Bill Esterson
MP for Sefton Central · Labour · United Kingdom
“As the Prime Minister said on Tuesday, our energy supply and our energy security are not a question of having either oil and gas, or renewables; they are about both. It is a great pity that proper process was not followed in 2022 or 2023. [ Interruption.”
“I warmly welcome my right hon. Friend’s commitment to continuing Britain’s global leadership on climate action, including by going to COP31. I also welcome his focus on breathing space for people and businesses, but, as he said, it will take a lot more than that to deliver the growth and reindustrialisation that he is so committed to.”
“Last week the Committee heard from Claire Dykta, the director of strategy and policy at NESO, who told us: “Operational decisions are taken by authorised, trained personnel only.” Her comments were confirmed by Alastair Martin, the chief strategy officer at Flexitricity, who, in the same session, said: “I do not think the idea that the he…”
“As the Minister has just said, new nuclear is essential for energy security. It is also essential as an alternative career for workers in oil and gas.”
“Paul and Susan Robinson each worked for the Health and Safety Executive for more than 40 years. They have not been able to plan for their retirement since finishing work last year; they have been living off their savings and the small loan that they have had. They are typical of the dozens of constituents who have contacted me.”
“Hudson primary school in my constituency does a brilliant job. It is a family hub, it specialises in support for children with SEND and autism, and it has a nursery, but its building, which is 80 years old, suffers from a high water table that brings damp, mould and structural problems for the building—as does occasional flooding.”
The complete record
Every one of 4,882 lines we hold for Bill Esterson, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 56 of 98.
“I worked for an insolvency practitioner a very long time ago, and the qualified insolvency practitioners in the firm generally came from a cohort of which only 2% passed the professional exams, such are the high standards in the profession. There has been great concern about the impact of these changes on the profession. Similarly, the Opposition had serious concerns about section 118 of the Small Business, Enterprise and Employment Act 2015, which is also extended to financial services through this statutory instrument. That section amended the Insolvency Act 1986 to allow a liquidator or administrator to assign causes of action that arise on a company going into liquidation or administration.”
“As some insolvency practitioners have pointed out, if someone acts only on bankruptcy, how can they understand corporate insolvency? Likewise, if someone has been doing corporate insolvencies all their life, how can they understand adequately what is involved for a sole trader or a partnership, or for personal bankruptcy as a whole? I would be interested to hear the Minister’s analysis of that point. A question was asked in the Deregulation Public Bill Committee about the impact on the quality of professional work of requiring practitioners to pass only one part of the insolvency exams. It is an extremely rigorous set of qualifications.”
“However, the primary legislation that enacted the changes was not applicable to all kinds of financial services, as the Minister said, because such organisations tend to have special insolvency regimes, given their unique position. The Opposition will not oppose the statutory instrument today, but we have some specific concerns about the provisions, which I hope the Minister will be able to address. The regulations extend section 17 of the Deregulation Act 2015, which made changes to the licensing regime for insolvency practitioners, to financial services. Previously, practitioners were granted an insolvency licence that allowed them to act in relation to both corporate and personal insolvency cases. My concern is that bankruptcy is very different from corporate insolvency.”
“It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Pritchard. I welcome the Whip, who I understand is taking the place of the Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, the hon. Member for Stourbridge because she is unable to join us for family reasons in what are sad circumstances. I am sure that he will deputise for her extremely well. He was certainly very brief in his comments. I suspect that I shall be slightly less brief, but here goes. The Government made some significant changes to insolvency law in 2015 through the Deregulation Act and the Small Business, Enterprise and Employment Act, and in 2016 through the Insolvency (Amendment) Act (Northern Ireland). The Government’s intention in making the changes was to decrease undue regulation and reduce cost.”
“The Minister kindly offered to write to me on one matter. Perhaps when he does, he could flesh out some of the other points a little more. In particular, can he give details of how staff will benefit, rather than the more general point that he just made? I appreciate that he is probably not in a position to tell me that in detail now, so perhaps that will be an opportunity to address the point more fully.”
“IP is crucial to the success of the economy and business, and to those in industry—especially those in the creative industries, as we have heard. Clear, early action is needed on piracy, on arrangements for leaving the European Union and on making IP a key part of the success of our economy. I look forward to the Minister’s reply.”
“I hope that that is going to include university spin-outs and making sure that we make full benefit of the commercial applications that come from them. Labour is committed to investing the full 3% of GDP in research and development, and has long called for the Government to improve their record. That is the level of investment needed to place rocket boosters under the R and D pillar of the industrial strategy, and I hope we will see more of it from Government. Sadly, we have seen a decline in Government spending on R and D from 0.56% of GDP in 2009 to 0.49% in 2013. That is considerably lower than the OECD average of 0.7% and the EU average of 0.64%, so more needs to be done by the Government on investment in R and D.”
“The investment pays off—intellectual property makes a significant and growing contribution to the UK economy. As the Intellectual Property Office notes, UK investment in intangible assets protected by intellectual property rights has risen from £47 billion in 2000 to £70 billion in 2014 and has been estimated at 4.2% of total GDP. It is therefore clear that intellectual property is of great importance to the UK economy. We welcome the Government’s recognition of the importance of IP in the industrial strategy Green Paper. Investment in science, research and innovation is one of the 10 pillars of the Green Paper and, as part of that, the Government are “reviewing how to maximise the incentives created by the Intellectual Property system to stimulate collaborative innovation and licensing opportunities”.”
“I did wonder whether he was going to contribute for the other two members as he went on, to make up for them not being here. He made some good points. He spoke about the challenge of leaving the EU and the importance of the digital single market, and called on the Government to use our remaining time to help shape the agenda before we leave. He repeated the concerns of my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff West about how slow the Government have been in responding to protection against theft. The UK’s system of regulating IP is considered to be one of the finest in the world, rated number three by business in the 2016 Taylor Wessing global IP index in respect of obtaining, exploiting and enforcing the main types of IP rights: trademarks, patents and design rights.”
“He said that there is an opportunity for the UK to provide the gold standard for IP as we leave the EU. I think we should be doing that anyway—that should have been our priority regardless of whether we were staying or leaving. It is crucial we do so in the time we have left before we finally leave. We should not be waiting to leave to achieve that goal. He made a very important point about the case for a Government role in creating a fair market and a level playing field so that industry can thrive and performers can receive the appropriate rewards for their industry, innovation, creativity and hard work. The hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) was the second member of MP4 to speak in the debate.”
“Member for Glasgow North (Patrick Grady) rightly talked about the exploitation we have seen of the world wide web, and the challenges that have grown since 1993. The hon. Member for North Antrim (Ian Paisley) spoke of the loss of revenues to the Government from illicit fuel sales—I think he said that 40% of fuel sales in Northern Ireland are illicit—and made the comparison between fuel sales and the importance of preventing illicit sales online. I was grateful to him for expressing his lack of understanding of technology and products such as Spotify—I am glad I am not the only one in the room who faces such challenges with my children and their access online. The hon. Gentleman and others spoke of the need for fairness to the performer in benefiting from their own intellectual property.”
“Friend the Member for Cardiff West talked about the difference between good and bad regulation. Good regulation helps business and the economy, and that includes the need to protect smaller businesses when it comes to copyright and unregistered design rights. He and the hon. Member for Selby and Ainsty rightly highlighted the need for a proper approach from the Government on safeguarding online. That point was extremely well made and well heard; I believe it is also understood by Government. My hon. Friend talked about the damage to exports if we do not get our approach to IP right. As we leave the EU, trade deals will be important for exports, and IP is a crucial part of that agenda. The hon.”
“I am afraid that I have to agree with Members about the slow response in the Digital Economy Bill, which has happened despite the Government accepting the need for action. My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff West raised the seriousness of the problem and expressed frustration about the lack of action on Members’ amendments tabled during the Commons stages of the Bill. Will the Minister tell us why there is such a lack of action? My hon. Friend the Member for Newport East (Jessica Morden) rightly praised the staff based in her constituency and the excellent work they do at the Intellectual Property Office. She said, importantly, that the Government need to invest in the staff’s work for the long term because of the critical nature of IP to the success of our economy. I hope the Government will do just that. My hon.”
“He spoke about the safe harbour laws and touched on some of the challenges for IP as we leave the European Union. He was right to raise those challenges, which I look to the Minister to respond on. I will come back to that a bit later. My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff West made the point that there is large-scale agreement on the need for IP policy. He mentioned IPTV, which gives access to content without rewards to the creators but with enormous rewards to criminals who are out of our reach overseas. While he was speaking I searched on Google for IPTV and came up with Amazon, eBay and Gumtree offering very low-priced mechanisms for accessing such content. It is there, easily available in front of us, and hon. Members have pointed out just how widespread access to it is.”
“He, along with a number of other hon. Members, spoke about the impact of piracy on investment and emerging talent, the threat to the creative industries’ revenues that that brings, and the importance of the code of practice. As my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff West (Kevin Brennan) pointed out, if we have a code, there needs to be proper enforcement, and the Government have a vital role in ensuring that enforcement takes place. As the hon. Member for Selby and Ainsty said, it is easy to bash big companies. We need to be careful about doing that and should praise them when they get things right—the code of practice is a prime example—although I hope he agrees that those big companies should pay their taxes where they generate their profits.”
“We have that status not just because British people are particularly good at having ideas, but because we are very good at safeguarding the ownership of those ideas, although, as we heard in great detail from hon. Members, we have a significant amount more to do to protect that ownership. Intellectual property is a catalyst for growth and jobs—for a successful economy. That is becoming increasingly apparent and it will be increasingly important if we are to be an economy of high pay and prosperity, and not an economy of low skill and low wages, competing on the basis of price alone, in an uncertain world. As the hon. Member for Selby and Ainsty said, the Digital Economy Bill has only three clauses on intellectual property. He is right to make that point and to say that the Government need to give the area of IP far greater attention.”
“I congratulate the hon. Member for Selby and Ainsty (Nigel Adams) on securing this important debate. There has been a large amount of agreement across the Chamber on the nature of the challenges and what we are asking the Government to address. Intellectual property is the sum of a person’s or a business’s creativity and unique knowledge: their industrial designs, trademarks and inventions. Intellectual property gives ownership to ideas. It secures, for the creator, a stake in the value generated by their creations. Whether we are talking about the knowledge economy, the digital sector, high-end manufacturing or renewable energy, the UK has a deserved global status in all those fields.”
“The Minister refers to what the then Chancellor said and mentions that some regulators have not acted supportively for business and economic growth. Will she give an example of a regulator or a case in which that is supposed to have happened?”
“It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Brady, not least because you have created an interesting dilemma. The Minister and I, as well as other Members here, sat in a Committee such as this last week and were told that the Scottish National party spokesperson should speak first. The hon. Member for Glasgow North would do so, had he indicated before me that he wished to speak. However, you are in the Chair, Mr Brady.”
“The Government Whip, from a sedentary position, is being extremely helpful, which happens rarely. I take it that we can now take interventions.”
“To avoid going in the opposite direction—the Prime Minister warned of the alternative of a low-wage economy; a tax dodgers’ paradise off the shores of the continent, along the lines of the Cayman Islands or Singapore—we have to get this kind of measure right. We have to get its application right, otherwise we will see the unintended consequences in the longer term and not the success that I think we all agree is needed. I look forward to the Minister’s answers. We really need to get the balance between short term and long term right, otherwise the growth duty will not end up being the success that it should be.”
“The Government say they want growth. The question of short-term versus longer-term interests of businesses is tied up in the kind of growth we want and its sustainability. The threat of legal challenge, the difficulties it will cause to regulators, the additional time and cost pressures on the regulators are surely not what is intended. I wonder whether the threat of legal challenge might lead to less sensible application of good regulation. If the Government really want to achieve the growth that they have set out—we see that with the development of the industrial strategy Green Paper—support for business and a high-pay, successful niche economy is the only way for this country to thrive.”
“We also need to consider the balance between short-term economic activity and the longer-term effect of what regulators will have to do as a result of the duty. A decision to act in the short term to cut costs of regulation by less application could result in growth— absolutely. However, if that leads to longer-term corner cutting, it would be counterproductive in the long run and growth would be lower. How will regulators make those decisions? Will they be allowed to make them without facing undue pressure for short-term decisions that are not in the interests of the wider economy, and how will that contradiction be overcome? Safety in many sectors—food, water, nuclear or construction—comes with an additional cost to business, but accidents have a far greater longer-term cost, so getting those balances right is fundamental.”
“That was a great shame, so perhaps, once these regulations are put into action, the Minister will return to that point and consider whether the measure is something that should be introduced. We perceived it as a way of reducing the potential for legal challenge and judicial review and reducing some of the unforeseen consequences of this additional requirement on regulators. It is clear that if there is a significant amount of legal challenge—if the lawyers are involved—this could amount to a lawyers’ charter. We would see economic growth as a result of greater sums spent on lawyers, but I do not think that is quite what the Government had in mind. We need to be mindful of the danger of significant legal challenge.”
“Big business might think that regulations hamper growth, although smaller firms say the complete opposite. In that case, if there are conflicting views of what constitutes supporting growth, how will the regulator respond? What decision will they make? What is the basis for that decision? The big firms will want their interests to be prioritised and those same big firms are in the strongest position to challenge the decisions by the regulator through the courts. That is why, in Committee, the Labour party tabled an amendment requiring regulators to produce an annual report on how they have interpreted these regulations to support small and medium-sized enterprises, to try to ensure support for the creation of a level playing field and a fair market. Sadly, the Government rejected that amendment.”
“The question whether the actions of the regulator will support growth will depend on the interests of the person or organisation viewing the way in which the regulator applies that duty. In the nuclear industry, the regulator clearly has a significant responsibility for safety but could take the view that it has to pursue that even further because failure of safety in the nuclear industry would lead to complete economic failure as well. That point was made by a Conservative member of the Bill Committee. Another example was given by the Institute of Directors in evidence to the Bill Committee. It said that the regulator in a particular sector might not be helping growth in the view of one individual, and some of the evidence suggested the potential for legal challenge and judicial review.”
“What is the right balance? There are competing needs and duties between regulation and the economic duty. One part of an economy would want to see one approach applied, another would want to see a different one. Good regulation should promote growth and act in the best interests of the industry for which the regulator is responsible. A regulator’s duty should be both to support an industry and to ensure compliance with regulations, as is already the case. Why the need for this specific, spelled-out additional duty—the extra requirement of compliance with the growth duty? That comes back again to the lack of specific examples of where it is not happening at the moment, and it makes clear the need to obtain an answer from the Minister. The Government often say that they want fewer regulations and less intervention, yet here there is more.”
“However, how do they know the right balance to strike when they have to respond or be accountable for the regulations? In Committee debates on the Deregulation Bill, in both the Commons and the Lords, the question was raised of what would happen if there was a challenge—if there was a claim by businesses that the duty for economic growth had been misapplied. The point was made, and accepted by Ministers, that we could see judicial review. That was said by the Minister in Committee. If that were the case, under pressure from large companies with deep pockets, regulators, most of whom are small with limited resources, would have to decide whether to defend themselves. The potential for significant pressure being brought to bear on the regulator by the strongest in our economy is very real and was raised throughout the passage of the Bill.”
“As the Federation of Small Businesses said in the Deregulation Bill Committee evidence sessions, people ask only for an avoidance of duplication, to avoid wasting of time as regulations are developed and implemented—not no regulation at all. That informs our response to what is before the Committee today. In the Labour Government, we had the Better Regulation Commission, which reduced the cost of regulation to business in this country by £3 billion a year. It is ironic that we are looking at the growth duty from the Deregulation Act, given that that Act introduced significant additional amounts of regulation for business. Regulators decide for themselves the balance between promoting growth and applying the regulations for which they are responsible. That will continue to be the case with these regulations.”
“Smart regulations protect the safety and rights of workers and businesses, support competition and prevent undercutting and exploitation. We have seen what goes wrong when those things do not happen, whether it is Sports Direct or the actions of Sir Philip Green. Members on both sides of the Committee who support a reduction in regulation should not forget the importance of the financial crisis and the fact that the lack of regulation or safety mechanisms to prevent the excesses of large parts of the financial sector in this country—let alone what went on around the world—was a key contributor to the crisis. We need better regulation, not none, whichever sector we are looking at.”
“When the Minister responds, perhaps she will consider whether she can give specific examples of regulators where those concerns have been justified. It is right that we attempt to reduce unnecessary regulations, but good, smart regulations underpin fair markets and help to create a level playing field for smaller firms, start-ups and growth companies. They help to create jobs and prosperity. They are essential to the economy and to safety as well. The example of the 2012 Olympics in this country, where nobody died during the construction phase, is a tribute to the success of our regulatory regime. The building of the football stadiums for the 2022 Olympics is in stark contrast, given the death and injury toll for workers on those games. What went on there is a scandal.”
“It is a real shame that, when she responded to my incorrect intervention, she chose not to give an example of a regulator that has failed, as the notes state, “to take sufficient account of the economic consequences of their actions and place unnecessary burdens on business in the exercise of their regulatory functions.” It would be extremely helpful for Members if we were properly evidenced in our decision making to make sure that the intention of supporting growth and business success is most likely to be achieved by passing these regulations. The success of our economy, its growth and the prosperity of us all are fundamentally important to what the Government are trying to achieve, and that is helped by properly evidenced approaches to policy.”
“Thank you for that clarification, Mr Brady. The Minister set out the case for the regulations. She commented in particular on the Government’s commitment, of which I have no doubt, to create a positive business environment across the UK and to unlock productivity by enabling businesses to invest and grow, as the explanatory notes state. I completely agree with that. The explanatory notes go on to say: “The way in which regulation is enforced can have significant effects on businesses’ ability and willingness to do this”. I also agree with that statement.”
“It is baffling, Mr Brady. The Minister has said twice that there is concern about regulators that are not promoting growth, but she is not giving us any examples. Without a proper evidence base, it is extremely troubling that the Government are doing something that does not stack up, that lacks the support to say that it is needed. Just one example, please—that is all we are asking for.”
“I am curious to hear the Minister’s answer to that question, which was raised in the consultation, and I look forward to her other answers. Perhaps I will pursue certain issues further through interventions as she responds.”
“We on the Opposition Benches fully support the need to reduce big business regulation, to improve conditions for business, to make the economy more vibrant and to create fair markets. If changes to regulation can help to achieve those objectives, that is absolutely the right way to go, but if they reduce the potential for a stronger economy in the long run, that cannot be right. It came up during the consultation that a request from business is absent from the draft regulations. Tax accounts for a large amount of regulation that causes huge cost to business and which businesses object to massively, so why are HMRC and other bodies responsible for tax not covered by the regulations? That would be an obvious place to start and an obvious way to reduce regulation, bearing in mind the absolute purpose of reducing the cost to business.”
“She quoted evidence that suggested that the benefits of environmental regulation—some of which can be quantified straightaway and some of which take longer—cover the costs three times over. The implication of that analysis is that, if environmental regulation is reduced, costs increase in the long term. How will increased costs to the economy and to business be avoided by reducing regulation, whether that is for the environment or the range of other areas covered by the organisations listed in the schedule? If the Minister could answer those questions, I would be extremely grateful. I am sure it is not the Government’s intention to lose out in the long run just to make a short-term gain and to get some headlines on reducing red tape.”
“What work have the Government done to ensure that cost concerns and economic concerns, as well as concerns about health and safety, are being considered for the longer term? What would be the point of making short-term savings? The Minister and her colleagues in her Department and across Government are rightly committed to long-term growth, and they are happily now committed to an important industrial strategy, which was not the case with some of her predecessors. How can we be sure that the reductions in regulation will not lead to longer-term cost? I will give an example that was raised in the Small Business, Enterprise and Employment Bill Committee by my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mary Creagh). She talked about the challenges of getting environmental regulation right.”
“What is the mechanism for ensuring that the reduction in the requirements on the FCA will not lead to additional problems in the financial sector, such as the crash from which some would argue we are yet to recover? That is a great concern, and that was expressed in the consultation. The point about caution and the analysis made by a range of these agencies needs a detailed answer from the Minister. I am sure that she will have that answer by the time I have finished. I move on to the wider financial elements of the regulations. It is apparent that savings can be quickly made by reducing the activities of the regulators, but will those savings lead to longer-term costs?”
“A number of the regulators concerned, including the Care Quality Commission, the Chief Inspector of Drinking Water and the Food Standards Agency, cover one if not both of those areas. Those are three examples; I could mention many more where public safety and health are paramount. The concern must be that, in the Government asking or requiring regulators to reduce their impact on business, corners are not cut and that public health and safety are not put at risk. Can the Minister answer this simple question: what is the mechanism to avoid an increase in risk in any of the agencies referred to in the schedule and the papers in front of us? The Financial Conduct Authority is included in the regulations, and we are all acutely aware of the important lessons of the financial crash.”
“Time, bureaucracy and cost are associated with the requirement for businesses to report their tax affairs every three months. The Federation of Small Businesses estimates that the proposal will create £2,600 a year of extra cost. We have extra regulation and extra costs to business from a Government who say they want less. I turn to the matter at hand. A number of concerns emerged in going through the regulations. The challenge is to balance properly the short-term requirement on regulators to reduce the amount of work they are doing with the long-term impact. Has that long-term impact been measured? Has the impact assessment adequately looked at what some of the challenges, concerns and impacts may be, especially when we are talking about public safety and health?”
“It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Ryan. I have not done so before, and I look forward to it. The Minister has very briefly set out the Government case for the regulations, and I will raise a series of concerns and challenges, to which I would like her to respond. The Minister went over the Government’s one-in, two-out approach in the last Parliament, yet here we are, adding regulation to the regulators. At first glance, it looks like more regulation, not less. A long list of regulators that will see additional claims on their time and effort is included in the regulations. The Government’s claims to want to see less regulation do not always stand up to challenge, but that is not the main point. We have debated the impact of quarterly reporting before, and I am sure we will debate it again.”
“I am grateful for the Minister’s explanation, but it baffles me. At the start of my remarks, I mentioned quarterly reporting and the estimate by the Federation of Small Businesses of the average cost—£2,600 a year—to businesses. If HMRC is increasing costs to millions of businesses across the country in that way, it really is going to struggle to hit that target—unless she can tell me something I have completely missed.”
“I am grateful for that explanation, but who will determine what is in and out of scope? Many people will be extremely concerned about all those points but, to take the FCA as an example, who will make the determination? How will we know in advance whether something will contribute to a future financial problem or indeed a crisis? Is there not a danger it will be too late? What is the mechanism for avoiding that happening?”
“It considered whether the relationship was healthy and whether the way in which the big six operated meant that more intervention was needed to help consumers and smaller entrants to the market. Will the regulations assist with challenges in the energy market? Will they, in the Minister’s opinion, be part of an opportunity for new entrants and consumers to challenge pricing and the service they receive in the energy market? We fundamentally support the regulations, because in principle they are helpful to the achievement of fair markets and enterprise. We shall not oppose them. However, if the Minister can answer my questions either today or in writing, I shall be extremely grateful.”
“Would they result in a change in its role and would they draw in indirect suppliers in the grocery sector? That point occurred to me as I listened to the Minister. The energy market is a good example of long-standing concern about cartels in this country. The Competition and Markets Authority inquiry looked at the problems of cartels and the big six. There is significant concern, some of it voiced by the Government—I think the Prime Minister has mentioned it—about continuing problems in the energy market and high prices, which have risen significantly in recent times. The inquiry discussed the challenge of vertical integration and the relationship between supply and retail.”
“Will she explain the exact position of the regulations after we leave the EU and say whether, indeed, they will come into effect at all before we leave the EU? The Minister mentioned what happens down the supply chain and the way that SMEs are involved. My understanding, from what she said, is that the regulations allow a degree of protection for smaller firms that are involved through supply chains. Something that springs to mind is the way in which the Groceries Code Adjudicator operates. The GCA has only direct suppliers in scope. There are about 7,000 of them, and something like 300,000 indirect suppliers in the grocery market. I appreciate that the Minister may need to come back to me on this, but I wonder whether the regulations have implications for the way in which the GCA operates.”
“She also mentioned the fact that this country has a proud record and is ahead of the curve on many of the areas she covered. I am happy to support the regulations. However, a number of questions arise from what the Minister said and from the legislation, not least what will happen to the regulations after we leave the European Union. Many businesses wish to avoid divergence of regulation as far as possible. What is the Minister’s response to that? The Minister said that the provisions may take some time to take effect. Perhaps she could be a bit more prescriptive in describing the timescale. It might be suggested that she is saying they will not take effect at all because we will have left the EU before they come into effect, which would seem rather odd, to say the least.”
“I broadly agree with the Minister. We support the implementation of the regulations. It is absolutely right that we do so, because this is about ensuring fair markets and, as she said, the protection of consumers and of smaller businesses. It is really important for the success of our vibrant economy that we do all those things and, as she said, that we retain the principle that cartels cause harm. It is very good to hear the Minister express support for that principle. Opposing undercutting and exploitation is crucial, and that applies to suppliers, workers and consumers. The regulations are consistent with those principles. She mentioned the Consumer Rights Act and how the regulations build on legislation already on the UK statute book.”
“On standing up for British interests, Mr Trump’s track record suggests that any deals he agrees to are likely to be to our disadvantage. What will the Foreign Secretary do to ensure that British businesses benefit from any deals with the United States, not just American ones?”