European Union (Withdrawal) Bill

Debate between Mary Creagh and Anna Soubry

Committee: 8th sitting: House of Commons
Wednesday 20th December 2017 Commons Chamber

[Anna Soubry]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. That is the sort of detail we need. We have to understand all the different arrangements that are there that will work and suit our country, and I beg right hon. and hon. Members to look at them. The solutions are there. We are not going to get a bespoke deal, but arrangements are there on the shelf. We can grasp them, sort out Brexit, move on and do the right thing by our country and our constituents.

[Mary Creagh]

I begin by expressing my condolences and those of all Members to our friend and colleague Mr Deputy Speaker. He has suffered such a grievous loss, and we hold him in our hearts and prayers this Christmas season.

It is a pleasure to follow such interesting, well-informed speeches. I will discuss new clause 61 and amendment 291, which are in my name. We have heard much from the Minister today and from the Prime Minister, but my concern is that the blandishments and reassurances that we have been given actually contain more fudge than I hope to find in my Christmas stocking on Monday. As we look forward to the phase 2 negotiations, I am clear about one thing: there is no free trade agreement that we can negotiate that will be as comprehensive as the one we have with the EU now. New clause 61 recognises both that and the importance of the UK chemicals industry.

The Bill attempts to cut and paste EU law into UK law, but it cannot do that for the chemicals industry, which is vital to this country. We export almost £15 billion-worth of chemicals to the EU each year. Some 60% of all our chemicals go to the EU, and 75% of all our chemical imports come from the EU. We no longer make some basic chemicals due to that close relationship, which is really important for the pharmaceutical industry. Chemicals are our second largest export to the EU after cars, and the industry provides half a million jobs, both directly and indirectly. However, the regulatory uncertainties around Brexit—this hokey-cokey on whether we are going to be is the single market or the customs union or have a free trade deal—are sending shockwaves through the chemicals industry.

The industry is concerned that the UK will no longer participate in the EU’s regulation on the registration, evaluation, authorisation and restriction of chemicals or REACH, and new clause 61 would require us to remain in that arrangement. REACH covers over 30,000 substances and pharmaceuticals that are bought and sold in the single market. It also covers products—everything from the coating on a non-stick frying pan to flame retardants in sofas, carpets and curtains, to gases, fertilisers, plastics, speciality adhesives, rubbers, paints and dyes—and hazardous substances. It seeks to protect human health and the environment, particularly following the disastrous chemical leak in the Italian town of Seveso.

If a UK business wants to sell a chemical product into the EU or to Switzerland, South Korea or Norway, it must be registered with and authorised by the European Chemicals Agency in Helsinki. Membership of REACH is essentially a passport to the global chemicals marketplace. The Environmental Audit Committee has conducted all sorts of inquiries into the arrangement, but it cannot simply be transposed into UK law because it involves data sharing and co-operation. We do not have a domestic UK agency to carry out the same function, so the Bill will put our trade in chemicals at risk. Without an agreement to the contrary, the European Chemicals Agency has said that all UK companies’ registrations will be non-existent after exit day, which I cannot stress strongly enough. That would mean no access to the database and no legal obligation in this country to have a national helpdesk to give advice to companies. The arbitrary red lines on membership of the single market and customs union are the source of those risks, and the situation could be disastrous. The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs tweeted about maximum divergence from the EU, but he is effectively putting a stake through the heart of the UK chemicals industry.

The Chemical Business Association told my Committee that 20% of its members are investigating moves out of the UK as a result of Brexit uncertainties. The Chemical Industries Association wrote to the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs this month, urging the Government

“to do all it can to remain within or as close as possible”

to the EU’s rules. Its chief executive, Steve Elliott, said in his letter that leaving REACH

“would seriously bring into question 10 years of investment, as registrations and authorisations that permit access to the EU single market would suddenly become non-existent on exit day”.

That could have upstream effects on dialysis machines and solar panels, and all sorts of other industries would be affected.

European Union (Withdrawal) Bill

Debate between Mary Creagh and Anna Soubry

Committee: 3rd sitting: House of Commons
Tuesday 21st November 2017 Commons Chamber

[Anna Soubry]

There is genuine concern across this House about this matter, because it cannot be right that people cannot raise a claim on EU law “retrospectively”, as the hon. Lady puts it. My right hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs Gillan) has raised this problem, so I hope the Government will examine it and come up with proposals that will satisfy this concern from right across the House.

[Mary Creagh]

I thank the right hon. Lady for that intervention. Often the simplest sentences raise the biggest alarm bells, because things can be missed if we blink, and substantial rights are engaged in this. The Brexit Secretary said in his speech to UBS last week that the UK would remain

“in all the EU regulators and agencies”

during the transitional period. That leaves us with a further conundrum, because transitional rights are mentioned in the European Commission’s negotiating paper and it says that the ECJ will continue to be able to decide, presumably on Francovich, during any transitional period. The issue of the transitional period is stretching the elastic limits of the Conservative party and of the Cabinet at the moment in terms of which wing of the party is going to succeed, but from the point of view of economic stability and job stability in this country I certainly want to see a transitional period. This Bill raises questions about the loss of those rights if there should be, as we all hope there will be, a transitional period.

The problem is that those rights start to erode as exit day looms, because the incentive to follow the EU directives will be diminished for the Government as they will be let off the hook, given that there will be no retroactive right to sue under Francovich.

Schedule 1 therefore fails the basic test of fairness. For example, if the Government are in breach of an air quality directive, perish the thought, and people are suffering a substantial loss as a result, only those who start legal proceedings before exit day would be entitled to those damages. My amendment 139 would ensure that the right to sue the state and to obtain a remedy under Francovich is still available for those who have suffered that loss or damage before the UK exits the EU. This would allow the victims of a Government failure to uphold their rights that took place before exit to obtain those damages. It would bring fairness to this process, as well as, crucially, legal continuity and legal certainty. Brexit must not be used as an excuse to abolish citizens’ rights and protections under the law. In the referendum my constituents did not vote to reduce their rights, and I hope the Committee will be able to test the matter this evening.

Enterprise Bill [Lords]

Debate between Mary Creagh and Anna Soubry

Tuesday 8th March 2016 Commons Chamber

[Anna Soubry]

I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for reading from the letter. Obviously, I am not going to read it out. You will be pleased to hear that, Madam Deputy Speaker, as we would be here for half the afternoon if I did so. I have, however, placed a copy of it in the Library, as it best explains why this new clause is no longer required and why it is so incredibly important that we get the right device to ensure we keep the green principles of the bank.

[Mary Creagh]

Lord Smith of Kelvin may or may not be the chairman of the bank when this sale proceeds, so I therefore ask the Minister to answer the question I asked in the debate: will this special share apply if the bank is sold by any future owner, yes or no?

[Anna Soubry]

This is a short answer—yes. The hon. Lady will have seen this letter and I hope she will have read it—upside down, inside out, backwards and everything else. It is well over two pages long and it could not be clearer as to the way the special share is going to be set up. I shall rely on the fact that it talks about the special shareholder and how difficult it would be to undo this device. That could be done only with the permission, in effect, of the special shareholder. This House can therefore be sure that this is the right way to achieve what we all want to achieve.

That is why it is important to pay tribute—some may say that this is a first, and indeed it may not be the last—to the Scottish Government and to the Scottish National party. I have seen the letter John Swinney has written on behalf of the Scottish Government, quite properly as he is the Deputy First Minister and has responsibility in Scotland for finance, the constitution and the economy. He, too, rightly and understandably, has raised his concerns about how we best protect the green credentials of the GIB. As a result, he, too, has contacted Lord Smith, and letters have been sent back and forth. In short, to the credit of the SNP, it takes the view—I will be corrected if I am wrong—that this device, which is up and running, with the work already having been started by the GIB to secure this special shareholding, means that everybody can be confident that this is the way to secure what we all want, but without the need for legislation, which could completely scupper this privatisation and selling off of the GIB.

Enterprise Bill [ Lords ] (Seventh sitting)

Debate between Mary Creagh and Anna Soubry

Thursday 25th February 2016 Public Bill Committees

[Anna Soubry]

I am just answering the points that have been made.

I was asked why the banks are not included. There is a good reason for that. During the financial crisis, the then Government ensured that a number of banks were in temporary partial public ownership, and we have already started the process of returning the banks wholly—not partly, but wholly—to private ownership. That is the only reason why they are exempt.

The other important thing to remember—I am particularly explaining this for the Magnox workers—is that it is not the Government who deem that they are working in the public sector; it is the Office for National Statistics. As we debated the other day, the ONS is an independent organisation. It is not for the Government to beat up on the ONS, which decides and determines what is in and what is out of the public sector. By definition, that is the ONS’s job.

[Mary Creagh]

I apologise for the earlier interruption. I have a new app, and I thought I had it on mute, but for some reason it started talking. I recommend it to the Committee, because it is good for beating the London traffic.

The Minister has just said that partially owned state banks are exempt from the cap at the moment. Does that mean that their workers can receive payoffs of more than £100,000 before they are fully privatised? That is at least the next year or year and a half, given our earlier discussions on the current state of the banking share market.

--- Later in debate ---

[Anna Soubry]

That is my understanding, because they are in the process of being wholly put back into the private sector. If I am wrong, I am sure I will be corrected. And if I am not corrected in time, I will be more than happy to write to the hon. Lady.

[Mary Creagh]

I am grateful to the Minister for clarifying that point. Does that mean that those banks that are in partial public ownership publish, as the Green Investment Bank currently does, the pay and benefits of all their top executives and their chairperson? We had that debate in relation to the Green Investment Bank, and I seek clarification on the same best practice for financial reporting on executive pay and performance. If the Minister cannot provide an answer now, I would be grateful if she wrote to me on that point.

[Anna Soubry]

I really do not know. The danger is that we are drifting off. Again, I am more than happy to ask my officials to write to the hon. Lady on that point. [Interruption.] Actually, the publication of what people earn, and so on, is not relevant to this clause.

I know that Opposition Members want to concentrate on the issue of the Magnox workers because, understandably, they have written in large numbers to hon. Members. As I have explained, we have been clear about what to do, but in any event we will list in regulation those employees who are not exempt. I also stress the point that the cap of £95,000 is on exit payments. We are not getting rid of all exit payments for Magnox workers, but those who would receive above £95,000 will be capped.

--- Later in debate ---

[Anna Soubry]

I do not think I can give assurances on that. If I am wrong, I will get back to the hon. Gentleman. Forgive me, Ms Buck, I am reading a note that I do not understand. It refers to the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy), although I did not think she was here. Perhaps the hon. Member for Wakefield has been mistaken for the hon. Member for Walthamstow.

[Mary Creagh]

She is blonde.

[Anna Soubry]

Yes, I was going to say that. I nearly said she is also much younger, but that would be exceedingly rude. Actually, it is not true. In any event, the hon. Lady looks the same age.

Enterprise Bill [ Lords ] (Sixth sitting)

Debate between Mary Creagh and Anna Soubry

Tuesday 23rd February 2016 Public Bill Committees

[Mary Creagh]

I apologise for my late arrival in Committee, Ms Buck. I spent my lunch hour delving into the Green Investment Bank’s remuneration committee, and I have printed edited highlights to share with the Committee.

I am keen to put the record straight. In the discussion that we had this morning, I said that as public sector employees the bank’s executives could not earn more than the Prime Minister. That was the case in 2012-13, when the chief executive earned £139,000, but things changed quickly in 2013-14. The latest figures show that the chief executive is earning £325,000 a year, with £147,560 awarded under the long-term incentive plan. There is also a short-term incentive plan and an offshore wind fund that is linked to remuneration, as well as a 10% contribution to a defined benefit pension scheme, and also life insurance and medical insurance. I want to put that on the record to inform the Committee’s deliberations.

The current rules of the bank, as set out in statute, are to provide for best practice and leadership on remuneration in the financial services industry. That is indeed what the remuneration committee sets out: it sets out very clearly what people are paid. I will come back later to some aspects of the bank’s remuneration, but I was keen to put the record straight on the amount that the chief executive earns.

I return to the clause stand part debate. The Environmental Audit Committee concluded that the protection of the green purposes was the most important objective of any sale; in its view, the sale should not go ahead if those green purposes could not be protected. Our Committee argued that the protections proposed by the Government, centred on assurances from buyers and the commercial logic of continuing to invest in green projects, were not sufficient. We recommended that the Government support the creation of a special share in the Green Investment Bank to protect its green purposes. We accepted that the share should be owned in a way that did not compromise reclassification to the private sector—in other words, that the share was not owned by the Government or a public body.

At the time our report was published, just before Christmas, such a mechanism had been added to the Bill by the House of Lords under clause 32. We have heard from the Minister that she plans to approve the creation of a special share, which the bank itself is somehow going to do. I have a series of questions for her. If the mandate for the special share is not laid out in statute, what guarantee is there of its longevity? If the bank’s board or chief executive changes, or if the shareholders decide to change the special share through a vote at their annual meeting, how will it be protected? How will it be established? The Minister discussed some sort of separate company being set up; would it be registered at Companies House? Who would its directors be? What would their relationship be to the Green Investment Bank and what control would they have when eventually all the shares were sold off? How would it be maintained? What constraints would there be on how it could be used?

On the principle of the sell-off, I return to the Select Committee’s report. It is a shame that the evidence was not really consulted on and there was no real consideration of alternatives. Our Committee was disappointed that the Government appear not to have considered a wider range of options for recapitalising the Green Investment Bank, such as citizen finance—green projects are currently extremely popular given the very low returns people can expect to earn on cash deposits—or the European fund for strategic investment. We were surprised that the Government had apparently undertaken little or no external consultation on the move, especially as the bank’s inception was marked by a laudably high degree of consultation.

Before proceeding with the sale, the Government must publish a robust business case—this goes back to our deliberations on clause 31—and an impact assessment in support of the decision to sell and of the timing of the sales, in accordance with the lessons identified by the National Audit Office’s Comptroller and Auditor General after the Eurostar sale. As part of those publications the Government must also indicate whether the full range of options for the bank’s future, including innovative recapitalisation options, were considered before the announcement of the intention to privatise. If they were not, they should explain why.

On the Government’s minority share, the Select Committee’s report also recommended that, in line with the bank’s own wishes, the Government should retain a minority stake in the company for as long as possible to ensure the bank’s future success. It is not only a matter of protecting the green purposes, although that would be a happy by-product, but about the signals the Government are sending to the market at a time of high investor uncertainty and potentially low investor confidence.

In response to the Select Committee’s recommendation, the Government reiterated their plan to sell the bank as a going concern but disagreed that a continued Government shareholding in the GIB would be essential to its future success, without giving any specific reasons for that disagreement. The Government gave no commitment on their future stake, and the Minister’s comments when she gave oral evidence suggested that the plan is eventually to sell the entire Government stake. If there is a phased sell-off, how will the Government use their minority share in the interim period? What is the objection to continuing to hold it? When they have relied so heavily on the bank’s views in favour of privatisation, why do they disagree on that point?

I turn to the green purposes. In paragraph 46 of the Select Committee report, we made it clear that we were keen to ensure that the bank retained its unique role in the green economy. In terms of establishing a special share that is owned in a way that does not compromise reclassification to the private sector, we recommended that:

“The Government should examine and report on the possibility of including under the share’s protection: (a) a nominated set of priority sectors, which would be much wider than that allowed under the State Aid rules and could establish GIB’s focus on specific Sustainable Development Goals in which the UK already excels, such as Affordable and Clean Energy, Industry Innovation and Infrastructure, and Responsible Consumption and Production”—

all areas in which the UK has a clear lead—

“and (b) an explicit statement of GIB’s focus on projects which lack sufficient funding. If such protections via the special share are not practicable, the Government must say how it intends, through the sale, to preclude the possibility of ‘mission creep’ even if the green purposes are protected.”

For example, the new special share could specify, by either volume or value, the type of green investments. That would require some thought and preferably public consultation on either the volume or the value route, because we could end up with one big green project and lots of ungreen projects, or lots of very small green projects and one very big ungreen project. There are pros and cons to both volume and value. There could be some sort of lock between the two or a formula in the shares to ensure that, by volume and by value, the bank’s green purposes are protected.

Finally, our Committee expressed concern that a privatised bank could invest in questionably green projects, such as fracking and coal-fired power stations, although I understand that the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change has said that she wants the coal-fired power stations to close by 2025. That concern was exacerbated by the Minister’s comments in oral evidence, where she appeared relaxed about that possibility and implied that it could be possible within the bank’s existing green purposes. The Government’s response to our report claims that it is not possible to place controls on the Green Investment Bank limiting such investments while achieving their aim of reclassifying the bank to the private sector. Will the Minister say whether, through this workaround—the special company and the special share—questionably green projects can be ruled out?

The Government claim that the Green Investment Bank’s business plan sets out a clear path for investment in established green sectors over the coming years and makes no mention of a move into controversial sectors. However, as we know, markets change, economies change, times change and—one day, we hope—Governments change, so things may look very different in 2020. What guarantees can the Government or the bank provide about the nature of its future investments, and what constraints will there be to prevent it from altering its green purposes?

Representatives of the bank told the Select Committee that they are very happy for the Government to remain a minority shareholder. They said that the Government have been a very good shareholder, and they want that continuity in going from being purely publicly owned to being publicly and privately owned. They envisage some sort of hybrid stage. They also want the Government to retain a minority shareholding to demonstrate a commitment to the bank. The bank’s chief executive said in oral evidence:

“with that commitment you will get much more interest in the people wishing to buy the reciprocal 70%-ish, 75%, whatever that number is. That is important in terms of driving the competitive tension in the process to get the best possible price, to get the best possible commitment to the greenness of the Bank going forward, and to make sure that we have an enduring institution here that is around in five years’ time, in 10 years’ time building the clean, green infrastructure the country will still need.”

As I said earlier, any future sale of shares must be preceded by a period of consultation and evidence gathering, and a report to Parliament on the success and impact of the initial majority share sale.

[Anna Soubry]

I am going to talk about why I seek the support of the Committee in ensuring that the clause does not stand part of the Bill. I am not going to answer all the points that have been made, because, frankly, that would be way off topic. However, there are a number of points that I can address and questions that I can answer, and I hope that that will be helpful.

--- Later in debate ---

[Anna Soubry]

The hon. Member for Cardiff West has said that he has seen the letter. What is important is whether what is in the letter is to be believed. That is what matters, and I respectfully suggest that Lord Smith’s fine words can be accepted. If anyone has got a problem or thinks that in some way I am reading something out inaccurately, I am sure—

[Mary Creagh]

What the Minister is saying is fascinating, but she is asking the Committee to remove clause on the basis of a letter we are hearing for the very first time in response to our remarks. My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff West has seen the letter, but I have not, despite the big report that the Environmental Audit Committee did on the bank. It is the Minister’s responsibility to circulate things to the Committee in good time, so that we can look at them and all work from the same bundle of documentation.

What the Minister has said is interesting. I have more questions on the basis of the establishment of a charity and so on that come out of what she said. I would have made a different speech had I been in possession of that letter, but I was not, so I could not. I respectfully suggest that it is for the Minister, in asking us to remove the clause, to give us the reasons why we should do so, by circulating the documentation.

[Anna Soubry]

It is not for me to tread into what must be a dispute with the hon. Member for Cardiff West. He has the letter. Presumably, Opposition Members met to decide which way they would vote. If the hon. Gentleman has not shared the information, had the debate and said, “By the way, gang, I’ve got a letter here that absolutely sets out all these things,” that is not for me to tread into.

The most important point is not procedure and process—the Labour party has to learn and understand this—but content and delivering in the right way. That is what I am seeking to do. It is absolutely clear that Lord Smith and, most importantly, the Secretary of State and the noble baroness have all given an absolute guarantee in this place and the other place that we will take and have taken all the intent of the clause and put it into action. Members may remember that that is how I began my remarks. I explained what would happen, the process and how we would achieve what Members want us to achieve, and that is the most important thing and that is what is happening.

[Mary Creagh]

On a point of order, Ms Buck. A whole series of evidence has come to the Committee. Some of it has come in from people, such as the Magnox emails, and I seek your guidance on whether the Committee Clerk has received the letter under discussion. I have not seen or received it in any of the emails that have been sent to us. Given that it is a material point on which we are being asked to vote imminently, I cannot understand why there is this gap.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mary Creagh]

Earlier, I made the point about the impact of potential gender discrimination. Has the Minister done any sort of gender impact assessment of the working of the two rules, in particular given the exemption for the armed forces, which are dominated by men?

[Anna Soubry]

I am not aware of any tooling, but I do not see this as a question of gender at all; rather, I think—

[Mary Creagh]

Of course it is.

[Anna Soubry]

I am sorry, I really do not see it as a question of gender. If it was a question of a large number of public sector workers being women and tending to be low paid, the hon. Lady might be making a good point. Therefore, it behoves all councils, of whatever political persuasion, to ensure that they do not in any way, shape or form discriminate against women, nor should they see certain jobs as jobs for women or as in some way for pin money; and, if we are honest, local authorities of all political persuasions have done that over the years. I am delighted to see that those old-fashioned, outrageous attitudes are beginning to move.

[Mary Creagh]

Will the Minister give way?

[Anna Soubry]

No, I am going to make some progress, if I may. I did not intervene on any hon. Members, because I want people to be able to develop their arguments.

I will go through the list. Among firefighters there have been few if any formal redundancies. They receive statutory redundancy entitlements and the other staff fall under local government arrangements. People might want to know about the judiciary. Why are judges not covered? Judges cannot actually be made redundant. Magnox workers we will deal with in connection with the next group of amendments.

I was asked a number of other questions, including about academies, which are classified as part of the public sector—I will deal with that one in a moment. On pension top-up, it is often the case that those with the highest salaries will receive the greatest top-up, and we know that there are some examples of that. In answer to the hon. Member for Wakefield, the Green Investment Bank could well be in scope if it remains in the public sector as defined by the Office for National Statistics. If we are successful and the bank is sold into the private sector, it will not be in scope. Another important point is that the £95,000 cap represents only 5% of exits to date. As we might imagine, those primarily affected are the highest paid. That is an important statistic.

Enterprise Bill [ Lords ] (Fifth sitting)

Debate between Mary Creagh and Anna Soubry

Tuesday 23rd February 2016 Public Bill Committees

[Anna Soubry]

I thought I had made it clear that we have not decided whether we will retain a stake. We do not know whether we will retain a stake at this moment. When it is privatised there is no reason why it should be subject to laws that are different from those that other companies are subject to. When we come to our second debate, which I think is the real bone of contention, or the cause of concern, I will explain what the Government are doing and, most importantly, what the Green Investment Bank’s chair has said about keeping its green credentials.

[Mary Creagh]

The Minister is saying, “Trust us. We’re not sure when we’re going to do it, but sooner rather than later,” but also, “We’re not sure whether we’re going to have a minority share, or when it will be fully viable.” There is a series of uncertainties around the privatisation of the bank, but surely the argument is that this is a bank that was created with taxpayers’ money; it is not one that was private and then taken over by taxpayers, as Lloyd’s and HBOS were. It was created by the people of this country, who have made it clear in no uncertain terms on our constituency doorsteps that they do not want to see bankers coming off with huge bonuses, which is what the risk is.

Chairs can change; they are appointed for three or four-year terms. I have every confidence in Lord Smith, but four years down the line, when it is fully privatised and the City of London is back rolling again, things could change and the pressure on the chair from the bank executives could be very high to double or treble their remuneration, as has happened in other former state privatised assets. I am thinking of QinetiQ, but also of the rolling stock companies that made multimillionaires out of managers who had previously been very happy on British Rail salaries.

[Anna Soubry]

I am afraid that I do not share the hon. Lady’s determination that Government always know best and we cannot trust the private sector to do the right thing. I absolutely do. When we sell the bank off, as I am confident that we will, I do see why it should be subjected to more onerous conditions than are already imposed on companies. It is a worrying feature of Opposition Members that they simply cannot trust people in business to do the right thing. They have to over-process and over-manage; they will not let business get on and do what it knows best.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mary Creagh]

This has been a lively debate, which is always a good thing. I take issue with some of what the Minister said. First, we have just had our half-term recess, so Committee Members may have seen the excellent, Oscar-nominated film “The Big Short”, but if any have not seen it, I recommend that they do so as soon as possible to see exactly what was happening in the banking industry in 2007.

[Anna Soubry]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Mary Creagh]

I will when I have finished my point. That film demonstrates the mystification of investment. Selena Gomez explaining complicated financial terms, such as CDOs—collateralised debt obligations—is a highlight of the film. Essentially the film showed that a huge financial fraud was perpetrated on people in advanced western democracies through a series of reckless gambles by big banks in both the United States and the United Kingdom, as a result of which taxpayers lost $5 trillion, wiped off the value of stocks, pension funds and investments. In the case of the United States there was massive suffering with the foreclosures epidemic in certain areas. In my view, the Bill is an opportunity for the Government to intervene in the private market, as they are doing in other areas.

[Anna Soubry]

Does the hon. Lady agree that what this amendment seeks to do is not to have any influence over remuneration or otherwise, but to require the privatised Green Investment Bank to write a report.

[Mary Creagh]

If it is such a small deal, I do not understand why the Minister is resisting it so vigorously. I think the Prime Minister once said that sunshine is the best disinfectant. My understanding is that, at the moment, those Green Investment Bank executives are classified as public sector employees and as such cannot earn a greater salary than the Prime Minister of this country. I can 100% guarantee that that will change as soon as the bank is privatised. [Interruption.] This Committee can at least ensure that we find out what is happening. I may come back on Report with stronger amendments.

If the Minister chooses to criticise that, I may reconsider and see whether we want to table something more stringent—perhaps a pay cap. Other clauses of the Bill cap the pay and exit conditions of people in a private company, Magnox—I am sure we have all had plenty of letters from them—and interfere in the workings of private businesses to introduce an apprenticeship levy, which Labour Members support but which many private sector companies are most unhappy about.

--- Later in debate ---

[Anna Soubry]

As I rise, I am helpfully provided with those very reasons. The clause is a transitional provision relating to the clause 30 provisions on the Green Investment Bank that requires the Government to report to Parliament with details of a proposed sale of the bank before that clause, which repeals and amends parts of the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Act 2013, can come into force. The report must include details of the type of sale that the Government intend to undertake, the expected timescale and the objectives to be achieved. That will ensure that Parliament is kept informed and demonstrates that we will bring the repeal into force only at the appropriate stage in a transaction process. Like the report in clause 30, this report must also be sent to devolved Ministers. That, in short, is the reasoning behind the clause, which I commend to the Committee.

[Mary Creagh]

I was not going to speak, but having heard from the Minister I think I will. It strikes me that the clause is a blank piece of paper that gives the Secretary of State carte blanche. He or a future Secretary of State may or may not make regulations or a decision to dispose of the share, and then they will lay a report before Parliament to say what type of disposal is intended. That comes back to my Committee’s request that the full impact assessment is published to Parliament. Parliament has not seen an impact assessment of the disposal of the bank or any such detail. Will the report be scrutinised by a Delegated Legislation Committee or will it go through on the nod as one of the remaining orders of the day? I seek clarification from the Minister on what type of scrutiny the House will have of the bank’s disposal.

[Anna Soubry]

I will have to write to the hon. Lady to do that. I apologise; I cannot do that in any other way, but I will do that. It goes without saying that when we get to the next clause, many of the issues that we have already debated will be further debated, and rightly so.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 31 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Stephen Barclay.)

Enterprise Bill [ Lords ] (Fourth sitting)

Debate between Mary Creagh and Anna Soubry

Thursday 11th February 2016 Public Bill Committees

[Anna Soubry]

I am so sorry. Then I will not address those, but I will thank the hon. Lady for her probing amendments. She makes some important points, but I just do not agree that we need to include the amendments. I thank her for the debate that we have had and I am delighted to note—Hansard needs to record this—that she has taken her ski jacket off, hopefully because she has warmed up.

[Mary Creagh]

The Minister said that there was nothing to prevent regulators from consulting with other bodies and people of interest, but that is to misunderstand the behavioural nature of large organisations that are set out in the statutory code, which tend to do what they are prescribed to do in statute. The clauses introduce a statutory requirement to consult with business and to report annually on the impact of businesses. By giving the regulator a duty to consult solely with the private interests of businesses while not consulting with the public interests that they are there to protect—of consumers, citizens, stakeholders and civil society organisations—she is putting the private interests above the public interests that the regulator exists to protect. I have made my point. She said that this would be done through secondary legislation. The House will have a chance to discuss the matter in the future and, no doubt, the debate will continue to rumble along. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Anna Soubry]

Excellent. The institute for apprenticeships will be independent. It will scrutinise and then approve or reject standards and assessment plans. It will carry out quality assurance of assessments, and is expected to carry out functions in relation to funding cap allocations.

[Mary Creagh]

I do not know whether the Minister had a hand in the appointments to the apprenticeship board, but will she explain why blue ribboned providers such as Jaguar Land Rover, Airbus and British Aerospace—high-prestige apprenticeship providers that have been doing this for decades—were not invited to be part of the board? I wonder why that is. Why is not the national health service on it? Is it only for private sector providers? The NHS is a very large employer with an ageing workforce, so it would certainly want to bring people in on health and social care apprenticeships. I wonder why it is excluded as well.

[Anna Soubry]

The institute will be funded from the apprenticeship levy. It is going to be small, lean and mean, and it is going to do the job. It will have people on it who are best placed to ensure that it carries out quality assurance of assessments and that the standards that are necessary in apprenticeships are absolutely there.

[Mary Creagh]

rose—

[Anna Soubry]

No, not yet. Sorry. We were making good progress. There are a lot of things that we agree on, but I am afraid that the Opposition are really showing their true face here. It is the old, state-heavy way of doing things. If they want to do something, they have to prescribe everything in a long, long list, and there has got to be this body and that body—[Interruption.] Hang on. What matters is that we have a rigorous, independent group of people who can get on and do the task that is required. The institute will have enough of a budget to ensure it can do that. The other thing that is important for us all to understand is that, because it applies only to England, the devolved Administrations have been fully involved in setting up the institute. That was the right thing to do. We have done all these things in full consultation with and with the agreement of the devolved Administrations.

[Mary Creagh]

I just want to clarify something. I was not suggesting that those employers should be set out on in the Bill or any such thing. I was merely asking why there are some notable omissions—including engineers from British Gas, electrical apprentices and apprentices in the transport industry—in the selection of the individuals on the board. Some people have been doing this for years, and some of the people on the board are newer to the apprenticeship world. I think a mix of old and new might have been more useful. I just want to ask about the qualification level. Will it be measured against other international standards for apprenticeships?

Enterprise Bill [ Lords ] (First sitting)

Debate between Mary Creagh and Anna Soubry

Tuesday 9th February 2016 Public Bill Committees

[Anna Soubry]

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

[Mary Creagh]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Anna Soubry]

Very briefly.

[Mary Creagh]

The hon. Lady says that she wants the person appointed to command not just the respect of the large companies and organisations that will be accountable to this person, but the confidence of small businesses. Is not the lesson from the Groceries Code Adjudicator that it is imperative to gain the confidence of small businesses and small suppliers, and that any perception—real or imagined—that this person is the creature of big business would be devastating to this office? This person’s authority comes from the office that they will hold.

[Anna Soubry]

Hon. Members on both sides need to have confidence in the system that exists, whereby the person we appoint will have all the qualities that we know they must have in order to do the job. That person is going to be the most critical factor in the success of this office. We absolutely know that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mary Creagh]

rose—

[Anna Soubry]

I am going to continue. I will take some interventions, but not yet.

This Government are on the side of small businesses and, in the Public Contracts Regulations 2015, we now have strict rules obliging central Government to ensure that 80% of undisputed invoices are paid within five days. As a result, I am pleased to say that my Department paid 98.6% within five days and 99.5% within 30 days. The first quarter statistics for 2015-16 show that, on average, central Government Departments paid 89% of undisputed invoices in five days. We have set clear rules for how we expect all public authorities to deal with small businesses in particular.

However, notwithstanding the regulations that we introduced, the strong messages that we are sending out and the way in which we are putting into practice what we preach, there is evidence that that does not necessarily go all the way through the supply chain. I think that was the point that the hon. Member for Wakefield was making, and no doubt the concern of the hon. Member for Doncaster—

--- Later in debate ---

[Anna Soubry]

Sorry, the right hon. Member for Wakefield—

[Mary Creagh]

No.

[Anna Soubry]

Oh, she’s not right honourable. Anyway, that was their point, and it is important. At first blush, it looks like a good idea, but there are pre-existing ways of tackling the issue. If we were to extend the small business commissioner’s powers, the danger is that we would duplicate existing ways of curing the problem. It was made clear in our consultation that that was exactly what small businesses did not want. For that reason, I urge hon. Members not to support what looks, at first, like a good idea. The Public Contracts Regulations 2015 are in place, and the guidance is absolutely clear to everyone involved in the spending of public money through public authorities, whether local government or hospital trusts.

If the process is not working, there are ways of curing mischiefs. First, any small business will the ombudsman service available to it. The local government ombudsman is a good example of a pre-existing body that can take up complaints. The second—although I accept that it may not be well known—is the mystery shopper service. I completely accept that its title does not give much clue about the huge work it can do, but we know that it is working. I refer hon. Members to one of the excellent speeches—in fact, all her speeches were excellent—of my noble Friend Baroness Neville-Rolfe, who is a Minister in my Department. In Committee in the other place, she gave a really good example from the Ministry of Defence of where a small business in a supply chain had found it was not being paid in the way it should have been. It used the mystery shopper service, which can be done anonymously. The problem was solved and that small business got exactly the result it wanted.

I have no difficulty with ensuring that the influence and investigatory powers of the mystery shopper service are made more widely available. It is a good example of the pre-existing means and methods by which small businesses can take action against public authorities other than going to law. No doubt we will come to this in debates on further amendments, but we have to be very careful, because if a company has agreed to a contract and seeks redress, it will have to go to law. We are looking at alternatives to that, because of what we know about companies pursuing things by way of legal action.

[Mary Creagh]

I am delighted to hear about Baroness Neville-Rolfe’s conversion to being on the side of the small company, given that she spent most of her career working for Tesco, which has just been censured by the Groceries Code Adjudicator for its massive, systematic non-payment and late payment of small businesses, which was a clear use of late payment for treasury management and an abuse of its suppliers in asking them to pay up-front fees for the privilege of supplying Tesco. There is more joy in heaven over one small sinner that repented, as the prodigal son parable tells us.

I would expect the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills to pay its suppliers on time. If the Government Department charged with looking after small businesses does not do it, what hope is there for the rest of Government? Where is the evidence that the regulations brought in last year have forced changes in payments? For example, is there any evidence of that in the case of the largest purchaser of goods, services and equipment, the Department of Health?

[Mary Creagh]

I now regret not making a speech—this only came to me as I was listening to the Minister. Is there evidence of any behaviour change towards small businesses in national or local government? Will she set out, for the record, what the mystery shopper service is, because I am sure that people reading Hansard will be keen to know.

[Anna Soubry]

I thought I had read out the figures that show a huge change; I am happy to read them out again. I am resisting all temptation to say that it is rather strange that the Labour party seems to have done diddly squat during the 13 years when they could have solved all these problems. This Government have made a significant change. For the purposes of Hansard, I repeat that BIS paid 96.8% of those undisputed invoices within five days and 99.5% within 30 days. I am happy for us to get all the statistics, if they exist, that show the real strides we are taking.

Enterprise Bill [ Lords ] (Second sitting)

Debate between Mary Creagh and Anna Soubry

Tuesday 9th February 2016 Public Bill Committees

[Anna Soubry]

I have to say, of course, that the Bill already protects the complainant from being identified to third parties. A Government amendment was introduced in the other place to ensure that complainants are not identified through freedom of information requests, which is also an important protection. Complaints made anonymously could be covered in the annual report, if they were significant—exactly the point that the hon. Gentleman made about a pattern emerging among complaints, some of which may be anonymous and some not. If the commissioner sees a pattern, that is absolutely something that he or she can pursue. To consider a complaint fully, however, the commissioner will invariably need some detail, notably the name of the complainant.

The commissioner will not, of course, have to name the complainant to the respondent. So someone can go to the commissioner and say, by way of example, “My name is Fred Bloggs”, and then make it clear that they do not want their name to be disclosed: “I am making a complaint about Freda Bloggins Ltd. I do not want my name disclosed to them, but this is the nature of my complaint”.

If the complaint is completely anonymous, that could make the commissioner’s job difficult if not almost impossible, because they can go to Bloggins and Co. and say, “I’ve had a complaint from someone. I haven’t got a clue who it is, but they have emailed me.” That person could be vexatious and there could be an underlying dispute between them, but the commissioner would be almost bound to take up and try to pursue the complaint while not knowing anything about the complainant. That is just plain wrong and could involve a great deal of wasting the commissioner’s time.

There is no difficulty with someone coming forward and then saying, “I want to be anonymous.” That will curtail the commissioner’s ability to investigate, because if they go to Bloggins and Co. and say, “Look, I am told that one of your people who is in charge of contracts has said to someone from another business, ‘I’m going to impose payments of 180 days’ and that is absolutely outrageous and wrong,” it would be difficult for the person receiving the complaint to make full representations. They may say, “I’ve spoken to our representative and he spoke to 10 people that day. We need a bit more detail as to who he is meant to have said this to.” In other words, it is very difficult for them to defend themselves.

We have to ensure that things are done fairly, and it would be quite wrong for someone to be able to make a complaint completely anonymously. The Bill allows someone to make a complaint and then retain their anonymity and, depending on the nature of their complaint, they will be properly advised as to the consequences that might flow. Anonymity will prevent the small business commissioner from making the sort of investigation that he or she may want to make.

[Mary Creagh (Wakefield) (Lab)]

I apologise to the Committee for arriving late. May I pose an alternative view? During the horsemeat scandal a stream of anonymous tip-offs came in through my email that were helpful in pointing me in the right direction of where to look to see who was putting horsemeat into the human food chain. That enabled me to ask questions in Parliament and of Ministers that revealed that a variety of very large companies had knowingly or unknowingly been accepting it in. Most of those tip-offs came from legitimate suppliers who were looking around and saying, “I don’t understand how X can supply burger meat at this price when for me to do it legitimately it has to cost Y.” Does the Minister agree that it may sometimes be useful for the small business commissioner to know where to look when issues are happening?

[Anna Soubry]

I do not disagree at all. That is why a flexible approach rather than an overly prescribed legislative approach is what I seek, and I am told that our model reflects the small business commissioner model in Australia. If as the hon. Lady describes the small business commissioner receives a flood of anonymous complaints and—even better—some have substance to them, it is difficult to believe that the commissioner would not grab that and take it forward. However, this is about accepting and understanding the difficulty of anonymity for the person against whom the charge or complaint is made, because they cannot take part in the investigation without some more detail to answer the charge. The small business commissioner must act and be seen to act in a way that is fair to both parties.

That is why the Bill does not prohibit anonymous complaints from being made. In legislation we are making the dangers of anonymity clear and ensuring that it is fair, but not for small businesses alone. We might be biased in favour of small businesses, but when looking at complaints the commissioner must be absolutely fair to both parties.

Horses: Slaughterhouses

Debate between Mary Creagh and Anna Soubry

Friday 1st March 2013 Ministerial Corrections

[Mary Creagh]

To ask the Secretary of State for Health pursuant to the answer of 31 January 2013, Official Report, columns 903-4W, on horses: slaughterhouses, when each positive sample was collected; and when the positive results were reported to the Food Standards Agency.

[Official Report, 11 February 2013, Vol. 558, c. 523-24W.]

Letter of correction from Anna Soubry:

An error has been identified in the written answer given to the hon. Member for Wakefield (Mary Creagh) on 11 February 2013.

The full answer given was as follows:

[Anna Soubry]

The information is shown in the following table: