out ambitious targets for a transition to a low-carbon economy. By contrast, the UK Government’s erratic energy approach and the UK’s decision to leave the European Union have created uncertainty in the sector. The UK Government have responsibility for the damaging effects that we have seen.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Kerr (Stirling) (Con)]

I begin by referencing page 236 of the industrial strategy White Paper, which specifically mentions the Stirling and Clackmannanshire city region deal. I look forward to hearing—shortly, I hope—about the heads of agreement that have been reached with the Scottish Government and local authorities so that the deal can be brought to life.

The subject is fascinating and I am sorry that there is so little time to talk about the industrial strategy. I want to concentrate on one aspect that I think is critical to its execution. We cannot overestimate the role of the UK universities sector in the successful execution of any industrial strategy worthy of the name. It remains a jewel in the UK’s reputational crown. British universities are among the very best and people across the world aspire to attend them, such is the reputation of the quality of the education on offer.

Building close links between the universities and business is vital. Those links are the springboard for invention, innovation and new business creation. As a member of the Select Committee on Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, I visited the University of Sheffield Advanced Manufacturing Research Centre, where the partnership between the university and Boeing has attracted the engagement of dozens of other business across the sector, solving problems and driving increases in productivity. That is a model for high-level collaboration between universities, academics and industry to enable the delivery of the industrial strategy. Sheffield has become a centre of excellence in design, machining, casting, welding, composites and so much more. It was inspiring to see how all that is being achieved. It gave a vision of what can be done when we put our minds to it.

We need to leverage the international excellence of UK universities to make the UK a global hub for ideation, invention, discovery, innovation and commercialisation.

Stirling University is the second largest employer in my constituency and we have welcomed some 2,600 overseas students who pay between £15,000 and £17,000 a year. Stirling University is therefore, to my mind, one of our great exporters. The Higher Education Policy Institute estimates that there is a £52 million net positive impact on Stirling from those students.

I recently visited the INTO international student facility at Stirling University where I met several of the international students. It came as no surprise to me that they had chosen to make Stirling their home because, 36 years ago, I did the same. However, I only came from Forfar, which, as my hon. Friend the Member for Angus (Kirstene Hair), who is not here, would doubtless attest, is still part of the United Kingdom.

We seem to make it too difficult for students to come here. We make people jump through hoops and undertake expensive and extensive screening and other requirements that very few other countries do. We are losing our market share in an expanding global market. The UK’s reputation as a university destination choice is not what it should be. Chinese students are going to Canada, the United States and Australia rather than here. Those countries have targets to attract international students, and we can learn from that.

Time is against me. My appeal to the Government is: make it easier for students. It is time for students to be taken out of the Government’s net immigration target. Student visas should be easier, not harder to obtain. We should build on the great strength of the UK universities sector as a path to executing the Government’s industrial strategy.

Corporate Governance and Insolvency

Stephen Kerr Excerpts

Tuesday 20th March 2018 Commons Chamber

[Andrew Griffiths]

The hon. Lady asks two important questions. The Government have a role to play in this as a customer. We give billions of pounds of contracts and we have the power in our own hands to demand that the supply chain is treated properly. I can assure her that, in the very near future, we will be coming forward with a clearer set of principles and tools to ensure that the supply chain is treated properly and paid fairly, using the 30-day terms. That is what we expect of our suppliers. I agree with her point about apprentices. Unfortunately, we have to accept that there will always be businesses that go bust. That is one of the realities—[Interruption.] That is the way in which the business environment works. We are putting the employees at the heart of this consultation and at the heart of the decisions we make.

[Stephen Kerr (Stirling) (Con)]

I congratulate the Minister on his statement and on launching this much-needed consultation. As a member of the Select Committee that is inquiring into the collapse of Carillion, I should like to share with him the fact that one of the startling things we discovered was that the company could not even give the Insolvency Service the names of all the directors of all companies in the group. Does he agree that steps should be taken to improve governance and accountability in groups of companies with complex structures?

[Andrew Griffiths]

My hon. Friend has hit the nail well and truly on the head. I commend the work that his Select Committee has been doing in shining a light on the realities of the way in which Carillion operated. In the very early days of the Carillion collapse, when the Government were looking to protect those vital services that were being delivered and to protect the 18,500 people employed by the company, it became clear that it was a hellishly complicated business with a hellishly over-complicated structure. It is still proving a difficult job to untangle the web of the Carillion business structure. If it is difficult for the Insolvency Agency to do that, so many weeks on, how much more difficult must it have been to run the business? We need clear, accountable business structures in our businesses today.

Unpaid Trial Work Periods (Prohibition) Bill

Stephen Kerr Excerpts

2nd reading: House of Commons
Friday 16th March 2018 Commons Chamber

[Stewart Malcolm McDonald]

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. Surely to goodness, there is not anyone on a Bench here in this House who thinks that that kind of practice can be justified.

[Stephen Kerr (Stirling) (Con)]

indicated assent.

[Stewart Malcolm McDonald]

I see that the hon. Gentleman is nodding, and thank goodness for that. I thank him, too, for his support for the Bill—he was actually a very early supporter of it.

My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow South West (Chris Stephens) is absolutely right. I argue, as I am sure that he, as a man with fine trade union credentials that would be tough to challenge on these Benches, does too, that employment law is heavily stacked in favour of the employer. It actually provides employers with sufficient instruments to try people out as it is. Why can people not be put on a probation period, as is normal in most mainstream jobs where good employers do that? For example, the Conservative-led coalition, of two Parliaments ago now, changed employment law so that people can effectively be dismissed in the first two years of employment. That is something that I disagree with; I would not have voted for that. None the less, with those kind of instruments at employers’ disposal, there is no need to try people out for 10 hours, 40 hours, or four weeks, as I mentioned earlier.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stewart Malcolm McDonald]

I am sure that is untrue.

I mentioned retail and hospitality because those were the industries that came up most in my consultation. Amazingly, the British Retail Consortium refused even to discuss the issue with me because it thought there was not a problem. That is news to a young man from North Lanarkshire who was abused by the retail store, B&M Bargains. I used to love going into B&M Bargains, perhaps to pick up some toothpaste and then spending 25 quid because it is the kind of shop where people buy things they do not need. I was horrified to learn that it had had a young man with autism, in the hope of securing work, stacking shelves for three or four days, only to dismiss him at the end of it, saying, “You’re not required any more—off you go”, with no pay and no chance of a response.

[Stephen Kerr]

What interests me is the demoralising effect of that situation on that individual. It is this devil-may-care attitude towards other people that really gets under my skin. This Bill is about fairness, and I commend the hon. Gentleman for bringing it forward.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Philp (Croydon South) (Con)]

It is a great pleasure to follow the very thoughtful, well-researched and well-considered speech by the hon. Member for Glasgow South (Stewart Malcolm McDonald). I must say that I found myself in agreement with large parts of it, partly because I am a very passionate believer in the national minimum wage.

One of the things I did after I was first elected in 2015 was to seek out the then Chancellor of the Exchequer, George Osborne—I understand he is more than modestly occupied these days—to press him on what I thought was the very strong case for a big increase in the minimum wage, because it is so important, and I was delighted when, a short time later, the Government announced large increases in the minimum wage. I am very proud of the fact that a Conservative Government, between 2010 and today, have increased the minimum wage from £5.93 an hour back in 2010 to £7.83 an hour today, which is a 32% increase. The national living wage is a legally required minimum wage, and I am very proud that a Conservative Government have increased it by 32%. Over that period, inflation has been only 19%, so it has risen by substantially more than inflation.

[Stephen Kerr]

Does my hon. Friend accept that the premise of the Bill is that it is a wonderful thing to learn to work, which is a very important part of growing up? The Bill is particularly about protecting the young, however, so is it not an important lesson for the young to learn that if they go to work and they work hard, they are also entitled to be paid fairly?

[Chris Philp]

Yes, I agree with that principle. As my hon. Friend pointed out in his earlier intervention, the idea that people should be fairly paid for a fair day’s work, or even for a fair few hours’ work, is an important Conservative principle, and I think it is an important fundamental right as well, so I agree entirely with that premise.

I want to put on the record once again my very strong support for the concept of the minimum wage—the national living wage—and the fact that it has been increased by such a large amount. While talking about wages for those on low earnings, I would point out in passing that the increase in the tax-free allowance in the past few years—from £6,500 to £11,500—means that take-home wages for people on the minimum wage, the topic of the Bill, have actually gone up by 37%, because not only has the minimum wage gone up by 32%, but they are also paying proportionately less tax. It is important to bear it in mind that low tax, as well as a decent wage itself, has a role to play in making sure people are properly paid.

We have talked quite a bit already about enforcement. Clearly, a national minimum wage, or national living wage, is only as effective as its enforcement, as the hon. Member for Glasgow South touched on. In the last financial year, 2016-17, HMRC, the body responsible for enforcing the national minimum wage, took action against 1,134 individual businesses—quite a good track record of taking action to enforce the minimum wage; clawed back £10.9 million—a fairly substantial sum; and took action that encompassed 98,000 workers who had been illegally underpaid. That suggests that HMRC is taking its enforcement role very seriously and enjoying some success in making sure that the national living wage and minimum wage are adhered to.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Philp]

If trials are taking place with no certain job at the end, or no vacancy, that is an outrageous abuse.

[Stephen Kerr]

It’s fraud.

[Chris Philp]

It is indeed fraud as my hon. Friend says, and I entirely agree with his interjection. I look forward to the Minister offering his thoughts on that in due course. [Interruption.] Excuse me Madam Deputy Speaker. I am recovering from the remains of a cold that my children kindly gave me last week. [Interruption.] Does the hon. Member for Glasgow Central (Alison Thewliss) wish to intervene?

Domestic Gas and Electricity (Tariff Cap) Bill (Second sitting)

Stephen Kerr Excerpts

Committee Debate: 2nd sitting: House of Commons
Tuesday 13th March 2018 Public Bill Committees

[Dr Whitehead]

I thank my right hon. Friend for that intervention underlining the thrust of what I have to say. Although we may take serious account of Ofgem’s earnest intentions, which we heard about this morning, we are not legislating for the good side of earnest intentions, but for what we want to happen in the end with the Bill. To put in the Bill what we actually want to happen clarifies matters for the future, rather than spreading confusion. We will have declared—I use that word because we cannot entirely proof ourselves against the possibility of an unexpected legal challenge, although, if I can be congratulatory to the Bill’s constructors for a moment, they have done a good job of ensuring that it is as legally unchallengeable as it can be—

[Stephen Kerr (Stirling) (Con)]

I perfectly understand where the hon. Gentleman is coming from, because Ofgem’s performance over the last few years has been less than inspiring. Having said that, both sides of the House have said, and we heard it again from Ofgem today, that we know what our destination is with the Bill. I cannot understand what we gain by putting a date in it, beyond what we have already amassed in terms of collective evidence and collective will that we have to see this enacted before next winter.

[Dr Whitehead]

I fully accept that there are different interpretations of the best way forward within the overall agreed framework of where we want to go. Perhaps hon. Members take the perfectly reasonable, honourable and thought-out view that we have got what we want to say in the Bill, we have heard what Ofgem thinks it can do and we are happy to leave it there. My view is that it would be helpful to properly encapsulate our position on the Bill by saying in it what we want to happen—by setting an out-date for the considerations that Ofgem has to undertake before the cap becomes real.

Although I do not doubt for a moment the bona fides of Ofgem, or the sincerity of what Dermot Nolan said this morning, nevertheless, if we are not as clear as we can be about what we want to put forward in the Bill, it is conceivable—no more than conceivable—that someone could say, “Actually, we said five months, but some unexpected circumstances have cropped up—not a legal challenge, but other things—so we can push that further down the line. We’ll have to say that we are a bit sorry about that, but that’s how it is.” I do not want that circumstance to be even remotely in the minds of anyone at Ofgem over the next few months.

--- Later in debate ---

[Claire Perry]

I appreciate the hon. Gentleman’s support, and I am delighted that we have cross-party support. I think we are all agreed that this is a robust Bill. I thank the hon. Gentleman for sharing his tribute to the parliamentary team, who have done a good job drafting it.

[Stephen Kerr]

I would like to pick up on the comments made by the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun about the robust performance that we saw from Ofgem this morning. Frankly, that could be, in part, because when Ofgem appeared before the Select Committee scrutinising the legislation, it was less than robust—the witness was less than robust. I think he has got the message: he cannot be neutral on this; he has to be robust. We saw that today and that gives me great confidence that we will see this Bill enacted in the way we envisage.

[Claire Perry]

I defer to my hon. Friend’s experience. He sat through this process, doing an excellent job on the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee, and has seen the evolution of this robustness.

In response to the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun, I think the Bill is absolutely robust. We are agreed: we have a tight, well-drafted Bill that does not allow for random amendments. The challenge is that the actual job of setting the price cap has, quite rightly, been given to the independent regulator. We have to go through a process of transparency and confidence building, if you like, with participants in the market, so that the number is set at the level we want to deliver maximum benefits to consumers without the dis-benefits of driving investment out of the industry, or indeed providing a less competitive environment. That is why I have been persuaded that Ofgem gets the deadline, believes it has the right to do it, but has asked for a period in which, quite rightly, it can go through a very transparent process. The more transparency the better, because that will head off any possible legal challenge. I wish we did not have to be in the world of worrying about future legal challenges, but I think we are all convinced that we need to make the whole process as robust as possible.

In responding to the hon. Gentleman from north of the border, Kilmarnock and Loudoun, I hope I have persuaded the hon. Gentleman from a long way south of there to withdraw his amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Kerr]

indicated dissent.

[Dr Whitehead]

The hon. Gentleman shakes his head. I cannot possibly comment on that. I got this on the internet, by the way. The headline was “Millions of Brits in line for £100 as Theresa May delivers on energy price cap promise”. Underneath, it said:

“The price cap on 11 million gas and electricity bills is to come in by end of the year as The Sun’s Power to the People campaign pays off”.

“It was The Sun wot done it”—not us, by the way.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Whitehead]

The hon. Gentleman makes an important point about what could happen prior to the cap coming in. Energy companies could be gaming ahead of the game with their prices, so what would savings look like after that? I am not sure that we can do anything about that right now. As Ofgem mentioned, if energy companies are too blatant in their price rises over the next period, they will be in breach of their obligations to Ofgem anyway.

We have seen several instances of small price rises recently. We heard about one—a comparative gas price—this morning. Bulb, one of the witnesses this morning, put up its rate by £24 just a few weeks ago. That was for particular purposes, but one could argue that it was a gaming price rise ahead of the legislation. Bulb was very clear that it was not, and that it was for other purposes, but we clearly have to be alert to that possibility.

If that does happen, what anyone has said about what savings would result from this price cap would have to be taken relative to whatever that price was at the point when the price cap was introduced. It would be possible for consumers to say at that point, “Actually, we were promised a £100 price saving. It does not look like a £100 saving to me, because it is a saving against a price rise that will end up increasing my bills.” In wishing to place this in the legislation, I am indicating that we in this Committee do not wish to let the public down regarding what might happen with this price cap.

The Prime Minister has already said that there will be a £100 saving. Indeed, I do not know whether this applies to anyone present, but interestingly The Sun article states:

“Government insiders say the cap should save at least £100, potentially rising to £300 a year with increased competition and faster switching.”

Government insiders, whoever they are, are suggesting that the £100 is a minimum and it could be considerably more.

[Stephen Kerr]

More important than any quotation from The Sun, the number that really counts is the £1.4 billion of detriment that was identified in the CMA report. That is the number we should be going on. Confusing the issue by coming up with arbitrary numbers in the Bill means taking our eye off the ball of the £1.4 billion.

[Dr Whitehead]

The hon. Gentleman is right to draw attention to the CMA figure. Customers were, in effect, being overcharged by that over a considerable period. Indeed, that was a substantial precursor to the idea that there should be a price cap in legislation in the first place. A regime was in place that allowed overcharging by a variety of devices, a number of which were identified by CMA in its report. We want not only to cap the price for a certain period of time, but to ensure that the behaviour that allowed more than £1 billion to be overcharged is not repeated. We do not want to be back here in a few years’ time, saying “That is terrible—now we have to implement another price cap.”

The issue is not just about the price cap, but about what happens afterwards. We need to do what we can, both during the passage of the Bill and during the price cap, to ensure that circumstances in the market prevent such overcharging from happening again. One of the underlying aims of the Prime Minister’s statement about the savings that would arise was that the price cap should be more than just a temporary punishment for certain energy companies; it should be an attempt to reset the market so that things work differently. The proposal for the £100 saving derives from that.

In May 2017, the BBC site—I do watch the BBC—reported that the

“Prime Minister…said 17 million households would benefit by up to £100 from the cap on poor value standard variable tariffs.”

What has been in the papers recently is slightly different, but it is clear that the original plan was a £100 saving for customers paying standard variable tariffs. That is the public’s expectation, as franked by the Prime Minister, of the consequences of the price cap; committing to it in the Bill would show that our intention is in line with the results they expect. Including the £100 saving as a consideration for Ofgem would complete the circle. As I say, it was a suggestion not from any Opposition Member, but from the Prime Minister, about how the Bill should work. We merely seek to enshrine her words in the Bill.

Our other amendments serve essentially the same purpose but relate to later clauses, especially clause 8, which sets out a clear mechanism for the circumstances in which the cap can be terminated, describing subsection by subsection what will happen at the end of each year from 2020 until 2023, when the sunset clause has effect. In each year, the trigger for rolling over the tariff cap conditions for another year is that

“the statement published by the Secretary of State in that year under section 7 is to the effect that the conditions are not yet in place for effective competition for domestic supply contracts”.

Our amendments would insert an additional condition for effective competition in each year, based on whether the Secretary of State thinks that

“effective competition does not exist for vulnerable or disabled domestic customers”.

--- Later in debate ---

[Claire Perry]

Again, it was a very effective evidence session this morning. I was just going to come on to some of the other support we are looking to provide, in particular through the Energy Company Obligation, where we may be looking to help a broader group of people than is currently eligible.

I want to touch on some of the other duties that Ofgem already has in relation to protection of this customer group. The original gas and electricity Acts place a duty on Ofgem to protect the interests of existing and future customers. In carrying out this duty, Ofgem should have regard to the interests of individuals who are disabled or chronically sick, individuals of pensionable age, individuals with low income and individuals residing in rural areas. So I would argue that Ofgem already has these duties in place as part of its conditions. Indeed, the Bill, in which we make it explicit that we need Ofgem to consider all customers and all competition in setting the cap, makes the amendment surplus to requirements.

[Stephen Kerr]

I just have a brief question. I know the Minister has acknowledged the Select Committee’s work on pre-legislative scrutiny. One of the recommendations in its report was about amending the Digital Economy Act 2017 to allow data to be shared with energy companies. That is a huge impediment right now to getting help to the most vulnerable—particularly those who are on SVTs.

[Claire Perry]

Yes. Again, I want to thank my hon. Friend and the Select Committee for bringing forward a series of recommendations, which we have accepted. He refers to a statutory instrument that is being started in the Cabinet Office, which I am assured will receive assent—or whatever the right word is—during the passage of this Bill, subject, of course, to cross-party support. That opens up the opportunity for much better data sharing to support vulnerable and disabled consumers.

It is extremely important that we continue to look at this group. We heard today that some of those we might consider most vulnerable are also the most assiduous switchers, because they simply do not have a penny to spare. I guess the issue I have, which is why we are here, is that we do not want people to have to invest the time in shopping around to feel that they are always getting the best deal.

Households that are receiving the warm home discount, in addition to qualifying for the safeguarding tariff, get £140 a year. Of course, we protect our pensioners, with up to £300 a year for winter fuel payments. Sadly, the cold weather payment was also triggered in the last couple of weeks, and that was another £25 during the cold snap. There is also the priority services register, which is a free service provided by suppliers for people of pensionable age who are disabled or chronically sick, have a long-term medical condition or are in a vulnerable situation. Those people go to the front of the queue should an emergency—a supply interruption—interrupt their heating or cooking facilities.

Finally, I want to mention the ECO consultation, which we will bring forward shortly. It is my intention, as far as possible, to pivot the whole of ECO to focussing on the challenge of fuel poverty and trying to make sure that those in the greatest poverty receive the greatest benefit, but also to use the programme to support more innovation and more targeting. I live in an off-grid area, and I am fed up of getting ECO leaflets through my door. It does not feel like the best targeted scheme to me, and I would like it to be targeted at those who are perhaps time-poor and need the help the most.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Whitehead]

I would say that the essential point is how far up the beach and close to the walls the greenwashing actually goes. Can we conversely say that we can put greenwashing into a particular box and say “That looks like greenwashing”, but as we move up the scale of more and more renewables in the system, the greenwashing ceases and therefore can we say that this really is a renewable product and is something we can apply special exemption arrangements to? That is the nub of the debate.

[Stephen Kerr]

I would like to share with the hon. Gentleman the very words of Dermot Nolan in relation to this issue. In evidence to the Select Committee, he said in answer to a question about how it is decided whether energy is green or not:

“There are ways to determine the source of energy as to whether the generation of energy by that company has occurred in a sufficiently green fashion, which we have a definition for already, although not a perfect one. We would make specific requirements of companies on that. We would audit them and we would police it. If they were not compliant, we would tell them they must immediately withdraw the tariff or face enforcement action.”

That answer and the agenda that Ofgem is following make the amendment redundant.

[Dr Whitehead]

That is a reasonable and honestly held opinion about the extent to which it is possible easily to distinguish when greenwash is not greenwash and the point at which an energy company, even with a partially green tariff, puts in something that is honestly green and not something that they have just cooked up because they happen to have purchased something that has an element of traceable green energy in it.

Even under the circumstances that the hon. Gentleman mentions, it would be fairly difficult for Ofgem to make easy distinctions when it came to what it was doing about tariffs that could be jumbled up with a lot of brown energy but nevertheless be claimed to be at least partially green.

I have tried to think this through and consider how we might be able to make honest citizens of those companies under such circumstances. It is possible to argue that even if a company accidentally buys green energy, if it is genuine green energy, then yes, it has sourced green energy. However, the bar needs to be set rather higher.

Domestic Gas and Electricity (Tariff Cap) Bill (First sitting)

Stephen Kerr Excerpts

Committee Debate: 1st sitting: House of Commons
Tuesday 13th March 2018 Public Bill Committees

[The Chair]

I want to bring in Stephen Kerr here. I should say that we have only another seven minutes.

[Stephen Kerr (Stirling) (Con)]

Q My question is about appeal. Ofgem come up with their absolute level. There has been a lot of discussion from different commentators about the right of appeal. The Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee came up with its view. What is your view, Greg?

Greg Jackson: Appeal rights—for example, Competition and Markets Authority appeal rights—would probably mean that every time the cap is being reviewed every six months or quarter, it gets tied up in process. It means it never actually happens. Of course, that is what the big six want.

Hayden Wood: I completely agree. If consumers are going to benefit from this, we want them in by the next winter, and also Ofgem needs to be able to set the price, and not have to go through a long appeals process because, as Juliet said, things move in the energy market, so it needs to be nimble—

[Stephen Kerr]

Q Very clearly, you two are aligned.

Juliet Davenport: The only thing I would comment on is this. In a business you have got a first line, a second line and a third line of defence. Normally, Ofgem would be your second line of defence. The issue you have got is that you are blurring their rules: they are acting as first line and second line. That is where the appeal is a concern because they are setting the prices, and then they have got to judge themselves, almost, on setting the prices.

[Stephen Kerr]

Q What is your view, then?

Juliet Davenport: I wonder whether you have to look at the role within this: how you get that to be independent rule setting—whether it almost has to sit aside from Ofgem so that Ofgem can oversee it. If you put it within the regulator, I agree it is going to get—

[Stephen Kerr]

Q But they have to consult, don’t they?

Juliet Davenport: They will have to consult but, even so, I think you can see this being contested time after time. On the prepayment meter cap that has gone in so far, our calculation is that it has been incorrectly calculated probably about twice already. The question is that, if that then goes across 11 million customers, what is going to happen at that point, when it really starts to hit people’s balance sheets?

[Stephen Kerr]

Q How transparent is the calculation?

Juliet Davenport: It is not.

[Stephen Kerr]

It is not?

Juliet Davenport: It is not transparent till afterwards. You are immediately in breach if you do not comply. There is a process where you cannot actually challenge it.

[Stephen Kerr]

Neither of you had any concerns relating to that. You agreed with the Select Committee.

Hayden Wood: I would say that this goes back to the transparency point that I made earlier. I have an issue with a non-transparent process where the methodology, formula, and data input into that process are not published. That is an issue. I do not have information on the appeal issue.

Greg Jackson: The idea that you end up going to appeal in order to get the right to over-charge customers is going to be pretty grotesque. The reality is that they may try to do that, and you have to stop them. We have to prevent it becoming tied up in process. The prices are all still grotesquely high, whether they are set at £1,050, £1,075 or £1,030.

[Bill Grant (Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock) (Con)]

Q Juliet touched on smart meters earlier and the rather ambitious and expensive project that is endeavouring to secure 53 million installations by 2020. To what extent do you believe that smart meters can make the market work for consumers? This is to everyone. Could it lead to an early end to the cap, or could it make it redundant before 2023? It is not a freeze, it is a cap. There are opportunities three years prior to 2023 in which it could be eased or lifted. What is your view on that?

Greg Jackson: I think smart meters make this all the more important right now. If we do not clean up the energy market before we end up with everybody having a different price every half hour, it is going to be a wild west. We have the opportunity to clean up pricing now, and that is why it is particularly important that we deal with this topic of the difference between the highest and lowest tariffs. If it is hard for someone to know where they stand at the moment, then it will be even harder for them to know where they stand in the world of rampant time-of-use tariffs. Let us tidy up pricing now, and then smart meters really can be a path to success.

Hayden Wood: To add to that, we find the conflation of the price cap and the smart metering quite troubling. We do not see a relation between them. A person’s understanding of how much energy they use does not influence how often they might go into the market and look at price comparison sites and understand how much they are paying versus other suppliers. We are also not aware of any evidence suggesting that installing a smart meter would offset the £100 a year that a consumer would save under this price cap. The Government’s own data would suggest that the installation of a smart meter saves the consumer only £11 a year on their energy bill. They are actually separate things.

Juliet Davenport: My personal view is that they do come together when we get proper smart meters: SMETS2 in as opposed to SMETS1. The SMETS2 meters are going to make a significant difference to switchability. At the moment, if you take on a SMETS1 and you are not SMETS1-qualified you cannot switch them to smart metering. You would have a proper smart process in terms of switching. We are going to see some disruption in the market there with accessibility of data and third parties providing information in the house that can switch you instantly to another supplier if you are over-paying. That is the intelligence we are going to see with an increased amount of data. I am quite excited about smart meters and what they can do. They will facilitate households in saving much more than at the moment because we are going to see the smart house plug into that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Vicky Ford]

Q One of the issues that has been raised is making sure that the price cap does not disincentivise investment in infrastructure. During the consultation, will you also be listening to infrastructure investors to take into consideration their views when setting the cap?

Dermot Nolan: We will listen to everybody when taking views on setting the cap. However, the infrastructure should not formally be part of the price cap. It should not affect the way in which the price cap will broadly be set in terms of interactions with suppliers and the prices of the inputs they purchase. So although we will listen to everyone, I do not think infrastructure investors per se will be crucially involved.

I came in at the end of the last session and heard about smart metering. We will have to consider the smart metering costs, but only in the efficient cost. One of the difficult tasks in setting any level of cap is deciding a precise, efficient cost for the firms and ensuring that those efficient costs are passed on in the cap.

[Stephen Kerr]

Q In the past, Ofgem has said that it accepts the outcome of the CMA’s energy market investigation, including the majority view that said a price cap would have a negative impact on competition. How are you going to manage that? You have accepted that a price cap can lead to a loss of competition in the marketplace. How will you know? How are you going to measure competitiveness in the marketplace, and what will you do in terms of pulling levers in order to rectify that?

Dermot Nolan: The CMA view was split. We said we would go with the majority view, but one of the points about the process is that Parliament has now taken a decision. It is absolutely something that we will implement, because we are servants of Parliament, and we will implement it as quickly and as effectively as possible.

On the theme of competition, in my reading of the draft legislation, it seems to me that there is a desire to bring in a cap but also a desire to develop a more competitive market. There are a number of things that we are putting in place that we believe will help develop a competitive market further.

On smart metering, I know there were different views among the earlier panel, but smart metering is helpful. It is in some sense a necessary condition for, if you like, a digitised retail energy sector. There will be faster and more reliable switching processes. There are a number of remedies we have tested for prompts—ways in which people who have not yet been prompted to engage in the market will be prompted further. We have tested a lot of those already, trialled many of them and are going to roll them out in the next couple of years. There is the work on what we call midata, where we are going to push forward with a secure piece of your data that you can use in any price comparison website or any particular thing that will facilitate competition.

There are two more points—I know I am listing them off, but I want to be clear. One is that we think vulnerable protections will still be necessary if a full price cap is removed. We will look at whether any vulnerability price caps should be kept and, in particular, whether other forms and ways of protecting vulnerable customers, including things such as collective switches, could be used.

[Stephen Kerr]

Q Going back to the measures you mentioned earlier, which will underpin the competitiveness of the marketplace, those are things that can be done now. Yes?

Dermot Nolan: Those are things that will be done over the next year to two years.

[Stephen Kerr]

Q Tell us again how you will know that they are working. What are the features of a market to which you will say, “Yes, this is a competitive market.”?

Dermot Nolan: Last year we published a response to the Competition and Markets Authority—which, going forward, will form the core of our report to the Secretary of State, as envisaged under the Bill—that we called a state of the market. It was a detailed look at the state of competition in the retail sector. It will look at a number of indicators; it will be on the basis of this suite of indicators—there will not be one perfect one. It will include the numbers switching, but also survey evidence, levels of satisfaction in the market, whether people feel more trust in the market, and whether the vulnerable, in particular, feel empowered to switch or still feel disengaged. We will focus on and continue to develop a suite of indicators that will form the basis of a report to the Secretary of State, which, as envisaged in the Bill, we will make on a yearly basis.

[James Heappey]

Q I am keen to understand what you think a good market looks like. In a lot of other markets, we would consider happy customers who think that they are getting good customer service and a good deal to be a good thing. In the energy market we seem to be quite aggressively pursuing the absolute opposite. We seem to think that a good market looks like lots of people who are moving constantly to find a better deal.

I wonder how we do something in this price-capping process that, when energy companies go to war with one another over price, ensures that all of their consumers, including those who are loyal and seeing the benefits of good customer service, get rewarded, rather than simply perpetuating this view that a good energy market is one in which everybody is moving constantly and there is no incentive for companies to deliver good service.

Dermot Nolan: Absolutely. When I talked about a suite of indicators earlier, I think one should not over-concentrate on switching. It is perfectly possible, as James Heappey has said, to have a market that is functioning relatively well, but, actually, observed levels of switching are slow. What is important is that the customer must have the ability to switch if treated poorly.

In that sense, what we have seen, particularly in the energy market over the past two years, as we have seen in other markets, is a divergence of outcomes—£200 or £300 between people’s bills. Some—not all, because more than 20% of our domestic residential customers now come from small suppliers—have the disengaged feeling of, “I don’t feel comfortable switching and don’t feel protected.” The reforms that I mentioned in the last question are about trying to create a situation where we go back to the engaged customer—in some sense protecting the disengaged—with less variation between the engaged and the disengaged as a result and with people feeling, “I don’t need to switch, because I am not going to get charged £300 or £400 more by my own supplier if I don’t switch.” That is the kind of market that we would revert to. I think the reforms that we have set out will get us in that direction.

--- Later in debate ---

[Vicky Ford]

Q Just to come in on this issue of reviewing every six months, that is of course in the Bill.

Pete Moorey: That is good news.

[Stephen Kerr]

Q Would it help to remove the stickiness of customers if the SVTs were renamed emergency tariffs, because that is quite alarming?

Pete Moorey: I don’t know. It might do. That probably returns to the point I made to Alan Whitehead around testing and trialling different ways of engaging people in the market. It is really important that Ofgem tests how it communicates the safeguard and whether it should be called the safeguard. There is a real danger that most consumers, once they hear they are on a safeguard tariff, think that there is absolutely no reason for them to switch. Once the cap is in place, one of our key messages at Which? would be to go out there and say to people, “The safeguard tariff is not the cheapest tariff on the market. You could well still be saving hundreds of pounds by switching, particularly to some of the smaller suppliers in the market.”

[Stephen Kerr]

Q I think the standard variable tariff sounds rather benign.

Pete Moorey: Absolutely.

[Stephen Kerr]

Q If it was something more aggressively named, people might go, “I don’t want to go on this tariff.”

Pete Moorey: I think it should be tested.

Peter Smith: There is also a risk that if people are on the safeguard tariff, they think that they are safeguarded, but they are not taking up the wider support schemes that the Government have made suppliers deliver—things such as the energy company obligation, the warm home discount scheme, free gas safety checks and the priority services register. There are a number of other things that need to be considered to assess whether or not consumer engagement is happening, particularly for vulnerable households.

[The Chair]

If there are no further questions from Members, I thank the witnesses for their evidence.

Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Rebecca Harris.)

Oral Answers to Questions

Stephen Kerr Excerpts

Tuesday 13th March 2018 Commons Chamber

[Richard Harrington]

I am very surprised to hear what the hon. Gentleman says. As he said—I am grateful for it—I am talking in good faith; I know he is too. I would be pleased to hear of those examples, but I cannot quite understand why bills would go up, because nearly 90% of people with smart meters say that it is changing their energy patterns and that bills are going down.

[Stephen Kerr (Stirling) (Con)]

Can the Minister update us on where we are with the roll-out of SMETS 2 smart meters?

[Richard Harrington]

As my hon. Friend, who also contributed a lot to the passage of the Bill, knows, SMETS 2 is the newer type of meter which at the moment is in its trial phase. As the months go on, SMETS 1 meters will be converted through software that is being developed by the Data Communications Company, and all new meters will be SMETS 2.

Domestic Gas and Electricity (Tariff Cap) Bill

Stephen Kerr Excerpts

2nd reading: House of Commons
Tuesday 6th March 2018 Commons Chamber

[Greg Clark]

The Bill focuses narrowly on a problem that the independent inquiry has exposed as being very significant. As I have said, 10% of the annual expenditure of the poorest households is on energy. I recognise that we need to be agile in our regulatory system, and I hope that the behaviour of companies in other markets will reflect the fact that it is not acceptable to use information to ratchet up the amount paid by vulnerable consumers in particular. This is a regulated market with a regulator that is there to protect the interests of consumers, and I think it right for the Bill to focus on that.

[Stephen Kerr (Stirling) (Con)]

I fully support the Bill, but I have a question about Ofgem. The Secretary of State has mentioned a change in the behaviour of the energy companies, but what about a change in the behaviour of Ofgem in increasing productivity and being more on the ball? So far it has failed consumers miserably in that respect.

[Greg Clark]

I too would like to see greater agility on the part of the regulator. It seems to me that its powers would have allowed these actions to be taken under its existing remit, and it is a matter of regret that we have to introduce a Bill to compel it to act in this way. I concede, however—this was made clear in evidence given to the Select Committee on which my hon. Friend serves—that in recent months the current management of Ofgem have displayed more understanding of the need to act to protect consumers.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Kerr (Stirling) (Con)]

I rise to make a short contribution to the debate on this important Bill. I pay particular tribute to the right hon. Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint) and my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (John Penrose) for their persistence over time to get us to this point.

The Bill will make a real impact on the day-to-day lives of the people who elected me, which is why it matters very much to me and why I have been pleased to sit here listening to the debate for several hours. When it comes to such important issues, we are talking not about academic abstractions or economic theories, but about reducing the energy bills of my constituents. That really does matter to me, as it matters to them, so I support the Bill and wish to make a few comments on it.

The price cap in the Bill is not, as some might fear, a corruption of the free market, but a market intervention to protect consumers from the worst excesses of a market that is not working. On a related note, I shall quote the words of a very famous Scotsman, which I am sure that you, Mr Speaker, will recognise instantly:

“People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices.”

I am not laying the charge of corruption against the big six, but their activities might be described as a contrivance to raise prices.

The price cap is a blunt object—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I was rather hoping that the hon. Gentleman was going to furnish us with the page reference in “The Wealth of Nations”.

[Stephen Kerr]

I am unable to furnish you with the page number in “The Wealth of Nations”, Mr Speaker, but you are absolutely right that it is, of course, the famous Scotsman, Adam Smith, to whom I was referring. He was a great soul indeed.

The price cap can be a blunt object if it is left in place too long: it could cause stagnation; it could cause a reduction in competitiveness; and it could reduce the scope for investment in innovation in the sector. The effect of the price cap is not intended to result in that end; it is to lead to something far subtler. I am talking about a market intervention that is consumer-led and that is about empowering consumers. I am glad that the cap is time limited. It gives us time, as has been said by many Members in this debate, to fix the market, but what does the fix look like? My contention is that the Government, Ofgem and the industry must work harder to create this consumer-led marketplace. New technology is becoming available to empower consumers—to give them more control over their energy consumption and supply like never before. It gives consumers the data they need to optimise their energy consumption and to give them control over their energy costs.

The idea of this technology is the start of something that is unstoppable—I am talking about the idea of the smart home. In effect, what it does is give power to consumers, which ultimately is what this Bill is all about. The average household energy bill—if someone is on a standard variable tariff—is between £1,200 and £1,300 a year. It is incredible how little interest many consumers pay to that kind of expense going through their households. Part of the remedy to this disengagement, or lack of interest, must be to give consumers the confidence to feel empowered to deal with those costs. At the heart of all this is the smart meter. I do not have time in this debate to talk much about smart meters, but they can create data, display data and give uses to data that help consumers to optimise their energy bills.

We need to make it easier for people to switch. There is a great fog that comes over many people’s minds when they are given the opportunity to switch suppliers. If we can make it as easy to switch supplier as it is to open an app on a smartphone or press a button on a smart meter, the game is on. I remain convinced that this technology can fix the market in time—and “in time” is the key phrase. We need a real national effort to install smart meters in every property across the country. There is a Bill, which has gone through this place and is now in the other place, that is about smart meters. There are issues about smart meters that demand the urgent attention of anyone who has an interest in seeing this vital national infrastructure installed in this country. There are technical issues, but that is not what we are here to discuss.

What are we discussing? Why am I standing here in the first place? Frankly, it is because we have a broken market. I wish to apportion blame for that: I put the blame firmly at the door of the regulator, which has been around, in one form or another, since the 1980s. I firmly believe that the regulator already has the power to do what this Bill will give it the power to do, but it lacks the will to use that power.

As a member of the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee, I was astonished to hear the leadership of the regulator, who were in front of us, admit in effect that they had the power to set the tariff cap, but that they were too frightened of litigation from the companies that they were supposed to be there to regulate in the first place. As we say in Sterling, why have a dog and bark yourself? That seems an apt expression for a regulator that has failed to protect the free market and has allowed itself to be sucked into the game of special interests. It is almost protecting the very businesses that it was supposed to be there to regulate. It is now time to question Ofgem and its fitness for purpose. If the leadership of Ofgem will not take these powers that will inevitably pass through Parliament and become law and use them to protect the customer and to build and create a proper, free and competitive market in energy, that leadership will need to be changed. It is time that we were better served by that regulator.

The energy suppliers are benefiting from this lax regulatory regime. By creating a situation in which they charge rip-off prices for standard variable rates, the big six suppliers have broken the covenant that all companies have with their customers. They have lost the trust of the people. They may use the period of the tariff cap to restore and rebuild that trust by working to create this proper functioning marketplace.

Let us not forget what these companies have done. They have used profits from standard variable tariffs to subsidise their cheaper tariffs. Unengaged consumers have been punished harshly because of their loyalty, to the tune of at least £300 per household per year—much too high. According to the Competition and Markets Authority, the country has overpaid a total of £1.4 billion. Consumers have been ripped off for years at the hands of companies that should have known better and at the mercy of a regulator that has proved ineffective. It is time for us to take action and to work pragmatically to solve this problem for our constituents. It is a time not for economic dogma or ideology, but for proper pragmatism. The Bill is a superb example of the pragmatism that this Government pursue, and I am proud to support it.

Carillion: TUPE

Stephen Kerr Excerpts

Wednesday 21st February 2018 Westminster Hall

[Stephen Kerr (Stirling) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to be called to speak in this debate. I intend to be brief. I congratulate the hon. Member for Wolverhampton South West (Eleanor Smith) on securing this important debate. As a member of the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee, which is conducting an inquiry into the collapse of Carillion, I assure her and other Members present that a thorough investigation is ongoing. I am sure that Members are aware of the proceedings of that Committee.

As has been said, Carillion’s collapse was a complete commercial disaster, and one that could have been prevented with proper corporate governance. It is right that we focus our attention on the people most directly affected by the failure of Carillion—namely, the employees. It is not their fault that there was a failure of leadership and culture at the top of that business. They are made to suffer the consequences of a situation not of their making.

I recognise that this debate is not about the business model—we could talk about that endlessly—or the business strategy, how the business was run in terms of the standards adopted, or the culture of the business. In other circumstances we would review all of those carefully, to learn what must be learned from such a catastrophe. The decision making of the most senior executives has been mentioned. Having spent 30 years of my life in business before coming to this House, I can honestly say that I have never met such a sorry bunch of directors as the Carillion directors we had before us.

[Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)]

The hon. Gentleman and I are on the joint inquiry into Carillion. Will he say something about how the pension scheme was managed? Does he agree that dividend payments appeared to be a higher priority than funding the pension scheme for Carillion workers?

[Stephen Kerr]

Although that is not directly relevant to the debate, I agree with the hon. Gentleman. When we look at the facts, we see that there is no doubt that when the board faced choices about how to use money that, frankly, it did not have, it chose to pay dividends rather than to make payments into the pension fund. Those things need to be scrutinised, and lessons must be learned.

This debate is about the employees: decent, hard-working men and women—and their families—who brought their very best to work and did their very best for a company that many felt great fealty to and enjoyed working for. I know that, because just a few days ago a constituent approached me in the street and, in introducing himself, told me that he was a Carillion employee—in fact, he had been a manager. He spoke highly of the people he worked with and of the business he had spent some time at, which, as I have said, he felt some loyalty to. Graciously, he wanted me, as a member of the Select Committee looking into the failure of Carillion, to know that he and his colleagues—former Carillion employees—appreciated the thorough manner in which the Committee was conducting its inquiry. He said, “I know it won’t change anything, but it is right that the directors should be openly held to account. It’s about getting some form of justice, really, isn’t it?” That is what has brought me to my feet today. I needed to come to the debate to stand up and ask the Minister for some form of justice for the Carillion workers.

I congratulate the Government on the actions they have taken on the failure of Carillion, because they have managed to deal with the failure of the business. They could have been tempted to bail out the failing company by putting large sums of public money into it, but thankfully they resisted that temptation. They could have stood back and done nothing at all, but that would have been an abrogation of responsibility. In fact, the Government acted pragmatically, given the circumstances.

[Jo Stevens]

The hon. Gentleman mentions the Government taking responsibility and not standing back and doing nothing. Does he agree that, given the company’s three profit warnings, the Government should have done something before the collapse?

[Stephen Kerr]

Many issues relating to those profit warnings and the circumstances leading up to them need to be thoroughly investigated. Yes, at some point all of the stakeholders involved in this rather sorry story will have to explain and account for their decisions. That is right and proper and the way in which we run things in this country. We will learn from what we discover as we go through the process of inquiry. However, I congratulate the Government on acting pragmatically.

I now ask the Minister to act pragmatically on behalf of those workers who have moved from employment with Carillion to employment with a new private employer. We all know of the limitations of the regulations as things stand: TUPE applies only when a worker is transferred to a new company from an existing functioning company; it does not apply in the event of bankruptcy proceedings or analogous insolvency proceedings. I therefore ask the Minister to consider steps to provide, as my constituent said, some form of justice to Carillion workers who are transferred—thankfully, at one level—to another private company. Surely something can be done to protect the pay and conditions of those workers, because that is what would have happened had the contract changed hands: they would have been TUPE-ed across, as the saying goes. Instead, they have been caught up in the failure of Carillion.

It is wrong that these workers, through no fault of their own, should pay the price of lower pay and lesser conditions for doing the same job for a new company as they did for Carillion. When the Minister replies, I very much hope to hear that the Government will insist, at least in the transfer of public sector contracts from Carillion to new private companies, on a transfer of undertakings for the workers affected.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr McFadden]

My hon. Friend makes a good point. The first thing I will raise is the question of redundancy and the payments available to those 1,000 or so people who have lost their jobs, but the second issue is about the workers who are left.

Carillion was, of course, a complex web of contracts, covering sectors as diverse as the Ministry of Defence, construction, prisons, school maintenance, cleaning and a whole number of other things. The official receiver is now going through those contracts and looking for alternative suppliers to take them over. The central question before us in this debate is on what terms those will be taken over, and what the pay levels and conditions will be for the workers who find themselves transferred.

[Stephen Kerr]

The right hon. Gentleman is making a valid point about the terms and conditions. I wonder whether he was as concerned as I was to read the reports about Serco picking up the contracts at, I think, about 50 NHS sites somewhere in England—I cannot remember exactly where—and the chief executive saying that it had saved £20 million on the contract. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree with my concern: that that £20 million might be coming from the terms and conditions and the wages of the workforce?

[Mr McFadden]

I quite agree; that is a concern. Of course, the context is that a company went into financial collapse while running those public sector contracts, so it hardly looks as though it was making a big killing out of them—frankly, if it was, it would not have gone bust. The margins were already thin, and the public sector has proven itself over the years to be more adept at driving narrow margins. My concern is that somebody who takes over will drive that down further in precisely the way that the hon. Gentleman said and that the people who will pay the price will be workers, some of whom are on quite low pay to begin with.

The legal position is that TUPE does not normally apply in an insolvency; I think hon. Members here understand that. But the point being made in this case is that such a complex web of contracts is involved and there is such a significant public interest: if there is a proliferation of new suppliers, there is a strong case that TUPE should apply, at least where employment is rolled over.

Given Carillion’s collapse into liquidation, it is hard to say that it was earning very heavy margins on the contracts in the first place. The Minister for the Cabinet Office seemed to agree with that point when he told the House, shortly after the company’s collapse, that the official receiver was

“looking at…whether it can offer arrangements whereby workers are no worse off than they were under the terms of their Carillion employment.”—[Official Report, 24 January 2018; Vol. 635, c. 347.]

I agree with what the Minister for the Cabinet Office said on that occasion. That is the point I stress today.

I think we all understand that, sadly, in a case of insolvency there may be some job losses; part of the reason why, legally speaking, TUPE does not apply in situations of an insolvency is that there will be job losses. The question to the Minister is a slightly different one. Even if we understand that there are job losses, can the Government and the official receiver not insist that, when we are talking about not job losses but employment being rolled over from Carillion to an alternative supplier, on this occasion, given the public interest, the existing terms and conditions should apply as though under TUPE? That would be reasonable, fair to those workers and fair in terms of the public interest. On this occasion, it is the right thing to do.

--- Later in debate ---

[Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms McDonagh. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton South West (Eleanor Smith) on securing this extremely important debate. She clearly has a significant constituency interest in the matter, but as we have heard, such is the reach of Carillion that no part of the country is unaffected by its demise.

I will not repeat the stories of greed, arrogance and, probably, negligence that have led us to where we are today, except to say that it is a bitter irony that many of those culpable for the current state of affairs are the least affected by it. We know the company ramped up dividends, borrowed more and more money to effectively hand it over to shareholders, delayed payments to creditors and generally behaved as if there was no tomorrow, with no thought of the consequences of its actions.

[Stephen Kerr]

On that point, the hon. Gentleman did not mention—it is worth mentioning—the salaries and bonuses the directors were awarding each other, which should bear on our minds as we consider the wee people who the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) described and who we should all be thinking about.

[Justin Madders]

Absolutely. This is a tale of a corporate system out of control. It sends a real message about how not to run a company responsibly. I hope that some concrete action will come to prevent these kind of scandals happening in the future. Comparing the pension deficit to the bonuses paid really brings home how unfairly and avariciously certain people have behaved in this case.

While it is hoped that, in the short term, there will be some protection for jobs—as we have heard today and as I will go on to explore, there are some questions about the precise arrangements—we must not forget those who work for subcontractors and those who have already been made redundant who need our support as well.

I am told that there is an issue with the liquidators providing termination numbers to redundant Carillion staff. Some of those staff have given a lifetime to the company but have been told by the liquidator that, until that number is issued, their claims for notice pay and redundancy pay cannot be processed. Those who have received those details have been told that they may have to wait up to six weeks for the Redundancy Payments Service to actually process the payments.

As we know from the universal credit discussions we have had in here in recent times, expecting people to wait six weeks for payment after losing their job is far too long, so I do not see why we should allow that situation to occur here. I hope that, when the Minister next speaks to the liquidator, he will raise these issues and ensure that those who have been made redundant are able to access their statutory entitlements as soon as possible. Will the Minister inform us what resources have been allocated to the Insolvency Service to ensure that those payments are processed as quickly as possible?

--- Later in debate ---

[Laura Pidcock (North West Durham) (Lab)]

It is fantastic to have you chairing this debate today, Ms McDonagh. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton South West (Eleanor Smith) on securing it and on working so hard for her constituents. I know that her eagerness to secure this debate comes from a real anxiety about what will happen to all the workers.

What is wrong with the model of directly employed workers delivering contracts on behalf of the Government on such vital projects as school and hospital builds and prison maintenance; workers who have access to trade unions and vice versa; employers who afford rights and protections to their workers; and work that allows them to live a good life in security? Why not have a model whereby any profits made from the worker’s labour are reinvested in the wages of the workers and the projects that the nation needs? What we saw at Carillion was the absolute opposite of that.

Carillion is not only a well-known blacklister. From 2009 to 2016, it paid out £554 million in dividends—in other words, three quarters of the cash it made from operations. In the five-year period from January 2012 to June 2017, it paid out £333 million more in dividends than it generated in cash from its operations. We know that in the past six months Carillion issued three profit warnings. We also know that during that same period, as has been mentioned, and following those profit warnings, Carillion was awarded three contracts worth nearly £2 billion.

I know that Conservatives and those wedded to freedom of the market would maintain that a business does what it wants with its profits. It is up to them and there should be very little state intervention, but surely even those people—

[Stephen Kerr]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Laura Pidcock]

If the hon. Gentleman will let me finish, he might agree with what I say next. Surely even those people can see that paying out more in dividends to shareholders than the amount made in profits—paying out three quarters of cash made from operations—is not a healthy way to run a business.

[Stephen Kerr]

I agree with the hon. Lady’s last point, but her description of what Conservatives generally believe about the marketplace is a fallacy. We believe very much in the operation of markets, but within the framework of law. Directors of companies have serious responsibilities, both legal and moral, for the conduct of their affairs. That accountability is framed by the law that regulates the marketplace.

[Laura Pidcock]

Thanks for explaining the nature of conservatism. That was very welcome. I think the contracts made after three profit warnings tell their own story.

That way of doing business is catastrophic for workers, and damages progress on desperately needed public infrastructure. Imagine all the investment that could have been made if even half the money that went to shareholders had been invested in public projects and workers. That is why the Labour party calls on the Government to bring the contracts back in house. The situation today, with potential mass job losses, is not the fault of the workers, so a degradation of workers’ rights as a result of Carillion’s collapse—which threw 20,000 workers into a future of chaos and worry—is a price they should not have to pay.

The Government are not powerless in this situation, given that they have 450 contracts with Carillion. They were a major customer of the company, with a considerable stake in the future of the contracts and what the new jobs will be like. If there is any doubt that TUPE applies —particularly regulation 4 on protection of contractual rights and regulation 7 on protection from dismissal—I should hope at the very least for a Cabinet Office statement of practice to be issued to ensure the transfer of all employees in Carillion public sector contracts as if TUPE applied. That statement of practice should also apply to all contracts relating to central Government, local government, the NHS and all public bodies. Similarly, could the Government instruct the official receiver to transfer employees in private sector contracts as if TUPE applied? They gave an instruction to prioritise the continuation of public sector contracts, which was a good thing. It is right, in addition, to issue similar instructions on behalf of private sector workers, whose livelihoods are, as we know, no less important than those of people in the public sector.

It is extremely important that when workers transfer to a new employer, their individual contracts of employment and trade union recognition arrangements should follow them. So far, 980 workers have been made redundant and 7,500 have been transferred, but after all these weeks thousands of workers still face great uncertainty, as has been recounted in personal stories from constituencies. The Government, alongside the official receiver and special managers, must provide certainty.

The Government have said that the majority of employees who have already been transferred are on similar terms and conditions. What does “majority” mean—is it 51% or 99%—and what does “similar” mean? With three Conservative Members in the Chamber, I do not want to be accused of being overly sceptical, but the Government are hardly seen as a bastion of workers’ rights, and it is therefore unlikely that in this instance “similar” would equate to an upgrading of workers’ rights. As to those who were not transferred with similar conditions, what degradation was there of their terms?

The full scale of the catastrophe cannot just be forgotten as another failure of outsourcing, especially when, rather than resorting wholesale to an alternative model, the Government are simply allowing a similar operation to bid for contracts. That makes me very concerned about the long-term security of the jobs. How will the Government track the long-term outcomes for Carillion workers in their new employment and training places, as well as those for the self-employed and employees of subcontractors?

As the Government know, regulation 13 of TUPE, which places a duty on the official receiver and the special manager to inform and consult employee representatives in relation to TUPE transfers, is still a requirement even if regulations 4 and 7 do not apply. It is therefore important in setting workers’ expectations and giving clarity about their future. It relates to information about whether there will be a transfer—and the transfer date—as well as the legal, social and economic implications for any affected employees. Have the official receiver and special managers been complying with that duty? That is not clear. Are those representatives being informed and consulted? Worryingly, I read yesterday that Unite the union has discovered that Carillion did not pay into the NHS pension scheme in December 2017, even though deductions were made from employees’ salaries. I should like to know what happened to those pension contributions.

My final point is that there could be an argument that regulations 4 and 7 of TUPE apply in the case of Carillion. I understand that the usual position when a company is put into compulsory liquidation is that trading ceases and operations come to a complete halt. In an ordinary liquidation, priority is given to paying off creditors, and therefore regulations 4 and 7 of TUPE do not apply. In Carillion’s situation, the Government made it clear that the official receiver should instruct some of the Carillion companies to continue with their operations—especially those relating to public sector contracts—so that the services being provided by Carillion could continue without a break. The Minister for the Cabinet office said:

“Let me be clear that all employees should continue to turn up to work confident in the knowledge that they will be paid for the public services they are providing.”—[Official Report, 15 January 2018; Vol. 634, c. 624.]

The official receiver’s decision that some Carillion companies should carry on trading to safeguard and maintain the services that they are providing means that the liquidation has been conducted in the same way as an administration, in which regulations 4 and 7 of TUPE would undoubtedly apply.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Griffiths]

That is the point the hon. Lady made in her speech. Let us be clear: Carillion is in insolvency, not in administration—there is a distinct difference in law. While the Government have stood behind Carillion to ensure that those public services continue to be delivered by the company during that smooth transition, in law, Carillion is in insolvency. I commend the hon. Lady on her Italian, but the point she makes is not relevant to the Carillion case, unfortunately. Later in my speech, I will explain why TUPE does not apply in this case.

The new company that I referred to, the GovCo from the Ministry of Justice, will ensure the delivery of, for example, prison facilities management previously provided by Carillion, including things such as cleaning, reactive maintenance, landscaping and planned repair building work. Those jobs have been taken in house to a GovCo. We have also seen positive signs regarding Carillion’s larger contracts.

As I said, a number of jobs have already been secured, but, as hon. Members will have seen, the media have recently reported on Serco’s and Brookfield’s interest in purchasing a number of contracts and transferring roughly 4,000 workers, although that is not yet confirmed. I understand that the official receiver and the special managers are working hard with customers to try to secure agreements, which will secure further jobs.

We also have to remember that some of these contracts are in the private sector and some are in the public sector. The Government were a customer of Carillion. We did not own Carillion. My hon. Friend the Member for Stirling (Stephen Kerr) rightly pointed out that we did not ride to the rescue and bail Carillion out. Our intention was to protect public services and, wherever possible, protect the jobs that relied on them.

The hon. Member for Barnsley East (Stephanie Peacock) has had to leave because of the Division, and I understand that. She mentioned in particular the issue of apprenticeships, which was also raised by other hon. Members. The Construction Industry Training Board, the CITB, has now conducted face-to-face discussions with all of the 1,400 Carillion apprentices and has so far found new employers for 725 of them. In addition, 180 of those were level 1 pre-apprenticeships, and those have been transferred to new training providers. The CITB is working to ensure that remaining apprentices are supported to find new employers and training providers. We are confident—the CITB is confident—that there will be opportunities and new apprenticeships for all of those apprentices who wish to continue with their studies.

As I said, we have had the question of whether TUPE should apply. While we welcome the protection of Carillion’s employees, and I fully understand the desire of the hon. Member for Wolverhampton South West to protect the terms and conditions of the staff that she represents, it might just help if I explain to hon. Members that there are over 300 companies in the Carillion group, of which around 200 are based in the UK. Currently, 27 companies are subject to compulsory liquidation proceedings in the UK. When these companies are responsible for employing Carillion’s 18,000 employees, it is simply a matter of law that some elements of TUPE do not apply. Protections for transferring employers is a well-established principle that, as we have heard today, derives from EU legislation dating back to the 1970s. However, there are good reasons why key TUPE provisions do not apply when a company goes into liquidation.

The reason why TUPE is not applied in various insolvency situations, including liquidation, is that it is considered an obstacle to rescuing the businesses and saving jobs. That has to be our priority, of course. We want to rescue and secure these jobs. A decision taken by policy makers and Governments of all colours not to apply TUPE provisions in these cases is well understood, as are the reasons behind it. As a result, regulation 8 of the TUPE regulations 2006, covers insolvency proceedings and provides that these provisions do not apply

“where the transferor is the subject of bankruptcy proceedings or…insolvency proceedings which have been instituted with a view to the liquidation of the assets of the transferor and are under the supervision of an insolvency practitioner.”

That is exactly the case that we see here with Carillion.

There are two good reasons why the Government do not want to apply TUPE. First, it would undermine the intention of rescuing jobs, as I said. Secondly, to apply TUPE specifically to the present liquidation scenario would require an emergency Act of Parliament, creating a special statutory scheme for those named companies, having retrospective effects. That would cut across fundamental principles at the heart of our democracy. I am sure that no colleagues in Westminster Hall today would wish to do that. The compulsory application of TUPE to Carillion companies is not, therefore, a matter that can simply be agreed between the liquidator and the unions. There is legal precedence here that we cannot simply ignore.

[Stephen Kerr]

My hon. Friend is giving the position as it is, which is what has brought us to this debate. However, is it not possible for the Government, in relation to the public sector contracts, to stipulate, as the customer, that certain aspects of the contract roll over to the new company, such as the voluntary TUPE that has been referred to? Could they not insist on that?

[Andrew Griffiths]

My hon. Friend makes a fair point. As we heard previously, the Secretary of State for the Cabinet Office has explicitly said that we wish to ensure that, wherever practical and possible, workers are not worse off. In fact, I can share with the House that the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy has had conversations with the special manager to implore him, wherever possible, to protect workers in that way.

However, as I said, we also have to be aware that a large proportion of these contracts are actually private sector. Of course, the legal requirements and stipulations on the special manager, in order to be able to fulfil his duties and protect the interest of the creditors, are paramount here. It would be inappropriate for Ministers or any politician to try to interfere with that. As a result of agreements that we have seen in the press and entered into over the past few weeks to purchase contracts held by Carillion, we have secured those 7,500 jobs.

The hon. Member for North West Durham (Laura Pidcock) mentioned that we are on record as saying that most employees who have transferred so far have done so on existing or similar terms. The official receiver has worked to do that. I know that she would like more details—she would like an exact percentage, but she will also understand that given Carillion’s size, complicated governance and business structure and the difficulties in relation to managing the smooth transfer of these contracts, we do not yet have those exact figures. However, I am sure they will be available to her as soon as we have them.

In her speech, the hon. Member for Wolverhampton South West raised the issue of support for employees. Understandably, this remains a very troubling time for employees and we will do everything we can to help those affected. Unless told otherwise, employees who are working will continue to be paid by Carillion during the liquidation. My hon. Friend the Member for Stirling used the phrase “justice”—he wanted there to be justice for Carillion workers. It is not their fault that they find themselves in this perilous situation. I can say to him that those employees transferring across will still be eligible for redundancy payments. So if he is looking for justice, he may find that those payments go some way to delivering that.

Through the special managers, the official receiver has contacted all employees to explain the action being taken by Government and where they can seek advice and support. For example, the special managers and the Pensions Advisory Service have set up dedicated telephone support services. The special managers have a process in place to inform employees being made redundant in a timely fashion, and to give information about their employment status.

There was some suggestion earlier about delays in people being given the required information to be able to claim redundancy. We are in close contact with the special managers, and while we cannot guarantee that everybody has had the information as quickly as we would hope, there is a great imperative in these very difficult times for workers to ensure that they get access to the money that they have a right to receive. So we are working incredibly hard to try to ensure that happens as a matter of urgency.

We are also ensuring that practical support is available from Jobcentre Plus’s rapid response service. Hon. Members might be interested to know that so far Jobcentre Plus reports that it has had 34 claims by Carillion staff and 65 claims by individuals made redundant by firms in the Carillion supply chain. So thus far we have seen a small number of people turning up at Jobcentre Plus and claiming benefits.

I think the reason for that, in reality, is that these workers are incredibly valuable. They are a skilled, trained workforce in a tight jobs market. We have seen today that we have record employment in this country—unemployment is at levels not seen for 40 years. That is a great economic success, but it means that as the jobs market tightens the workers who we are talking about are greatly in demand.