engagements for Wednesday 17 January. [903348] >> The Prime Minister (Mrs Theresa May): This

morning, I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in this

House, I shall have further such meetings later today.

>> Catherine McKinnell: The Government must take responsibility for their role in the

mess now left by Carillion. Thousands of staff face unemployment, and small and medium-sized

suppliers face going bust, but I am concerned for the 1,400 Carillion apprentices, some

of whom I have met locally. It is not good enough to pass the back to CITB—the Construction

Industry Training Board—so will the Prime Minister guarantee today that every one of

those apprentices will be able to complete their training and will be paid?

>> The Prime Minister: I recognise that this has been a difficult time for a number of

people, who are concerned about their jobs, public services and their pensions. I want,

first, to provide reassurance to all employees working on public services for Carillion that

they should continue to turn up to work, confident in the knowledge that they will be paid for

the work they are providing. But of course the Government are not running Carillion;

the Government are actually a customer of Carillion, and our focus has been on ensuring

that we are providing the public services—that they are continuing to be provided uninterrupted;

on reassuring workers in those public services that they will get paid; on reassuring the

pensioners and making sure the support is there for them—

>> Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab): What about the apprentices?

>> The Prime Minister: Yes, I am coming on to the apprentices, but it is important that

government is undertaking its role to ensure that the services it provides are continuing

to be provided. I assure the hon. Lady that we are aware of the issues around apprentices,

which is why the Minister with responsibility for that will be looking very carefully at

what action can be taken. >> Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con): What

better way to start the Year of Engineering than by seeing manufacturing output at its

highest level in a decade and productivity on the up? May I invite my right hon. Friend

to commit her Government to securing and supporting UK manufacturing and the important exports

it delivers? >> The Prime Minister: I am very happy to

give my hon. Friend that commitment from the Government. He is absolutely right: it is

very pleasing to see the figures the Office for National Statistics produced last week,

which showed that production has now grown for eight months—the longest streak since

1994—and manufacturing output is at its highest since February 2008. And earlier this

month, we saw that productivity growth has had its best quarter since 2011. That shows

that our economy remains strong and that we are continuing to deliver secure, better-paid

jobs. We will continue to do that and support our manufacturing sector.

>> Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab): In the last six months, the Government have

awarded more than £2 billion worth of contracts to Carillion. They did so even after the share

price was in freefall and the company had issued profit warnings. Why did the Government

do that? >> The Prime Minister: It might be helpful

if I just set out for the right hon. Gentleman that a company's profit warning means it

believes it will not make as much profit as it had expected to make. If the Government

pulled out of contracts, or indeed private sector companies pulled out of contracts,

whenever a profit warning was issued, that would be the best way to ensure that companies

failed and jobs were lost. It would also raise real issues for the Government about providing

continuing, uninterrupted public services. Yes, we did recognise that it was a severe

profit warning, which is why we took action in relation to the contracts that we issued.

We ensured that all but one of those contracts was a joint venture. What does that mean?

It means that another company is available to step in and take over the contract. I say

to the right hon. Gentleman that this was not just about the Government issuing contracts;

actually, we see that the Labour-run Welsh Government issued a contract after the profit

warning last July, and only last week a public sector body announced that Carillion was its

preferred bidder. Was that the Government? No—it was Labour-run Leeds City Council.

>> Jeremy Corbyn: For the record, Leeds has not signed a contract with Carillion. It is

the Government who have been handing out contracts. It is the Government's responsibility to

ensure that Carillion is properly managed. Between July and the end of last year, Carillion's

share price fell by 90% and three profit warnings were issued. Unbelievably, the Government

awarded some contracts even after the third profit warning. It looks like the Government

were either handing Carillion public contracts to keep the company afloat, which clearly

has not worked, or were just deeply negligent of the crisis that was coming down the line.

>> The Prime Minister: I am very happy to answer questions when the right hon. Gentleman

asks one. He did not. >> Jeremy Corbyn: I asked the Government whether

or not they had been negligent. They clearly have been very negligent. [Interruption.]

Tory MPs might shout, but the reality is that as of today more than 20,000 Carillion workers

are very worried about their future. For many of them, the only recourse tonight is to phone

a DWP hotline. The frailties were well known: hedge funds had been betting against Carillion

since 2015, and the state-owned Royal Bank of Scotland was making provision against Carillion

last year. The Government are supposed to protect public money through Crown representatives,

who are supposed to monitor these powerful corporations that get huge public contracts.

This is a question that the Prime Minister needs to answer: why did the position of Crown

representative to Carillion remain vacant during the crucial period August to November,

when the profit warnings were being issued, the share price was in free fall, and many

people were very worried? >> The Prime Minister: I am afraid I have

to say to the right hon. Gentleman that of course—

>> Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab): Just answer the question!

>> The Prime Minister: I will indeed answer the question, but I know that the shadow Foreign

Secretary has herself praised Carillion in the past for its work. To answer the right

hon. Gentleman, there is obviously now a Crown representative who has been fully involved

in the Government's response. Before the appointment of the Crown representative to

replace the one who had previously been in place, the Government chief commercial officer

and the Cabinet Office director of markets and suppliers took over those responsibilities,

so it was not the case that there was nobody from the Government looking at these issues.

That is standard procedure, and it ensured that there was oversight of Carillion's

contracts with the Government during the appointment process for the Crown representative.

>> Jeremy Corbyn: Well, they clearly were not looking very well. Carillion went into

liquidation with debts that we now understand to be £1.29 billion and a pension deficit

of £600 million. At the same time, the company was paying out ever-increasing shareholder

dividends and wildly excessive bonuses to directors. From today, 8,000 Carillion workers

on private sector contracts will no longer be paid, but the chief executive will be paid

for another 10 months—one rule for the super-rich, another for everybody else. Will the Prime

Minister assure the House today that not a single penny more will go to the chief executive

or the directors of this company? >> The Prime Minister: First, I say to the

right hon. Gentleman that this is obviously a situation that is changing as decisions

are being taken, but my understanding is that a number of facilities management contractors

have now come to an agreement with the official receiver that means that their workers will

continue to be paid. It is important to say that the official receiver is doing its job

and working with those companies. The right hon. Gentleman raises the issue of bonuses,

and people are of course concerned about the issue and are rightly asking questions about

it. That is why we are ensuring that the official receiver's investigation into the company's

business dealings is fast-tracked and that it looks into not just the conduct of current

directors, but previous directors and their actions. In reviewing payments to executives,

where those payments are unlawful or unjustified, the official receiver has the powers to take

action to recover those payments. It is important that the official receiver is able to do its

job. What is also important is that the Government's job is to ensure that public services continue

to be provided, and that is what we are doing. The right hon. Gentleman said earlier that

it was the Government's job to ensure that Carillion was properly managed, but we were

a customer of Carillion, not the manager of Carillion—a very important difference. It

is also important that we have protected taxpayers from an unacceptable bail-out of a private

company. >> Jeremy Corbyn: When Carillion went into

liquidation, many contractors were still unpaid. The company was a notorious late payer, taking

120 days to pay and placing a huge burden on small companies. That is four times longer

than the 30 days in the prompt payment code that Carillion itself had signed up to. Why

did the Government allow a major Government contractor to get away with that? Will the

Prime Minister commit to Labour's policy that abiding by the prompt payment code should

be a basic requirement for all future Government contracts?

>> The Prime Minister: Of course we look at the behaviour of companies that we contract

with in relation to payments. The question of prompt payments has been brought up in

this House for as long as I have been in this House, and work is always being done on it,

but the right hon. Gentleman has raised an important point about the impact of Carillion's

liquidation on small companies. That is why the Business Secretary and the City Minister

held a roundtable with the banks this morning to discuss credit lines to small and medium-sized

enterprises and to make it clear that SMEs are not responsible for Carillion's collapse.

The Business Secretary has also held further roundtables today with representatives of

small businesses, construction trade associations and trade unions—workers' unions—to

ensure that we are on top of the potential effects on the wider supply chain. It is right

that we look at those very carefully and that we take action. It is also right that, through

the Department for Work and Pensions, we put in place support for any workers who find

themselves no longer employed as a result of this.

>> Jeremy Corbyn: It is a bit late for one subcontractor. Flora-tec, which was owed £800,000

by Carillion, has already had to make some of its staff redundant because of the collapse.

This is not one isolated case of Government negligence and corporate failure; it is a

broken system. Under this Government, Virgin and Stagecoach can spectacularly mismanage

the east coast main line and be let off a £2 billion payment, Capita and Atos can continue

to wreck lives through damaging disability assessments of many people with disabilities

and win more taxpayer-funded contracts, and G4S can promise to provide security for the

Olympics but fail to do so, and the Army had to step in to save the day. These corporations

need to be shown the door. We need our public services to be provided by public employees

with a public service ethos and a strong public oversight. As the ruins of Carillion lie around

her, will the Prime Minister act to end this costly racket of the relationship between

Government and some of these companies? >> The Prime Minister: I might first remind

the right hon. Gentleman that a third of the Carillion contracts with the Government were

let by the Labour Government. What we want is to provide good-quality public services

delivered at best value to the taxpayer. We are making sure in this case that public services

continue to be provided, that the workers in those public services are supported and

that taxpayers are protected. What Labour opposes is not just a role for private companies

in public services but the private sector as a whole. The vast majority of people in

this country in employment are employed by the private sector, but the shadow Chancellor

calls businesses the real enemy. Labour wants the highest taxes in our peace-time history,

and Labour policies would cause a run on the pound. This is a Labour party that has turned

its back on investment, on growth and on jobs—a Labour party that will always put politics

before people. >> Paul Scully (Sutton and Cheam) (Con): I

thank the Prime Minister for visiting Cheam on Saturday where she heard from local residents

about the poor services provided by the complacent Lib-Dem council. People should not have to

settle for second best. Does she agree that we need to unlock the potential of Sutton,

and indeed of London, on 3 May by giving residents across London the opportunity to get great

services and value for money by voting Conservative? >> The Prime Minister: I was very happy to

join my hon. Friend on the doorsteps in Cheam and to hear from people about the issues to

do with Liberal Democrat services in Sutton and Cheam, particularly those around rubbish

bins. I believe that there are now up to six bins per household. I am beginning to think

that the council is trying to go for one bin for every Liberal Democrat Member of Parliament.

He is absolutely right: the evidence is that Conservatives deliver better services at less

cost to the council tax payer. While we are talking about costs to the council tax payer,

only last week the then shadow Fire Minister announced that Labour policy was to put up

council tax on every average house and typical home by £320. People should know that a vote

for Labour is a vote to pay more. >> Ian Blackford (Ross, Skye and Lochaber)

(SNP): Can the Prime Minister tell the House what official advice she has had on the impact

of the UK economy from leaving the EU single market and when she requested any such advice?

>> The Prime Minister: Of course, as we go through the Brexit negotiations, we are constantly

looking at the impact that decisions that are taken will have on our economy. What we

want to ensure is that we maintain good access—a good comprehensive free trade agreement—with

the European Union and also, as we leave the European Union, that we get good free trade

agreements with other parts of the world. >> Ian Blackford: Nineteen months after the

EU referendum, the Prime Minister has not a shred of economic analysis on the impact

of leaving the single market. On Monday, the Scottish Government published their second