Automated Vehicles Bill [Lords]

Debate between Jim Shannon and Louise Haigh

2nd reading
Tuesday 5th March 2024 Commons Chamber

[Louise Haigh]

It is typical of my hon. Friend to raise such an important and pertinent point. I will come to it shortly in my speech.

It is a shame that much of the important work still to do on this safety regime will be set out further down the line, rather than being debated today in the Chamber. We will look closely at the detail when it comes to see how the standard is defined in practice, and I welcome any insight from the Government today to reassure colleagues on that. For instance, what level of fault will be allowed for an autonomous vehicle compared with a standard practical driving test, if any at all?

This technology does not just offer potential road safety benefits. It is estimated that disabled people in the UK take around 38% fewer trips than non-disabled people. Automated vehicles could help address that gap by unlocking a world of opportunity for those who cannot or struggle to drive and for those held back from that opportunity by the inaccessibility of too much of our public transport network. Securing those benefits will mean ensuring that access to these vehicles is not limited just to the extremely wealthy, and that the interests of disabled people, who are currently five times more likely to be injured by a vehicle than non-disabled pedestrians, are at the heart of the development of these technologies from the very start. I would welcome the Secretary of State setting out how he will ensure that disabled people and disability-led groups will be properly consulted as these vehicles are introduced to our roads.

[Jim Shannon]

I suppose, if I am being honest, that I am a bit of a sceptic in this matter. I am not a petrolhead, by the way, but many of my constituents love their cars, love their vehicles, and love the opportunity to work under the bonnet. I am always conscious that we may see a move towards automated vehicles all across the country, irrespective of what people think. Is it the shadow Minister’s intention to ensure that people will always have choice? If she does, that is the right way.

[Louise Haigh]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his intervention and remain impressed that he has something to say on this issue, as on so many others. It will of course remain the case that should people wish to drive their cars, they will be free and able to do so. I think it will be a long time—indeed, the industry has predicted it will be several decades—before the number of automated vehicles outstrips the number of vehicles with drivers on our roads.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Grahame Morris) mentioned, there is one major area that the Bill does not address, and which we have not considered in any meaningful capacity, which is the potential impact on jobs from automated vehicles. As a South Yorkshire MP, I am all too familiar with the economic impacts of deindustrialisation. Far too many towns and cities across the north have already suffered enough from lost livelihoods, with the social fabric of their communities ripped apart as a new economic model left them behind. We simply cannot afford to make those same mistakes again.

That is why Labour has been clear that artificial intelligence and automation must be harnessed as a public good—one that delivers social benefits, grows the economy and supports jobs rather than destroying them. That is why, during its passage through the other place, my Labour colleagues attempted to amend the Bill to establish an advisory council that would ensure the Government consult on the introduction of these vehicles with not only industry representatives and road safety experts, but trade unions. The Government opposed that amendment. From the way this Government have politicised the ongoing industrial dispute on our railways and Ministers’ failure to even sit down with union representatives, we have already seen just how important it is to have proper engagement with workforce representatives, as well as just how far this Government will go to avoid doing it.

I would welcome an explanation from the Secretary of State as to why he is so opposed to the idea of speaking to experts and trade union representatives about the introduction of such sensitive and consequential technology. Will he also say what steps he will take to ensure this technology creates jobs, rather than destroying them, especially in the areas of the country where low-paid work dominates? It is in exactly those areas, which still feel the ravages of deindustrialisation, that jobs in driving, warehousing and logistics dominate—all jobs that face the highest risks from automation. Unless the Government are prepared to play an active role in how we transition our economy, it is exactly those areas, like my constituency in South Yorkshire, that will be hit all over again.

I have talked a lot about what the Bill is, Mr Deputy Speaker, but allow me a minute to talk about what it is not. As the Secretary of State well knows, his Government have promised us all sorts of transport legislation over the years that they have failed to make parliamentary time for. This Bill is not his long-promised rail reform. It is not legislation to properly regulate e-scooters, e-bikes or drones, to set minimum standards for taxis, to extend franchising for buses, or to strengthen the powers of the Civil Aviation Authority—legislation that has been promised time and again by this Government, without any intention of actually delivering it.

I will close by pointing out the irony that the one major piece of transport legislation in this parliamentary Session is a Bill on driverless cars brought forward by a driverless Government who are running out of road.

Colombia Peace Process

Debate between Jim Shannon and Louise Haigh

Tuesday 18th June 2019 Westminster Hall

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

Thank you, Mr Hollobone. It is always a pleasure to speak in these debates, but I will try not to prolong my speech beyond the time that you have so kindly given me.

The hon. Member for Cardiff Central (Jo Stevens) has presented the case for the Colombian peace process very well. She referred to my colleagues, my right hon. Friend the Member for Lagan Valley (Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson) and the former Member for Foyle, Mark Durkan. They were, individually and collectively, involved in trying to progress the peace process—I, too, am a member of the Parliamentary Friends of Colombia group. Both my colleagues were invited to Colombia to speak and to tell their story about Northern Ireland. The reason was obviously what we—I say “we”, because everyone together made it happen—have done in Northern Ireland, although the political process has stalled at the moment. We ended the violence, started a political process and found a methodology to take that process forward. It was an example for the rest of the world, and my right hon. Friend the Member for Lagan Valley has spoken about it in many countries, one of them being Colombia.

I have a deep interest in Colombia, and I hope that its people will see the peace we have in many places across the world. As my party’s spokesperson on human rights and equality issues where they pertain to religious persecution, I am aware that some groups in Colombia—those who are Christians—have been targeted because of their religious persuasion. Peasants have also been targeted, although I use the word “peasants” in a general sense; it is meant not as a marker for anything, but for the people who live on the land and depend on it for their survival, livelihood and income.

Some of the things that have happened in Colombia are quite unbelievable. I have an interest in the country, which I believe has real potential and an appetite for change. With a bit more effort from the Government and everyone involved, Colombia could move from where we are to a peace process that can actually do something. My hope, prayers and ambitions are for that to happen. I believe in prayer—I say that because it is true—and I have prayed for peace in Colombia and across the world.

About this time last year, I asked a written parliamentary question:

“To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, what discussions has the Minister had with the Columbian Government on progress on the peace process in that country.”

I received a full answer from the Minister present. He always responds well, and I am not just saying that because he is here—he does, and he has a deep passion for and interest in Colombia, as is the case with many other countries of the world. He is keen to see progress, peace and prosperity. His response was:

“The UK has assisted the peace process since 2012, contributing over £28m in Conflict Stability and Security Funding since 2015 and holding the pen in the UN Security Council. I have had numerous discussions with the Colombian Government during that time on progress, most recently with the Vice Minister for Foreign Affairs on 21 June.”

Clearly, the Minister and our Government have made a financial input, have an interest in the process and have regular discussions with the Colombian Government. This nation—the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland—has made clear attempts and taken strides in the past to be a help and a guide in such scenarios, but equally clearly, almost a year down the line from that question, the journey to peace still needs a wee knock-on or a nudge—perhaps a detour—and more to be done.

To say that Colombia is a war-torn nation is an understatement. The national victims unit, which was set up in 2011, and which records crimes that have occurred since 1985 in the context of the armed conflict, registered almost 280,000 killings, the majority of them involving civilians. That number is horrific, and it gives an indication of a genocide that has taken place—the slaughter of innocents. More than 46,500 people have been forcibly disappeared. By 1 November 2016, more than 7 million people had been forced to flee their homes. The actual figures are expected to be considerably higher; these are guesstimations of what has taken place, but they indicate the magnitude of the issue.

Over the years, I have had the chance to have direct contact with people with the friends of Colombia group. We have had meetings in London, here in Westminster, and elsewhere on such matters. We have had meetings in Belfast, back home in Northern Ireland, and people wanted to have an idea of how the peace process worked and was taken forward. Such meetings gave me an insight into what took place. Some of the people we met told horrific stories of what had happened to their relatives and friends—some had disappeared and never been found.

The nation of Colombia needs peace, medical care, education systems, social welfare, housing and initiatives to take people out of poverty. We have an advisory role, and perhaps even a clear practical role, in helping to achieve that. A fair and democratic process, and a commitment to that process, are needed. I do not want to be unfair, but I sometimes feel, looking at the situation from the outside in, in an observational way, that the commitment of all those involved in the process has not as been as transparent as it perhaps could be. However, I believe that we are not that far away from moving things forward. In Northern Ireland, when the process moved forward, it was by small steps—but those steps then led to big strides. That is what we need.

We need to see an end to the land grabs—to the theft of land from people who depend on it for their living. The killings that have taken place need an explanation and an investigation, because those who carried them out should be accountable for their crimes. No one can carry out crimes and expect to get away with them.

[Louise Haigh (Sheffield, Heeley) (Lab)]

On justice and holding those who have committed horrendous crimes to account, does the hon. Gentleman agree that the establishment of the unit to dismantle the paramilitaries is a particular priority, and should be brought forward with due haste by the Duque Administration?

[Jim Shannon]

I agree with the hon. Lady. Clearly, paramilitary groups think that they are above the law, and they are carrying out atrocities. They need to be accountable and to stop that; if the peace process is to go forward, we need to ensure that those who have the power are doing their best to stop these things.

There have been kidnappings, and people have gone missing. In Northern Ireland, we always wished for the remains of those who were kidnapped, murdered or disappeared to be found and returned to their families. It is important to have that in place—for families to have the final resolution of being able to bury their loved ones in graves, and to have time to grieve for people who had disappeared. The hon. Member for Cardiff Central referred to many examples of people being disappeared, although in one case the person was found because the security forces were still trying to dispose of his body.

I am my party’s spokesperson for human rights, and they feature at the top of my agenda, in whichever country they are being abused. We need action to stop women being sexually abused and horribly tortured by security forces. We also need to help those activists—we have been aware of some of them for a number of years—who have been kidnapped and disappeared. Some journalists, who are spokespeople for human rights issues and who have made the world aware of what is going on, have disappeared and never been found—any dissent has been trampled on right away.

I am not any smarter than anyone else—far from it—but coming from Northern Ireland and having a personal knowledge of the country, I perhaps understand more than some others in this place the emotional trauma that is passed from generation to generation of those who have suffered at the hands of paramilitaries, as well as the impact and lasting legacy the hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Louise Haigh) referred to in her intervention. That can only be dealt with in two parts. First, we must allow time for wounds to heal over without anyone picking open the scabs. That means an end to violence and the threat of it, so that people can grieve and learn how to exist in a new nation where everyone is equal. Secondly, opportunities are required for things to be different—for children to be educated and get paying jobs, for skills to be taught, for work to be made available so that people can earn a wage, and for communities to recover.

We should do more, while not overstepping. I look to the Minister, whom I respect greatly, and who understands my passion for these issues, to explain the view of the Department, in particular, and the steps that can be taken so that we can play a small but valuable part in this process for peace.

Aggressive Antisocial Behaviour

Debate between Jim Shannon and Louise Haigh

Tuesday 10th October 2017 Westminster Hall

[Louise Haigh]

The chief constables, in their press release, said that the merger was brought about amid significant funding challenges and was the only way forward for the police forces involved. It was disappointing not to hear the hon. Gentleman talk about those funding challenges in his speech.

Over the past seven years, 20,000 police officers and more than 30,000 police staff have been cut. The crimes that concern the public most—knife crime, gun crime, violent crime and acquisitive crime—are all on the rise. Demand across the board, especially on non-crime issues such as mental health, is soaring. At a time of unprecedented terrorist threats, the number of armed officers is down. Yet among all those competing demands, my hon. Friend the member for Birmingham, Selly Oak painted a compelling picture of why it is so important to take antisocial behaviour seriously. Time and again, it is an issue raised by our constituents. It blights lives and can make people prisoners in their own homes.

Undoubtedly, the reduction in neighbourhood policing has left our communities at risk. Alongside the incredible quotes read by my hon. Friend from a variety of chief constables, Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary said earlier this year that the model of neighbourhood policing is being eroded. In calling for urgent action, HMIC warned that

“the position on crime prevention and local policing continues to deteriorate.”

The blame lies clearly and squarely with the Government.

The voices raising concerns do not stop there. Over the summer, one of the most senior police leaders in the country—Sara Thornton, who weighs her words carefully—said:

“We’re particularly concerned about the resilience of local neighbourhood policing...Withdrawal from communities risks undermining their trust in us, at a time when we need people to have the confidence to share information with us.”

The Government have been told time and again that police forces are increasingly unable to provide the service that the public expect. They are rationing their time, which is pushing reports of antisocial behaviour, among a host of other demands, to the back of the queue. At the Budget, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Delyn (David Hanson) said, the Government must get a grip. Forces urgently need a real-terms funding increase that matches their needs and that recognises the record demand they face, having lost 20,000 officers and £2.6 billion since 2010. The status quo is not an option.

If we are to tackle ASB effectively, the Government must get to grips not only with resources but with some crucial practical issues. As we have heard, people are incredibly frustrated with the performance of 101 across the country. They can wait for more than half an hour to report ASB or crime and they feel that the police will not act on the report and that it will fall into an intelligence black hole. The police can have all the evidence and intelligence they like, but that is useless without the analysts and officers to act on them. Will the Minister consider conducting an assessment of the performance of 101 and of which forces are demonstrating best practice in the area? Some forces have excellent online reporting mechanisms, but that is far from consistent across all forces.

On data analysis, I direct the Minister to the recent report by the Royal United Services Institute, “Big Data and Policing”. I recommend its suggestion for a national data strategy and policy for the police. It is deeply frustrating that expertise and practice have to be replicated across 43 forces, especially when they are struggling even to provide core response services.

On legislation, we have heard about the problems associated with the downgrading of ASBOs to civil injunctions. With CBOs, the same challenges persist that existed with ASBOs for police on the ground. A considerable amount of police work goes into preparing a CBO case but, from speaking to those on the frontline, it seems that CBOs are not respected in the round by the judiciary. I have heard many examples of the police working with councils and other services to provide individuals with interventions that have repeatedly failed. They have turned to a CBO as a last resort, only to have it thrown out of court almost immediately. Under the previous legislation under Labour, the judge or magistrates were required to explain why they would not grant an ASBO, but that is not the case for a CBO.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak pointed out, we have no measure of the effectiveness of the Government’s ASB strategy. We certainly do not measure or hold to account the wider criminal justice system’s use and implementation of ASB legislation. Will the Minister consider raising with her Ministry of Justice colleagues the need for better training and awareness of ASB measures and for putting in place a review of how and when CBOs are granted by the courts to establish whether they are being used properly?

One of the positive things about CBOs is that they require some positive action from the offender. That is fantastic in theory, but in practice the third-sector and public providers either no longer exist or do not have the funding to work with and support offenders with CBOs. Will the Minister consider commissioning research to establish how that is working in practice? For example, Durham Constabulary is doing some excellent work through the programme Checkpoint, which I recommend to her. The problem, however, is that, although the cost savings from reducing reoffending and diverting from court are felt across the criminal justice system, the police are currently footing the entire bill. That is simply unsustainable.

We have heard about moped and bike-enabled crime from several hon. Members, particularly my right hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley (Mr Howarth), who has conducted an excellent campaign on it. It is menacing communities nationwide. Bikes are used not just to plague residents with ASB, but for much more serious crime associated with drugs and violence. A significant part of the issue is the decimation of youth services, but an effective police response is a crucial part of the solution.

We have been calling for the Government to get a grip, not least through a review of police pursuit policy. In recent months, both the Minister and the Independent Police Complaints Commission were adamant that the current Crown Prosecution Service guidance was adequate for protecting the police. It was good to hear the Government think again and announce a review recently. Pursuit and response drivers across the country will be watching with interest. Many tell me that effectively they are forced to operate under a no-pursuit policy, as they do not have the confidence that if—God forbid—someone got hurt during that pursuit, they would not be prosecuted, even if they had followed their force pursuit policy to the letter.

[Jim Shannon]

There have been incidents across the United Kingdom in which people on mopeds have removed their helmets so that police following them feel they must pull back. There are so many conditions and restrictions on the police. As the hon. Lady says, it is important for the Minister to address that.

[Louise Haigh]

That is exactly the problem. The message is out there that the police are not able to pursue, and offenders are freely removing their helmets or carrying on under that impression.

The lack of protection for the police was amply demonstrated last week by the case of PC Simon Folwell, who was involved in February last year in the pursuit of a vehicle. The car crashed into a lamp post and, tragically, the driver died. The CPS ruled no further action on the case on two separate occasions, yet the IPCC still pressed for a gross misconduct hearing. The officer was finally cleared last week after an 18-month investigation.

No one is suggesting for a second that the police be given blanket licence to pursue, but if officers have followed their training, their force policy and the law, they should not be treated as suspects. Will the Minister confirm what the review’s terms of reference will be and when she expects it to report?

In conclusion, I beg the Minister to put our case to the Treasury in the strongest possible terms ahead of the Budget. Policing simply cannot continue in its current form with this level of demand and with no additional resource. Does she acknowledge the importance of neighbourhood policing and recognise that the rise in crime and antisocial behaviour is at least partly due to cuts to that important function? I reiterate our ask that the Government properly measure their ASB strategy and review the pursuit policy, to give the police the confidence to do their job and our constituents the confidence that their safety and fears are taken seriously.

Corporate Governance and Social Responsibility

Debate between Jim Shannon and Louise Haigh

Wednesday 14th December 2016 Commons Chamber

[Louise Haigh (Sheffield, Heeley) (Lab)]

I thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for allowing time to debate this issue of critical importance today.

Having worked in corporate governance before I was elected, I am well accustomed to the fact that it is not a subject that excites or even particularly interests many people. I completely accept that, and it is demonstrated by how rarely it is raised or debated in this House. However, it is utterly fundamental to the workings of our economy and to how wealth is distributed across the country. What it essentially boils down to is this one key question: who does our economy work for?

In a year of global convulsions, that is a question being asked in unlikely quarters. When Mark Carney made his significant intervention, warning of “staggering inequalities” in an economy where many “lack a stake”, some voices said that he had strayed too far from his brief. Not only was his intervention appropriate, it was absolutely urgent, because while 75 companies on the FTSE 100 collectively made a profit of £32 billion last year, most ordinary people’s wages are predicted to flatline well into a second lost decade. That makes people justifiably angry and society less robust.

In is in that context that the Prime Minister’s corporate governance agenda should be seen, and although it was welcome that the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy should introduce proposals for reform, I am afraid that the signals are not good. The Prime Minister floated worker representation on boards on her first day in office, but then informed the CBI that that would be voluntary. In a statement to the House, the Secretary of State lauded his own success in bringing down average pay for chief executive officers from £4.3 million to £4.25 million—I am afraid that that is hardly a job well done.

I know first-hand the enormous creative potential that a well-functioning company, backed by a strong governance regime, can unleash. Unlike the Government, who appear to have stepped back from desperately needed reform, I know that the status quo cannot continue. It represents grotesque pay ratios between the top and the bottom, and astronomical executive pay. We have seen the corporate greed of BHS, Sports Direct, Gunstones, ASOS and JD Sports, which treat their low-paid workforce with little more than contempt; the behaviour of energy companies quick to hike prices to maximise profits, but slow to lower them when the market shifts; and the short-termism that has resulted in productivity flatlining and investment being stifled as directors seek to maximise shareholder value at the cost of everything else.

That is nothing short of a crisis of legitimacy in the shareholder model, because confidence is placed in shareholders that, in my experience, is undeserved and misunderstands the completely altered nature of shareholders in UK plc. Although I welcome the Green Paper, I fear that it clings to a model that belongs firmly in the last century. We are not dealing with the shareholders of 30 years ago, who had a stake in the UK and held shares for a significant period. In 1998, just a third of shares were owned by non-UK investors, but now the vast majority are owned by such investors. In fact, it is almost absurd to talk about shareholders as investors, as most do not hold the shares for long—some hold them for just seconds. The figures are contested, but the most reliable ones that I have seen suggest that the average holding period has fallen from eight years in the 1960s to just four months, and as much as 70% of trades are high frequency.

The equity chain is grossly over-intermediated, meaning that those with skin in the game have little or no involvement in the company at the other end of the chain. Investors tend to own only about 3% of a company at any given time. The notion that that fragmented group will clamp down on executive remuneration, or is interested in the voice of workers or the long-term contribution of the company to the communities that it serves, is either naive or disingenuous.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the hon. Lady for giving way in a speech on an important issue. Does she agree that the Government’s social responsibility does not lie simply in assessing how much GDP goes on benefits? It should be a living, breathing policy that takes account of the changing needs of the communities that the hon. Lady has discussed, rather than a document that is assessed at Budget time. Does she further agree that the previous Government’s big society ideal was never given the resources that it should have been given to take off? That should be considered and, indeed, reviewed.

[Louise Haigh]

I completely agree with those sentiments. Corporate responsibility is too often tacked on at the end of a company’s activities, in a completely separate report. It is not embedded throughout the organisation as it should be, which is why a strong, effective governance regime is vital to ensure that companies respect the communities in which they operate, the environment and their social impact.

At ASOS, despite the shocking evidence with which it was presented of mistreatment of its workforce, investors went ahead and backed the bumper pay package for executives. Why rock the boat when investors are getting their return? Since advisory votes on executive pay came into force, CEO pay has continued to climb to obscene levels, and the average vote in favour of remuneration packages has been a shocking 93%. The Kay review, commissioned by the coalition Government, which presented a fantastic analysis of the issues but fell disappointingly short on recommendations, said that

“the pursuit of shareholder value has distorted corporate principles”.

Rather than push against that open door, the Government seem intent on clinging to an outdated and inappropriate model that puts the interests of international shareholders above all else—above the interests of the workforce, of stakeholders, of supply chains and of the wider community. It does not make economic sense and it is deeply unpatriotic.

Yes, the shares in UK plc may rise and international investors will have their red letter day. What good is that if workers and communities here in this country do not feel the benefit? The Government cling to a model that says that hedge funds on Wall Street are more important, and should have a greater say over the direction of a UK company, than the workers whose mortgages, pensions and livelihoods are dependent on the success of that business. Rather than having a stake in the community, investors are increasingly coming to resemble buy-to-let landlords, skimming off profits with little interest in the community at large, yet they hold all the cards.

As the Bank of England’s Andy Haldane has said, if shareholders hold all the power,

“we might expect high distribution of profits to this cohort, at the expense of ploughing back these profits…or distributing them to workers”.

That is exactly what we have seen. Wealth for the 1% has grown unchecked while wages for the rest have stagnated.

It is not without reason that research and development spend in countries like our own is so low when the focus of investors and directors alike is on maximising the value of shares. That is why we need change. Our companies must look closer to home and above all to their employees, their supply chains and their communities, and give the people they rely on a stake. British workers create the wealth, the services and the products from which shareholders earn their reward. We should give them real influence in the businesses that they work for. We must modernise company law to correct the absurdity that denies employees a say but gives power to hedge funds.

If we give powerful voting rights to overseas investors who speculate in the shares of our major employers, it is right to give the programmer, the secretary, the driver or the picker who works for those businesses some power too. It is not about one or the other. It is about giving employees an equal stake. Having grappled with these issues in practice myself, I know that the big issue is that the more directors are accountable to increasingly anonymous investors, the more our top businesses end up being accountable to no one at all.

Preparing for today’s debate, I was reminded that Keynes wrote that bad ideas die slowly. He also wrote:

“Practical men who believe themselves to be quite exempt from any intellectual influence, are usually the slaves of some defunct economist.”

I am not pretending that reform in this area is easy. If we are honest, the reforms to fiduciary duties by the last Labour Government have had little impact, given that conservative legal advice invariably prejudices short-term shareholder interests. That is why transparency has to be at the heart of any reform. Large companies should report qualitatively on their impact on their communities, their environment and their workers, in the interest not merely of corporate accountability but of good management.

Reforms to section 172 of the Companies Act 2006 will inevitably be an important part of that. The Financial Reporting Council made the point that more focused reporting on exactly how companies are complying with the various elements of section 172 is crucial. That may very well have to become a requirement, as surveys suggests that a large number of shareholders are not aware of the very section on which it is their duty to hold directors to account.

Today Mark Carney supported better reporting on climate change risk, which is undeniably material for a growing number of sectors. However, I have real concerns about how effective section 172 is. After all, it was introduced back in 2006 and since then we have seen some extreme examples of corporate excess and recklessness that have brought the economy to its knees and led to a bail-out of such astonishing proportions that we will still be paying for it for decades to come. Section 172 has been in force for more than 10 years, and in that time a director has had to have regard to the interests of the company’s employees, the impact of the company’s operations on the community and the environment, and the desirability of the company maintaining a reputation for high standards of business conduct. It would be almost laughable if it were not such a desperate example of the corporate neglect which has maligned this country for decades.

Throughout that time we have lacked a regulator with teeth, yet still the FRC says that it should be incumbent on shareholders to enforce the provisions of section 172. The fact that the FRC is only now commencing its investigation into KPMG’s audit of HBOS, some nine years after the collapse and bail-out, should tell us all we need to know. There is a serious problem with the enforcement of our corporate governance regime. The Government need to go much further if they want to see meaningful change. I am not convinced by the argument that we should leave such a crucial aspect of company law to shareholders who have so consistently demonstrated little interest in it and an authority seemingly unwilling to take action.

In its current definition, the duty to promote the success of the company under section 172 is seen as serving shareholder interest. As John Kay found in his review of equity markets, with share trading playing an increasingly important role in the strategy of investors, it is not at all clear how short-term investors can support the long-term good of companies. The long-term success of a company must therefore be codified in changes to section 172.

Changes in the legal duties of directors to prioritise the long-term success of the company at large over shareholders would be a significant shift, but it is one that many voices that previously advocated only minimal change are now calling for. Employees having a statutory role at board level must also be a line in the sand. The Government must not row back on giving workers an equal stake and, with it, bringing their different priorities and fresh perspective to the boardroom. Diversity is vital in governance terms—not for moral or representative reasons, but to challenge and address what Margaret Heffernan has termed “wilful blindness”.

With that in mind, I would like to ask the Minister what proposals she has discussed and considered. Much has been said about introducing a statutory role, with a third of the board being drawn from workers, whose representatives would themselves be elected. Has the Minister considered those specific proposals? What assessment has she made of the quality of reporting on environmental, social and governance issues and the impact it has had on internalising costs? Has the Minister considered the need for advisory panels to sit alongside the board, which would draw from those directly referred to in section 172, bringing a much-needed voice to directors’ responsibilities under that section?

Surely the long-term goal has to be allowing other stakeholders an equal stake in holding the board and directors to account. The Government simply cannot afford to row back on that reform. At the heart of it is the crisis that Carney referred to: people lack a stake, and they cannot see a way to exert influence.

When I was working in the City of London, the risk taking, bonuses and pay packets were viewed as the symbol of the corporate neglect that has done so much to shake trust in big business and that played its part in bringing our economy to its knees. No doubt those things were and still are grotesque, unchecked by shareholder power and in need of urgent reform. There is a crisis of legitimacy over who governs our companies and, in turn, whose interests they act in. The Government would be wise to seize that with both hands, because we cannot ignore it any longer.