British Steel: EU Emissions Trading Compliance

Rachel Reeves Excerpts

Wednesday 1st May 2019 Commons Chamber

[Greg Clark]

I am grateful for the endorsement of my right hon. Friend, not least because in the previous Government he played the role he has ascribed to me with some deftness and success on many different occasions. He is absolutely right that agreeing to a withdrawal agreement would allow our continued participation until at least December 2020, giving us the time to put in place different arrangements, which would be in our gift. One reason we felt that it was important that British Steel should comply is that the institutions that drive compliance with emissions reductions targets should be respected. We want to send a clear signal that we expect the targets to be respected and implemented. That will take place while we are a member of the European Union and, as my right hon. Friend indicates, afterwards too.

[Rachel Reeves (Leeds West) (Lab)]

I welcome the Secretary of State’s decision. Without it, there would be huge job losses in the industry. This crisis at British Steel has been caused by the uncertainty over our future membership of the EU’s emissions trading scheme. Given that half of steel manufacturing in this country is exported to the EU, our relationship with the EU matters hugely for the future. Why did the Government allow us to get into the position where British Steel had to pay upfront for its allowances, even though we remain a member of the EU today? Will the Government confirm what the liability to the ETS will be of British Steel and other UK steel producers should we leave the EU without a deal?

[Greg Clark]

The position we find ourselves in is through no choice of the UK Government. It was the Commission that took the decision to suspend the availability of allowances. We are having constructive discussions with the Commission about the release of the allowances and that is why this arrangement is described accurately as a bridging arrangement. We want and expect to be able to have access to those allowances. Participation in the ETS is not a matter of entitlement. It is not available to countries outside the European Union without special designation, but the discussions we are having are constructive.

On liabilities and the nature of the transaction, I have written to the hon. Lady in her capacity as Chair of the Select Committee. I am very happy to follow that up and to give whatever evidence she needs to scrutinise the transaction.

Oral Answers to Questions

Rachel Reeves Excerpts

Tuesday 30th April 2019 Commons Chamber

[Rachel Reeves (Leeds West) (Lab)]

19.   The Committee on Climate Change says that we need to double our production of onshore wind in the next decade; instead, it is likely to halve because of this Government’s ideological opposition to it. We are not on target to meet our fourth and fifth carbon budgets, let alone achieve net zero, so will the Government end their ideological opposition to onshore wind so that we can hand a better planet on to future generations?

[Chris Skidmore]

I would not call listening to local communities and reflecting on the need to create sustainable communities locally “ideological opposition”. We need to work with everybody—all citizens. There has been talk of citizens’ committees, so why not ensure that local communities are able to reflect on the benefits of renewable energy in their communities, and begin such dialogues with them, rather than call them ideological opponents of renewables? I do not think that is very fair on those communities.

Oral Answers to Questions

Rachel Reeves Excerpts

Tuesday 19th March 2019 Commons Chamber

[Greg Clark]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Obviously, it is a great source of confidence to people that they can obtain a job. It is the case that employers across the country value the flexibility that having a flexible workforce gives. In fact, again, the Labour leader of Gateshead Council said that

“many zero-hours contracts employees”

on the council

“don’t want to be full time employees and prefer to consider themselves as self-employed”,

so this is a practice that is pursued right across the country.

[Rachel Reeves (Leeds West) (Lab)]

Some 1.6 million workers are paid exactly the national living wage of £7.83 an hour, and a further 3 million people are paid within 50 pence of it. In the spring statement last week, the Chancellor said that the ultimate objective of this Government was

“ending low pay in the UK”—[Official Report, 13 March 2019; Vol. 656, c. 349.]

The usual definition of a national living wage is 66% of median earnings, but the remit of the Low Pay Commission is only to get to 60%. Are the Government now committing to end low pay? If so, when?

Oral Answers to Questions

Rachel Reeves Excerpts

Tuesday 12th February 2019 Commons Chamber

[Greg Clark]

I agree with my hon. Friend that having jobs and vacancies available is the best source of security for people in this country. We have a proud record of having secured that over the past eight years.

[Rachel Reeves (Leeds West) (Lab)]

Last week, it was reported that the Government plan to bring forward legislation to commit to guaranteeing workers’ rights outside the EU. Will the Secretary of State confirm that no Government can bind their successors? As easily as legislation can be passed, a future Tory Government could take those rights away, just as this Government have done by introducing tribunal fees, passing the draconian Trade Union Act 2016 and failing to crack down on bogus self-employment. Why would Members on the Opposition Benches trust anything that the Government say about ensuring workers’ rights in law?

[Greg Clark]

The record of this Government has been to extend workers’ rights way beyond what the European Union has offered. In the UK, we have 52 weeks of maternity leave, for example, compared with a requirement of 14 weeks in the EU. This House has chosen to give rights of paternity leave and pay to fathers and partners that are not yet available in the EU. The measures that the hon. Lady knows we are about to introduce for people returning from maternity leave makes us a leader in Europe on the issue. She should be confident in the ability of this House to promote and protect workers’ rights.

--- Later in debate ---

[Claire Perry]

As the very proud daughter-in-law of a miner’s widow who benefits from the scheme, I take its stewardship very seriously. I believe that it will be debated in the House in a couple of days, and I should be delighted to discuss it further. I should point out that the extraordinary arrangements that were developed between the Government and the trustees have delivered much higher returns to the beneficiaries than similar schemes, but I continue to be happy to meet Members to discuss the issue.

[Rachel Reeves (Leeds West) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker.

[Mr Speaker]

I am extraordinarily grateful to the hon. Lady, but I think it can wait.

[Rachel Reeves]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

No, I think it can wait. I look forward to it with interest and enthusiasm, but—

[Rachel Reeves]

It relates to the questions.

[Mr Speaker]

It may do, but the Prime Minister is waiting to address the House, and I think that people want to hear her. We will hear the hon. Lady in due course.

Oral Answers to Questions

Rachel Reeves Excerpts

Tuesday 8th January 2019 Commons Chamber

[Greg Clark]

No. This is a very important extension of the rights of people on zero-hours contracts. It is important to recognise, first, that the number of employees on zero-hours contracts remains very small and, secondly, that most of those on zero-hours contracts want to have that flexibility. Those who do not want that flexibility and prefer a longer and more stable contract will now have the right to request one.

[Rachel Reeves (Leeds West) (Lab)]

25. Only days after the Secretary of State published his response to the Taylor review, Uber was once again found by the courts to be denying basic rights to its workers. When will the Government bring forward legislation to clarify workers’ status so that they do not have to go through the courts and tribunals system to get the rights to which they are entitled?

[Greg Clark]

The hon. Lady will recognise that our package immediately introduced legislation for those rights that can be legislated for with secondary legislation. Primary legislation will shortly be brought forward for the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee, which she chairs, and the Work and Pensions Committee to scrutinise.

Good Work Plan

Rachel Reeves Excerpts

Monday 17th December 2018 Commons Chamber

[Greg Clark]

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his endorsement. The great reforms being made in response to, in this case, a very good report are happening at pace—we are tabling legislation this very day—but he, like me, is sometimes frustrated that the reforms do not get the attention they merit, but he gives me the opportunity to draw the House’s attention to them today.

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right about apprentices. A key part of the industrial strategy is to increase the quality and the number of apprenticeships, to which he has made a distinguished contribution. It is vital that apprentices should be paid what they are due in terms of the minimum wages. We have doubled the enforcement budget for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, and the measures we have set out—we are working very closely with Sir David Metcalf—will make sure it is clearly understood by every employer that paying the minimum wages, whether for apprentices or others, is not optional but essential if they are to trade in this country.

[Rachel Reeves (Leeds West) (Lab)]

The Select Committees on Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy and on Work and Pensions concluded that workers frequently rely on employment tribunals to enforce their rights and recommended punitive fines on employers for breaches of law. The Government are increasing the potential payouts for those who get to tribunal, which I warmly welcome, but they are refusing to reduce tribunal fees. Will the Secretary of State pledge to look at that again? Will the Government listen to Sir David Metcalf, the director of labour market enforcement, who said today that he is disappointed that the Government have rejected his recommendation of greater penalties for non-compliance in paying the minimum wage?

Will the Secretary of State tell us how many more cases need to be won against employers like Uber, Hermes and Addison Lee before the Government act, name and shame and properly punish these businesses that wrongly classify their workers as self-employed and deny them the rights to which they are entitled?

[Greg Clark]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady, the Chair of the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee, for her comments and for welcoming our increase in penalties. It is essential that we send a message that people’s employment rights are non-negotiable and that they must be paid.

We work closely with Sir David Metcalf, a man for whom I have the greatest admiration. The reason for not increasing, at this stage, the penalties available to the authorities for non-compliance with the national minimum wages is that the penalties were increased about 18 months ago. We have not ruled it out, but we have said that we will look at the effect of the increase and consider it.

The hon. Lady will be aware that a big increase in penalties for employers that persistently breach the verdicts of employment tribunals would be very welcome. Again, we will keep under review the employment tribunals regime to make sure that people have access to the justice they need, but when her Committee considers its response to the report I hope it will agree and endorse what is a substantial package that, in many ways and in many respects, goes beyond what was proposed both by Matthew Taylor, important though his contribution has been, and by the Committee. We have gone further than many people expected, which is quite right given the importance of employment rights in this country.

Oral Answers to Questions

Rachel Reeves Excerpts

Tuesday 20th November 2018 Commons Chamber

[Kelly Tolhurst]

Let me be clear: it is illegal not to pay the national minimum wage to workers who are entitled to it. This Government have been very clear. We are looking at and currently reviewing the Taylor review recommendations—we will be implementing the majority of them—and the Government will be responding soon with what we will do.

[Rachel Reeves (Leeds West) (Lab)]

Following on from the question from my hon. Friend the Member for High Peak (Ruth George), last week yet another employment tribunal found in favour of workers getting the minimum wage and other workplace rights—in this instance, at Addison Lee—but too many firms continue to label workers as self-employed when they are not. When will the Government finally bring forward this long overdue legislation and—as the Taylor review, the GMB union and the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee have argued—ensure that all workers are paid the minimum wage?

[Kelly Tolhurst]

The hon. Lady will remember that it was this Government that set up the Taylor review. We have been very clear. We are committed to enforcement; we have doubled the enforcement budget for the national minimum wage. In fact, the arrears recovered in the last year totalled £15.6 million, affecting more than 200,000 workers. This Government are committed and we will respond in due course. We are committed to making all workplaces fair for all.

Nuclear Power: Toshiba

Rachel Reeves Excerpts

Monday 12th November 2018 Commons Chamber

[Greg Clark]

My hon. Friend is a great champion of the nuclear sector in Cumbria. It has a bright future. As he knows from the sector deal, there is investment in the supply chain and in reducing the cost of new nuclear, which will be essential if it is to compete with other sources of power. There are also great opportunities through decommissioning, not just in this country, but in selling expertise around the world. Cumbria is the centre of that expertise; it has a strong strategic role in our economy; and we will back it all the way.

[Rachel Reeves (Leeds West) (Lab)]

We are now entirely reliant on foreign investment to support new nuclear build in our country. If businesses abandon their plans, as Toshiba has done, that will affect the generation of new electricity supply and the costs borne ultimately by consumers. What is the Government’s alternative plan if foreign investors do not support the new nuclear build we need in the UK?

Oral Answers to Questions

Rachel Reeves Excerpts

Tuesday 17th July 2018 Commons Chamber

[Claire Perry]

Again, I thank all respondents to the consultation, including many high-quality responses from the unions. We will respond to the consultation in due course.

[Rachel Reeves (Leeds West) (Lab)]

One in six workers in our economy is now self-employed. Some are bogusly self-employed—not entitled to the basic protections that we should all expect when we go out to work every day. Matthew Taylor’s review into good work was published more than a year ago. When are the Government going to respond and bring forward legislation to end this abuse?

[Claire Perry]

The hon. Lady, as always, makes a powerful point. We are taking action by prosecuting companies that are not paying the national minimum wage and we are ensuring that those basic rights are enforced. We want to get this right because this legislation will have to last not just for six months or a year, but for many years as our economy develops.

Carillion

Rachel Reeves Excerpts

Thursday 12th July 2018 Commons Chamber

[Rachel Reeves (Leeds West) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered lessons from the collapse of Carillion.

I am grateful to the Backbench Business Committee for scheduling the debate for today, which is timely. This Sunday it will be six months since Carillion entered liquidation. When it collapsed, it employed 42,000 people, more than 19,000 of them working in the United Kingdom. It held liabilities of £7 billion, including a £2 billion liability to 30,000 suppliers and subcontractors, and it held just £29 million in cash to meet those liabilities. In the past six months, nearly 2,500 Carillion workers have been made redundant and more than 1,000 have voluntarily left what remains of the business. Projects have been mothballed and suppliers have faced ruin.

Since the collapse of Carillion, five Committees have looked into the issues surrounding its collapse. Along with the Work and Pensions Committee, my Committee—the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee—has considered the causes of the collapse. The debate is also timely because this morning our Committees published a special joint report containing 24 responses to our original report. It gave those criticised in the report, and those with a significant interest, a chance to respond ahead of the Government’s formal response to our findings. In the time that I have this afternoon, I shall set out what my Committee found, and what needs to change. I thank fellow members of the Joint Committee, some of whom are in the Chamber today, for their work to uncover the lessons from Carillion.

When it collapsed, Carillion had been in existence for 19 years. It was the second largest construction company in the UK, having grown through large and frequent acquisitions and Government outsourcing. Carillion’s directors, and those who know the construction industry, told us that it was a low-margin industry, and part of a highly competitive market with inherent risks. Businesses do collapse every day, and the process of business creation and failure is part of any well-functioning modern economy, but warning lights should have been flashing when such a big business was on the brink. We should demand the highest standards of corporate governance to help to ensure that British businesses are well run, but that did not happen with Carillion.

Despite its catastrophic failure, the Carillion directors, when they sat in front of our Committee, continually claimed that the business was sound, even after it had gone into liquidation, and that only a handful of contracts had brought it down. They even said that everything was fine until just a few months before the collapse. As late as the day before Carillion went into liquidation, the directors thought that they could avert the collapse. They seemed to have a sense of entitlement, and a belief that the Government would step in and bail out their failed business. In their evidence to us, they blamed everyone but themselves. They blamed the Bank of England, the Canadian construction market, Carillion’s suppliers, and professional designers of concrete beams.

However, the collapse of Carillion has meant that our Committees have been able to see the board papers and minutes from company meetings, many of which we have published. Looking inside the company, we have seen a business that acquired other businesses, and relied on unrecoverable “goodwill” to prop up its balance sheet; a company that kept increasing senior salaries and bonuses, and ensured that a dividend was paid regardless of its own health; a company that was paying suppliers late, and bidding for contracts that it could not afford to deliver on time or on budget.

Carillion’s largest acquisitions—of companies such as Mowlem, Alfred McAlpine and Eaga—allowed it to put “goodwill” on its balance sheet. Those notional values of each acquisition, totalling almost £1.5 billion, were allowed to sit on the balance sheet for year after year, without any link to reality and the real value. When the company collapsed, the goodwill was wiped out, too, showing its true value—a value of zero. Carillion’s board needed healthy balance sheets to continue its dividend policy of increasing its payout to shareholders, but the truth is that it paid those dividends regardless of whether it had the cash flow required for them. Right up to the spring of 2017, it was promoting its growing payout with little challenge—no challenge—from directors as to whether the money might have been better spent supporting the pension fund, for example, or any part of the failing business.

Despite the growing pensions deficit, there is one area where directors felt able to spend money, and that was on growing salaries for the leaders of the business. Its remuneration committee increased payouts on the basis of industry averages, rather than the performance of the business Carillion. A responsible business would see payment by results, not payment by averages.

When Carillion’s directors needed to prop up their balance sheets, they did so by putting pressure on the suppliers. Carillion was, ironically, a signatory to the Government’s prompt payment code, promising suppliers they would be paid within 60 days. When the code was launched in 2013, Carillion was already known to Government as being poor payers, but the National Audit Office report into the company showed that in signing it up to support the policy the Government seemed to turn a blind-eye to Carillion’s failure to meet its duties to suppliers.

We heard on our Committee from the Federation of Small Businesses that some businesses were waiting more than 120 days for payment and Carillion had become notorious as late payers. Carillion managed to use this to its advantage, arranging an early payment facility with the banks, meaning suppliers could receive payments earlier than Carillion’s 120-day terms but they would have to face a cut in what they were owed in order to do so. Carillion was effectively borrowing from its suppliers, propping up its balance sheets again without a care for the state of the balance sheets of the thousands of businesses relying on it and doing its work.

[Stephen Kerr (Stirling) (Con)]

rose—

[Rachel Reeves]

I give way to my fellow Committee member.

[Stephen Kerr]

The hon. Lady is making a powerful case for what we found in the inquiry. As evidence of this house of cards that she is describing, which it undoubtedly was, Richard Adam, the former finance director, told the inquiry that not only did he sell all his shares when he left the business, but he would not be prepared to put his own money at risk by being a shareholder.

[Rachel Reeves]

I absolutely agree. The directors of the business were not invested in the business. They were not part of the pension fund that collapsed and, as the hon. Gentleman said, Richard Adam, the finance director who oversaw the accounting practices that helped to contribute to the collapse of the company, sold his shares as soon as he could because he knew what we all now know: this business was a failing business that would not be around for much longer.

What we found in Carillion was a board focused on short-term fixes and growing payouts, with no plan for what would happen when the illusion was shattered. Looking at the poor treatment of suppliers when the company was solvent and the trail of destruction the management of the company has caused, I cannot see how Carillion’s directors can make any claim that they had anything other than their own personal interests at heart. In the latest responses that we have published today, Carillion’s directors continue to refuse to demonstrate any culpability for the state the company was in. They have denied that our report is accurate, but have given no evidence whatsoever to support their case.

Let me be clear: the directors of Carillion are culpable for the company’s collapse. They should be ashamed of their performance and they should not be allowed to take the helm of a company ever again.

[Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Ind)]

My hon. Friend is making a first-class speech. Does this not bring to mind the quotation from John Maynard Keynes that capitalism rewards bad behaviour?

[Rachel Reeves]

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. Bad behaviour was being rewarded at Carillion, but the people being rewarded were not the people investing in the business, or the people working for it and saving for their pensions with the business; the people being rewarded were those making the decisions about where the money went—making the decisions about whether to plug the pensions deficit or pay dividends to shareholders. Those are the people who should be paying the price, but under the system we have today, they walk away with their bonuses and their dividends intact. It is other people—the people who are not responsible and did not make the decisions but who did the work—who are paying the price, and that is what needs to be reformed.

When corporate governance is failing, there should be checks and balances, but our inquiry found a regime that was not up to the job of doing that. The first line of defence should have been those who were auditing and advising the company. KPMG, Carillion’s auditors for 19 years, continued to give a clean bill of health to the business, even just a few months before the July 2017 announcements that heralded its swift but painful decline. In the report we have published today, KPMG’s chairman, Bill Michael, denies any issues with the clean bill of health that his company gave to Carillion just months before it began to publicly collapse. Mr Michael is burying his head in the sand, which reflects badly on his understanding of the impact of Carillion on the reputation of his company, and of the future of audit as an industry. The status quo is simply not sustainable, and the big audit firms must understand that and respond to it.

Competition in industry is supposed to drive up quality and bring down costs. It is not working in the audit market, where a cosy club of four hoover up huge fees before, during and after any corporate failure, yet their audits and accounts, as one investor put it to our Committee, read like a mystery novel—a fiction, with the reader searching for scant clues on what is really happening. The big four firms audit all the FTSE 100 businesses and all but a handful of the FTSE 350 top businesses, as well as providing them with advice on a range of services. There are conflicts of interest at every turn, and it was left to the least conflicted, PwC, to clear up the mess during the liquidation process.

[Kelvin Hopkins]

My hon. Friend is making an important point about the audit companies. Is it not a major problem that they are ostensibly there to represent the shareholders’ interests against those of the managers but that they are actually employed by the managers, and that if they do not give the managers what they want, they will not get the next contract?

[Rachel Reeves]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. The people who rely on audit are the shareholders, and also the small businesses that supply the company, the people who work there and the pensioners who have saved for their pensions with that business. But they are not the people who employ the auditor, and they are not the people the auditors are accountable to. The auditor is accountable to the audit committee of the business, and it is often appointed by that committee on the advice of the chief financial officer. So, as my hon. Friend says, the incentives are all wrong.

I am pleased to see that our report has prompted some long-overdue soul searching in parts of the audit profession. While the written reactions of the big four accountancy firms to our report differed, they all seem to recognise that there were issues to be addressed. The Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales has recognised this as a watershed moment, and it is leading a review of the audit profession. I hope that that review will propose some radical solutions. We have now referred the audit market for investigation by the Competition and Markets Authority. The new chair of the CMA, Lord Tyrie, was endorsed in his role by the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee, and he should now demonstrate the same determination he showed in this place leading the Parliamentary Commission on Banking Standards when he looks at the future of the audit market. I am convinced that we have to find a way of making the audit market more competitive and audits themselves more trusted, and of ending the conflicts of interest that can damage the reputation of some of our economy’s major firms.

Behind the company and its auditors and advisers, there are statutory regulators who should have been expected to step in when the business and the audits were seen to be failing. Carillion’s finance directors and auditors were subject to scrutiny by the Financial Reporting Council. Now that the company has collapsed, two former CFOs are under investigation for the preparation of financial statements, and Carillion’s auditors are subject to further scrutiny. During our inquiry, we heard that the FRC had already taken an interest in the situation at Carillion, and that it had concerns about the quality of previous audits by KPMG. However, the regulator had been far too passive. It accepted extra disclosures being made by KPMG and Carillion the following year without any further follow-up action and, although it found repeat issues with KPMG’s wider audit work across other companies, it seemingly took no firm action there either.

Carillion’s huge pension debt was a matter of concern to its pension trustees and the Pensions Regulator, the other regulator involved, but the regulator’s response, again, was feeble. It threatened to impose a contributions schedule and then left the power unused. It sought to negotiate a payment agreement and then agreed precisely with what the company wanted. It launched action only once the company collapsed and then it was too late. Again and again, the Pensions Regulator barked but did not bite. While plugging the £2.6 billion hole in the pension fund would not have saved the company, it could have reduced the largest ever burden on the Pension Protection Fund, which will see pension holders receive less than they have been promised by their company’s scheme. It is telling that none of Carillion’s directors was in the collapsed scheme.

The Committees found serious concerns about the performance of both regulators, including their powers, remit and leadership. If regulators are not working well, employees, investors, suppliers and customers can have little confidence in the businesses in which they are invested. Statutory regulators need to be doing more. Across the work of the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee, we rarely find ourselves criticising regulators for being too bold. Instead, we keep hearing timid bodies apologising for letting consumers down. That needs to change, and the change should be led from the top.

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

The hon. Lady is making an excellent speech so far. Does she agree that one of the Committee’s concern was that the companies that were being taken over all had sick pension schemes and that the Pensions Regulator should have been asking serious questions at that point?

[Rachel Reeves]

The hon. Gentleman, who sits on the Work and Pensions Committee, is absolutely right. When Carillion took over companies such as Mowlem, McAlpine and Eaga, it was taking on businesses, yes, but it was also taking on huge pension deficits, which contributed to the problems. However, the business could have decided to address that pension deficit. It was not that nothing could be done. It could have decided to pay money into the pension fund instead of paying out to shareholders and to directors in the form of bonuses, but it decided to do the exact opposite. It made the wrong choices and prioritised the wrong people. It prioritised itself.

The announcement of the Kingman review into the FRC is a welcome start, but the Government must confirm that they are willing to see radical change, including giving regulators more powers if needed and holding them better to account for not using the powers they already have.

The Government, the audit profession and the regulators need to take urgent action. They owe it to the tens of thousands of people affected by Carillion’s collapse and to the untold number of people who could be affected if this is ever allowed to happen again. There are some clear lessons. In contracts, best value is not the same as the lowest price. Outsourcing is not always better than doing things in-house. Privatisation does not mean that the risk or the cost of failure when things go catastrophically wrong are contracted out.

We would all like to think that this is a case of one horrendously badly run company—Carillion was horrendously badly run—but with Interserve, Capita and Mitie all facing difficulties, we would have to be pretty brave to conclude that this is a one-off. We need to restore integrity to British business and the firms that audit them. Six months on, we have regulators reviewing and reviews of the regulators, but we need firmer action on corporate governance, on breaking up cosy cartels and on toughening up sanctions for misconduct. To secure our public services, for jobs, for small business, for contractors and for pensioners, that action is needed and it is needed now.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rachel Reeves]

It has been a real privilege to have this debate in the Chamber today, and I welcome the contributions from all hon. Members, including the Front-Bench spokespeople and the Minister. As Chair of the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee, I get to see the best of British business, but sadly also the worst, and Carillion was the very worst of business. We now need to learn the lessons, because we saw the impact on small businesses, pensioners, workers and investors. I urge the Government, when they respond to the Committee’s report—the response is due on Monday 16 July—to respond in detail to the points on corporate governance, regulation, audit market reform and outsourcing. We need those changes, and we need them urgently, if we are to ensure that we learn the lessons of the collapse of Carillion, get justice for those affected and ensure that we see more of the best of British business and less of the worst.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered lessons from the collapse of Carillion.