Business, Innovation, Science and Trade Committee
Tuesday 20th October 2026
Skip to latest contribution
This debate has concluded
(began 11 hours, 21 minutes ago)
Watch LiveSkip to latest contribution
This debate has concluded
14:34
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
Remember in a previous guise. And thank you for that work you're kicking off, which I do think is really important to be with you colleagues, as well as being two of the last few business secretaries. There was a member of this committee as well, and I think this is the best job in government. I think the role of this select committee is really important. Chair, within that, I think it's maybe worth just pausing for a second to to comment on the fact that it is a genuinely new department. I know, obviously, having done the the DBT job before, people might see it in that way, but this is something new, I think, for people who are aficionados of how we structured the business department in the UK in recent years.
You know, I think the fact we have now a department of 8500 people, annual budget of £17 billion, circa £17 billion a year. This is a real significant change in terms of the strength of these issues within government. And it's obviously a privilege to come back to be in charge of them. We do cover a lot, and I would say to give you our full public objectives, and I haven't spoken of these before. I'm revealing them to the committee in the proper way. The first, I would say, chair, is to lead on place based reindustrialisation, using the industrial strategy as the mechanism for that.
The second, I would say, is how we make sure we have better lives and vibrant local economies, that markets work for citizens. So that's everything from our work on making work pay to our SM policy to how competition law works in the UK and all the rest of the things the department does. The third, I would say, and again, a reference to the new department structure here, is that science, innovation, technology have got to be at the heart of growth, and we have to embrace technology to do that. And the fourth, I would say we've always had you might remember a commitment to an open, connected trading economy.
I would add the words secure and resilient to that as well, reflecting, I think, the world that we are in. So there's a lot of things there, but I think you've got to put it down into those four headings for the fundamental objectives of this department.
You know, I think the fact we have now a department of 8500 people, annual budget of £17 billion, circa £17 billion a year. This is a real significant change in terms of the strength of these issues within government. And it's obviously a privilege to come back to be in charge of them. We do cover a lot, and I would say to give you our full public objectives, and I haven't spoken of these before. I'm revealing them to the committee in the proper way. The first, I would say, chair, is to lead on place based reindustrialisation, using the industrial strategy as the mechanism for that.
The second, I would say, is how we make sure we have better lives and vibrant local economies, that markets work for citizens. So that's everything from our work on making work pay to our SM policy to how competition law works in the UK and all the rest of the things the department does. The third, I would say, and again, a reference to the new department structure here, is that science, innovation, technology have got to be at the heart of growth, and we have to embrace technology to do that. And the fourth, I would say we've always had you might remember a commitment to an open, connected trading economy.
I would add the words secure and resilient to that as well, reflecting, I think, the world that we are in. So there's a lot of things there, but I think you've got to put it down into those four headings for the fundamental objectives of this department.
14:36
14:36
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
I'm not going to shock you all by telling you what may or may not be in the budget, or what I would want to be in, but I, I would say look at the the public comments that you've just referenced of the Chancellor, the reference to the cost of doing business, the need for breathing space for business. I endorse those words entirely. I think there's got to be, you know, acknowledgement that there is no answer to all of the things we as parliamentarians, all the things our constituents want to see as priorities for the state and for the government, unless we have a strong economy, a stronger economy than we've had in actually quite a few years since the financial crisis.
And I think the last set of GDP figures are very encouraging, you know, but it's sustained economic growth that will do that. So there's got to be a reflection that the business is the only way to do that. And I think, you know, what the Chancellor has said has been significant in that.
And I think the last set of GDP figures are very encouraging, you know, but it's sustained economic growth that will do that. So there's got to be a reflection that the business is the only way to do that. And I think, you know, what the Chancellor has said has been significant in that.
14:37
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
Again, no specifics, I'm afraid. But I would say again, you know, this chair we have made, I have made addressing the UK's industrial electricity costs. You know, one of the things I think is fundamental to success of so many parts of the economy. I'm very proud that Bics has been launched this year. Significant scheme for 10,000 manufacturing businesses, but I will I will always make the case that that has got to have been one of the issues we were right to address when we formed the government in 2024.
14:38
14:38
14:38
Liam Byrne
-
-
Liam Byrne
You were not deaf to that. Yeah. And you've obviously now got the chance to integrate science and technology spend with real power. Now that that's moved into your department hitherto, that has been a little disjointed from the industrial strategy. Will the Industrial Strategy Council effectively now become a reindustrialisation strategy council?
14:38
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
Well, first of all, I'd say you know, that the merit, the success of the industrial strategy was it gave not just the department, but a whole range of other government departments a proper analytical tool as to where the opportunities lay. And I think we have seen that. I thought we saw to differing extents, but actually quite a few other government departments respond to that. And I do think D-cit, formerly D-cit and Ukri, were part of that. And I think the spend split for UK budget, which is broadly a sort of third on what we might call curiosity knowledge led research, and two thirds more applied to the to the priorities of the industrial strategy.
I think that is right. I think that work had already begun. I think that is acknowledged. I do think the the premise of Reindustrialisation will use the industrial strategy as the tool to do that. Add into that as well as the IS8 sectors. Acknowledgement of foundational industries, which again, I think reflects existing work of the department. And I would say, you know, there's a there's a particular story to address that everyone here will be familiar with, which is how do we take our success in those sectors and have more stories of brilliant British innovation , resulting in commercialisation scale up and significant employment in the UK?
I mean, I imagine every single member here of Parliament has heard too many stories of this brilliant idea originated in the UK, but we didn't get the economic and commercial benefits of it. I now think this department is ideally placed to play a role in correcting that.
I think that is right. I think that work had already begun. I think that is acknowledged. I do think the the premise of Reindustrialisation will use the industrial strategy as the tool to do that. Add into that as well as the IS8 sectors. Acknowledgement of foundational industries, which again, I think reflects existing work of the department. And I would say, you know, there's a there's a particular story to address that everyone here will be familiar with, which is how do we take our success in those sectors and have more stories of brilliant British innovation , resulting in commercialisation scale up and significant employment in the UK?
I mean, I imagine every single member here of Parliament has heard too many stories of this brilliant idea originated in the UK, but we didn't get the economic and commercial benefits of it. I now think this department is ideally placed to play a role in correcting that.
14:40
Liam Byrne
-
-
Liam Byrne
Yeah, well, we'll have more things on to say on that tomorrow when we publish the government response to our investing in the UK report, which was, I'm afraid to say, produced under the last administration, but quite disappointing. The the lever of science and technology spend, though. Do you think that is now going to be easier to apply to the industrial Of science and technology spend, though, do you think that is now going to be easier to apply to the industrial strategy sectors.
15:32
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
Now that it's within your department? Stalybridge for me. I do think you've got to look at things like, you know, how the business rates system affect things like high street auctions to make sure derelict properties come back into use. That's a big issue in both home works. Those will be the fundamentals in an area. I think the fund you're talking about is an Mhclg fund, so it's not directly within there. But what I would really say is, you know, where I've seen. successful regeneration of high streets, you do need sometimes a little bit of public money to do some of the anchor things.
One in Greater Manchester that's often cited is Altrincham, where essentially the food hall brought back into, you know, prosperity, the wider town centre. So we will work. We had, I think I don't know whether the department has continued because it was changed in the time I wasn't there. The joint MH .
One in Greater Manchester that's often cited is Altrincham, where essentially the food hall brought back into, you know, prosperity, the wider town centre. So we will work. We had, I think I don't know whether the department has continued because it was changed in the time I wasn't there. The joint MH .
15:33
15:33
15:33
15:33
15:33
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
Not just MPs, people, they want the coherence between those two parts of government. It's fair to say we still work together incredibly closely. Obviously. Partly this reflects the creation of number ten North, where best and. Mhclg and the Treasury are all together working on local growth in different ways. We are working really closely with Mhclg at the moment on the development of a new high street strategy. So we are pleased.
Don't worry that because there isn't a joint unit, we .
Don't worry that because there isn't a joint unit, we .
15:33
15:33
15:33
15:33
15:33
15:33
15:33
15:33
15:34
15:34
15:34
15:34
15:34
15:34
15:34
15:34
Speaker 4
-
Speaker 4
So they're just about to move their work to an approved mill and machinists in India. I spoke to a company from the southwest, again in aerospace and defence. They said to me that the annual year, full year cost of the additional cost will be. £600,000 in tariff payments, and that would send them under. And they were also considering moving production abroad. I spoke to a company based in my own.
15:35
15:35
15:35
15:35
Speaker 4
-
Speaker 4
And the quota was being taken up by one, leaving little space for the other. I spoke to. fabricators who spoke about the. difficulty of not having having an. exemption for. fabricated products, as they do in the similar regime in Canada. So, Secretary of State, would you. accept that the policy. intent of the steel safeguards was sound and something that we all support around this table, but the.
execution of the design of the tariffs and the quotas has been poor, and that they desperately need more. detail and granularity.
execution of the design of the tariffs and the quotas has been poor, and that they desperately need more. detail and granularity.
15:35
15:35
15:36
15:36
15:36
15:36
15:36
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
Really alarming set of evidence that we heard yesterday. I'm sensitive to that. Let me just put some information which I think is is useful. And then I'll come back specifically on your request at the end. Antonio. I mean, first of all, thank you for. recognising why we need to do this, because I think this is about more than steel on that point of a resilient economy. People based in the UK have to know that when we're facing structural.
15:36
15:37
15:37
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
And over half by volume fall outside the measures scope. So I know people are concerned, but let's just. recognise that the majority of products are falling beyond the scope of the trade defence measures. Now obviously we don't want Antonio to put tariffs or trade defence measures on products that you can't. source from the UK. It is true to say in how you implement a measure like this, there will be, because of the nature of the identification of the eight digit SIC codes. Some products caught up in that because of the characterization. And I hear your call for more.
specificity of that. You do have to balance that against essentially, you know, what is enforceable. How does customs operate within there? But the policy intent is clearly not to increase the cost of products you cannot purchase in the UK . If in some cases, more products that can be bought in the UK were bought in the UK. That would leave more space in the quarters for products to be. imported that we don't produce because of the nature of that. In relation to your request for a review, we are committed to reviewing these measures. You can't be frank do that too quickly because when you are doing trade defence measures, people will obviously import.
They'll stockpile in advance of that. But that is just rational human behaviour. So you've got to see these. measures working through. But will I commit to working with this committee, with the evidence you've just given there and clearly what you've heard from evidence sessions chair and the downstream users to try to make sure we have this in the best place it can be. Yes, I'm more than happy to give that.
specificity of that. You do have to balance that against essentially, you know, what is enforceable. How does customs operate within there? But the policy intent is clearly not to increase the cost of products you cannot purchase in the UK . If in some cases, more products that can be bought in the UK were bought in the UK. That would leave more space in the quarters for products to be. imported that we don't produce because of the nature of that. In relation to your request for a review, we are committed to reviewing these measures. You can't be frank do that too quickly because when you are doing trade defence measures, people will obviously import.
They'll stockpile in advance of that. But that is just rational human behaviour. So you've got to see these. measures working through. But will I commit to working with this committee, with the evidence you've just given there and clearly what you've heard from evidence sessions chair and the downstream users to try to make sure we have this in the best place it can be. Yes, I'm more than happy to give that.
15:39
15:39
15:39
15:39
15:39
15:39
15:39
Speaker 4
-
Speaker 4
As the department was in receipt of new information. Are you in a position? I absolutely take the point about the full review, and we're just now seeing the. implications of the safeguards after the stockpiling period and the run through period has finished. Are you in a position to commit to making tweaks if new evidence comes forward at this point about what is and isn't made in the UK, what is and isn't.
15:39
15:39
15:40
15:40
15:40
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
Quotas to be able to. differentiate in the more granular way that I've set out. So you're right to say, and obviously this is in my absence in the department, you're right to say that following feedback, I believe the quotas were increased in order to mitigate some of the adverse. consequences that you are describing. Now, I'll also say, let's push back on the other side on that in terms of what that means for domestic steel producers, you're always seeking a balance between these two crucial aspects of the.
15:40
15:40
15:40
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
Changes would come after a review of how the products are operating. So we are Secretary, obviously, we're barely a quarter into the new regime. So obviously we are just beginning to see data coming through. Secretary of state has already said absolutely correctly. Commitment has always been there to a 12 month review.
15:40
15:40
15:40
15:40
15:41
15:41
15:41
Charlie Maynard
-
-
Charlie Maynard
So it's 50 times smaller. What we've got here through this set of. regulation is essentially we're condemning our downstream fabricators to be having to buy from an incredibly small market. And as you are very aware, in many cases, there simply are no. producers or there's one monopoly producer which effectively is now a monopoly. So they can sell to a UK producer or they can sell to the US. We're hearing lots of instances yesterday where, where the steel producers were actually selling to US customers rather than UK customers. There's no legal obligation they have to sell to UK customers.
So this looks like it's heading for hundreds and thousands of jobs being lost in the downstream sector, because essentially we are determined to stay outside of the EU steel single market, and we are massively going to lose out across all of our manufacturing.
So this looks like it's heading for hundreds and thousands of jobs being lost in the downstream sector, because essentially we are determined to stay outside of the EU steel single market, and we are massively going to lose out across all of our manufacturing.
15:42
15:42
15:42
15:42
15:42
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
Heading in exactly the opposite direction. Does that analysis is that fair? No, I don't think it is. But I think it's a it's a fair question to ask what the impact will be on our relationship to the EU. I am confident of a. resolution to the UK, EU steel issue. We're not determined to stay out of that. It was one of the first topics of conversation I had with Commissioner Sefcovic because it's so important to us. I think the first thing I'd say is without both intervention from the government in terms of ownership and trade defence measures, the UK would be the first major economy to not have a steel industry.
Yeah, I mean that is what we're heading towards. There's absolutely no doubt about that. It was a decision for someone sitting in my chair to make. Was I willing to do that? That was no to be clear.
Yeah, I mean that is what we're heading towards. There's absolutely no doubt about that. It was a decision for someone sitting in my chair to make. Was I willing to do that? That was no to be clear.
15:43
15:43
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
On downstream users is something that is acutely felt. And as I say, in my absence, to be fair to the former Secretary of State, mitigations are put in place in terms of some of the quotas around that. I. I do think we've got to acknowledge that where you have in the global economy, deliberate structural. overcapacity in some sectors, of course, there's a there's a short term dividend to that. You're getting something below market value that's attractive if you're a purchaser of that product, I'm afraid parliamentarians think we need to extrapolate out what the logical. conclusion of that is, because it is.
dependence .
dependence .
15:43
15:43
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
Being stuffed rather than, you know, yes, let's stay dependent on China. Well, if your desire is for closer. cooperation with the European Union, I would share that. I think Europe has interesting lessons for us in terms of the level of EU production that meets EU demand, which is much greater even in this world of global. overcapacity in world markets, in steel. So they're doing some things that I think we could replicate as part of that.
And we are seeking to make sure we resolve the problems around .
And we are seeking to make sure we resolve the problems around .
15:44
Charlie Maynard
-
-
Charlie Maynard
Steel that resulted in the EU's trade defence measures causing us some significant problems. Not a good result. Be like we're negotiating now an SPS agreement for agriculture, which is essentially a single market for agricultural products. Would it would it be a good result, be a single market for .
15:44
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
Steel, a la SPS for agriculture? So in all of these matters, Charlie, with the EU, you need to make a distinction between trade defence measures and what might be called single market alignment, which would be a different ask. So it's helpful, I think. conceptually to keep those in different places. The premise of the UK, EU reset the summit that is coming up in November. There's a core set of things you'd be familiar with there. SPS is one of them. ETS is one of them. Electricity cooperation is one of them. And then you've got a whole range of additional issues that are actually not part of that, but a reasonable and worth the conversation at the same time because they're UK EU issues.
So think of Made in Europe, think of steel, think of the rules of origin, which is an outstanding matter from the TCA because of the nature of that conversation. Of course, you touch into those.
So think of Made in Europe, think of steel, think of the rules of origin, which is an outstanding matter from the TCA because of the nature of that conversation. Of course, you touch into those.
15:45
15:45
15:45
15:45
15:45
15:45
Sarah Edwards
-
-
Sarah Edwards
As well as the wider summit agenda that you will be familiar with. John Steel thank you, chair. Yeah. So in the round table, we heard obviously from from various different downstream suppliers. But one of the things that that they found quite. disappointing was that the steel strategy that was released is all about supporting British Steel. So we're back back to what I was asking you about earlier, but that the Department for education in their procurement. requirements is asking for EAF steel because of the carbon targets that they're trying to meet. And you can't do that because we can't do it.
So we're going to be. importing that steel from elsewhere to meet that target. So how is the steel strategy actually fitting in to what the government is then putting out as procurement? And are you aware of some of these mismatches? And are you going to review that and correct it so that we can actually get a steel .
So we're going to be. importing that steel from elsewhere to meet that target. So how is the steel strategy actually fitting in to what the government is then putting out as procurement? And are you aware of some of these mismatches? And are you going to review that and correct it so that we can actually get a steel .
15:46
15:46
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
Recently. renationalised British Steel? So I will look at that, Sarah. Now obviously in both Scunthorpe, we need a transition plan which will likely be to electric arc furnaces. And obviously at Port Talbot. We are in that process of industrial transformation. Those are perhaps the two high profile. examples of British UK steel productions transformation. We do have other electric arc furnaces in the UK. It is an important thing to stress that because we've got this big need to to transition the blast furnaces to low carbon.
15:47
15:47
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
We shouldn't forget there are parts of the steel industry that already have made this journey just important to stress that. So it might be that there are. particular products the DfE is trying to procure that relate to that. But as I'm not familiar with their procurement requests, let me take that away .
15:47
15:47
Liam Byrne
-
-
Liam Byrne
Come back to you to give you a definitive answer on what the balance is between those things. Thank you. Right. So alongside steel, automotive is a real sector of concern and so is defence. We have been pressing the government, along with two other committees now, for the government to set out its definition of sovereign capabilities, because we don't actually think you can have an economic security strategy unless you've specified the sovereign capabilities the country is trying to grow and defend. It's really heartening to see that fourth definition, that fourth priority that you've set out today about secure and resilient trade.
As the Mod begins to issue packages of procurement, included in that 285 billion of defence spending that it's now got earmarked, do you think the government is going to be able to move towards a better definition of the kind of sovereign capabilities that we do need to .
As the Mod begins to issue packages of procurement, included in that 285 billion of defence spending that it's now got earmarked, do you think the government is going to be able to move towards a better definition of the kind of sovereign capabilities that we do need to .
15:48
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
Grow. defend for the future? I can see why those committees have that interest. Whether you could ask Amanda, because you'd be familiar with this work in my absence, but whether you could. definitively do that without a degree of flexibility that might be required in some decisions. I think that's a genuinely.
15:48
15:48
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
If we look at, say, a speciality steel UK, where again, we've had to get involved in issues of ownership. You know, one of the functions you'll be familiar with, that's S UK is the sovereign capability provider of is is ammunition, missile casings, ammunition casings. Is it the case that we couldn't buy that from a friendly country. No. That that exists. Is it in our interest to potentially keep that capability in the UK? Yes.
So you perhaps need a degree, an index of where that lies. It would seem to me the key thing would .
So you perhaps need a degree, an index of where that lies. It would seem to me the key thing would .
15:49
Liam Byrne
-
-
Liam Byrne
Be a consistency across all government departments rather than necessarily our NATO allies like Canada have set out that as the kind of the cornerstone of their rearmament strategy. There are short lists that have been issued by 2 or 3 different government departments. And so what committees are struggling with is trying to kind of tessellate lists from different parts of Whitehall to actually say, well, look, how do you send a coherent, consistent demand signal to UK plc that these are going to be the things that we absolutely are going to grow and defend on in this country so that we're not in a reactive policy frame when, for example, we have to suddenly come here on a Saturday to renationalize British Steel.
So just we're interested in whether your ambitions for resilience will actually take you to a place where we get a .
So just we're interested in whether your ambitions for resilience will actually take you to a place where we get a .
15:50
15:50
15:50
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
Different, good faith based views on what. constituted sovereign capability. To take the example of British Steel, I would also say it had to be some pragmatism in that which was. We were facing a bill of. £1.5 billion to make 7000 people unemployed in a way that was completely beyond our control, in a way that I think was acceptable to to the UK. You know, that was a key part of that decision as well. When I look at things like critical minerals, I think actually our critical minerals strategy is a really good. example of that need for resilience and sovereign capability.
So it doesn't say we can be self-sufficient. That's not realistic.
So it doesn't say we can be self-sufficient. That's not realistic.
15:51
15:51
15:51
Liam Byrne
-
-
Liam Byrne
Approach on critical minerals is the right model to follow. But maybe that is something you'll know. Is the deputy national security adviser recently left government and wrote in the F.T. that when he looks back over his time in government, what he now observes is that there is a lack of cross Whitehall mechanisms for actually creating integrated strategy. I mean,
15:51
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
Is that a problem that you're effectively pointing at here? I think it would be churlish not to. recognise there's a challenge there, a fair challenge that's come from someone with serious. experience of the system. I think some of the nature of the sort of goes to the heart of the integrated nature of kind of dual use technology, the modern economy, the the changes to trade, which now involve much greater. geopolitical threats. And you link it all together. And there is, I suppose, at times a danger that things that have been dealt with for years in a certain way, that's just not the right approach to do it.
I mean, there are a lot of, you know, the NSC brings together core economic and security functions of the state. I wouldn't want people to think there aren't things in how the UK operates that don't take that into account and don't balance off the different factors in terms of trade offs between investment and security. And you know , how you make that coherently together.
I mean, there are a lot of, you know, the NSC brings together core economic and security functions of the state. I wouldn't want people to think there aren't things in how the UK operates that don't take that into account and don't balance off the different factors in terms of trade offs between investment and security. And you know , how you make that coherently together.
15:52
15:52
15:52
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
But I think it very much aligns with how you're describing it. Secretary of state is on frontier and emerging technologies, and where are the areas where we think sovereign capability will be really important? How we have thought about this in partnership with colleagues, obviously, from other departments, this is not this alone has been thinking around dual use.
15:52
15:52
15:53
15:53
15:53
15:53
15:53
15:53
15:53
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
So. The stories have been in the press. Antonia obviously relate to an agreement between France and Germany rather than a negotiation with the UK, although obviously it is of direct relevance to us. What I would say on this is at the minute I can tell you. Committee, the UK's position hasn't changed, which is that we keep this under close review. Now, frankly, some people hear that and they say close review means we might be about to change it, or they hear close review and think we're not going to change it. But my point on this is if you take take the UK automotive industry, okay, so 60% of what we make goes to the EU, 20% of the rest of the world.
20% stays domestic. So in other words, we are an export led industry where the single most important country by market share is our own. Okay, so you factor those two things together. That means that different parts of our sector will have different views on this. You will know that under our. post-Brexit Trade Remedies Authority system, businesses can go themselves directly to the Tra. No automotive. producer has done that. So. That is the position. We keep it under close review and the kind of changes in the market are. Obviously when I talk about under close review, that's what we're looking at.
I am of course, very sensitive to the fact I look at the the last 12 months, significant increase in in exports imports into the UK of Chinese EVs. And that is part of it. But I'm balancing our own interests in terms of being an outward facing economy with our own domestic market. But as soon as there is or isn't news in this area, I will of course share it with the committee. And I would say, you know, referencing, I think, a quote I gave to the Guardian fairly recently. I just want to make clear that, of course, I want to work with European partners because we're facing the same pressures.
If we do make a decision on any element of trade defence, it is because I deem that to be in the. interests of the UK. And of course, what other countries do impacts on that because of trade diversion. If one country puts up significant trade defence measures, you can expect some of those products to come in a disproportionate sense to your markets. Of course, what goes on in other countries is important, but I just hold to we make a decision based on the best interests of the of the UK.
That, of course .
20% stays domestic. So in other words, we are an export led industry where the single most important country by market share is our own. Okay, so you factor those two things together. That means that different parts of our sector will have different views on this. You will know that under our. post-Brexit Trade Remedies Authority system, businesses can go themselves directly to the Tra. No automotive. producer has done that. So. That is the position. We keep it under close review and the kind of changes in the market are. Obviously when I talk about under close review, that's what we're looking at.
I am of course, very sensitive to the fact I look at the the last 12 months, significant increase in in exports imports into the UK of Chinese EVs. And that is part of it. But I'm balancing our own interests in terms of being an outward facing economy with our own domestic market. But as soon as there is or isn't news in this area, I will of course share it with the committee. And I would say, you know, referencing, I think, a quote I gave to the Guardian fairly recently. I just want to make clear that, of course, I want to work with European partners because we're facing the same pressures.
If we do make a decision on any element of trade defence, it is because I deem that to be in the. interests of the UK. And of course, what other countries do impacts on that because of trade diversion. If one country puts up significant trade defence measures, you can expect some of those products to come in a disproportionate sense to your markets. Of course, what goes on in other countries is important, but I just hold to we make a decision based on the best interests of the of the UK.
That, of course .
15:55
Liam Byrne
-
-
Liam Byrne
Involves working with other partners, but that's the basis upon which any decision just help us decode this. So Lord Sarwar went on the record to say that Britain and the European Union must work together and act in lockstep to tackle Chinese dominance in the automotive sector. Chancellor Mertes and President Macron have obviously issued an incredibly ambitious set of proposals for trade defence. What we're trying to understand is, are we is the UK government basically going to act in lockstep with the Macron Mertes initiative? And if it doesn't, how on earth do we think we're going to draw closer to the European Union when DG trade is really clear with us that actually it is not going to allow any kind of back door for over subsidised .
15:56
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
Chinese goods to come into the European Union through Britain. Well, first of all, on that point, let's just be clear goods could not come into the single market through Britain, because if you were and we don't have a. significant Chinese OEM in the UK at this stage, but if you were. assembling Chinese. components on a sort of model that similar to how Nissan began in the north east of England, you wouldn't qualify under the TCA under the rules of origin for that. I mean, this is about market share in the UK rather than products coming from abroad, the rest of the world into the UK and then into the single market.
I mean, I just because this is, you know, trade is a fairly complex area. I look at some things in the press and I don't think they've quite thought through actually how trade works and .
I mean, I just because this is, you know, trade is a fairly complex area. I look at some things in the press and I don't think they've quite thought through actually how trade works and .
15:57
15:57
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
Over subsidised Chinese goods coming to you from Britain. You know, Chinese products come into the UK to enter the single market. I mean, that is that is not how the interaction of these trade relationships work. Of course, we both face a similar problem, which is the. tremendous increase in Chinese.
15:58
15:58
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
You know, we're actor agnostic in terms of trade policy, but China is the country that has an industrial policy that is, you know, more significant than any other and frankly, is a size and scale. And I'm always keen to say to colleagues involves a great deal of innovation. This is not just about cost. I mean, you know, there's a lot of R&D and a lot of innovation going on in China as part of that. So we want to work with colleagues around that. In terms of some of the press stories about the Franco-German agreement, you know, that's all about the detail, and that hasn't been perhaps surfaced to the degree to which we'd be able to definitively say that that is what the ask is of the UK.
So, yes, Alice is right to say we've got to work with like minded countries on a similar set of problems. But I'm also pointing out that perhaps the. interests of the EU as a whole for their automotive sector might at times be slightly different to how we see .
So, yes, Alice is right to say we've got to work with like minded countries on a similar set of problems. But I'm also pointing out that perhaps the. interests of the EU as a whole for their automotive sector might at times be slightly different to how we see .
15:58
15:59
15:59
15:59
15:59
15:59
15:59
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
Good news on the Zev mandate. flexibilities coming soon? We certainly had good automotive news in the last month. I mean. £850 million of investment, Bentley McLaren, which was a delight to go and inspect the McLaren cars and have a drive around the track. And one of them, we've also obviously seen some indicative news from Nissan that is predicated on the Zev mandate. So you will know Department of Transport owns Zev mandate. We have shown as a government before a willingness to be pragmatic based on what other countries have done and where the consumer is. But you'll have to wait for the formal .
16:00
16:00
16:00
16:00
16:00
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
And indeed with EU member states. So lots of activity pushing towards a conclusion. Yeah. Well, it's important to mention rules of origin because it's sometimes assumed to be part of the wider Made in Europe trade defence conversations. Distinct issue as you know left over from the TCA. Again what are we seeking to do? We're seeking to recognise that it's in both member states of the EU and the UK's interests to continue the very efficient supply chains that are that are Europe, geographic Europe wide. That is the nature of that industry. I don't think it's in our interest or their interest to add further trade.
16:00
16:01
16:01
16:01
Speaker 4
-
Speaker 4
And that any lower threshold than that would make workers worse off than they are now, obviously, the. consultation says that the government's preference is for. 8 to 20 hours on the on the threshold. This preference was set out by the previous Secretary of State. Do you have a similar take on what the threshold should be,
16:01
16:01
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
Refute Usdaw evidence? You have a consultation. You have to be willing to listen to the consultation responses. I mean, that's the premise of that. Antonio, what are we trying to do here? We are trying to put in place a framework where a person who's currently on a zero hours contract, who is working a consistent and regular number of hours each week, has the option, if they so choose to exercise that right to a contract that. reflects those hours. So I would say the key piece of evidence we're looking for is, is there a point in the economy where people are.
routinely working more hours than they're. contracted for? I mean, that's got to be the guiding principle. I mean, 48 is very high in that. I would say most people working full time or with a full time contract are probably working full time hours in the main. I know Usdaw very well. I'm a member of Usdaw myself, I should say. And so I obviously, like I do with all submissions to.
routinely working more hours than they're. contracted for? I mean, that's got to be the guiding principle. I mean, 48 is very high in that. I would say most people working full time or with a full time contract are probably working full time hours in the main. I know Usdaw very well. I'm a member of Usdaw myself, I should say. And so I obviously, like I do with all submissions to.
16:02
16:02
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
Look very closely at the case that they're making. But again, I have no hesitation in saying we've always sought to to implement this significant package of measures in a way which works not just with unions, but with business as well. I think most businesses would have a different view when you've talked to them about the low hours threshold. But I think the objective is is clear and it's about what what is the level to set the low hours threshold at .
16:03
16:03
16:03
16:03
16:03
16:03
16:03
16:03
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
To be set just above that. So this is the case that if you don't cover every single worker, there'll be some people who are kind of disproportionately getting additional hours as part of that. Look, I don't think anyone originally envisaged the the low threshold to be as high as that. But of course, I mean, when we talk about a consultation, it's a serious consultation. We will listen to the case being made. I'll I've had that conversation several times. I will look at the point being made, I. I say, I doubt many people who are not already on full time contracts are routinely working more hours than .
16:04
16:04
16:04
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
We might see action on employment status in this Parliament? I'm sure you listen to my well received speech to Labour Party conference, where I did reference this directly. You know, I think the space where in this complex area, the space that needs the most attention is the sort of line between what is currently classified as a worker and self-employed. You know, that is the space where particularly not just for delivery, but actually all kinds of things. Hairdressing, for instance, you're seeing a lot of kind of distortion in the labour market around that area. Got a very clear idea of how to fix that in terms of things like substitution clauses and how they're used in.
contracts and what the kind of assumptions should be in employment.
contracts and what the kind of assumptions should be in employment.
16:04
16:04
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
You know, whether where the kind of burden of proof should lie to change that. So that is a priority for me. A question I get quite a lot is I've just got to make this clear. Obviously, what I'm talking about here are the areas within my control on employment rights. So access to the minimum wage, holiday pay, all of those things. This is different to the tax question. And that is I think quite complicated. Public don't always understand that there are there are three employment statuses in the UK effectively in terms of your employment rights.
There are two in terms of tax. But I obviously will need to legislate for those changes. So our. Subject to a third session bill. But I do think again, this is an area where, frankly, it's not just the interests of the 1 million or so workers who'd be in that space. Businesses themselves ask for a level playing field, quite .
There are two in terms of tax. But I obviously will need to legislate for those changes. So our. Subject to a third session bill. But I do think again, this is an area where, frankly, it's not just the interests of the 1 million or so workers who'd be in that space. Businesses themselves ask for a level playing field, quite .
16:05
Speaker 4
-
Speaker 4
Rightly, in some of these sectors, and they're asking for that clarity in the law to be put in place. Final question from me on employment rights. This committee is very much looking forward to visiting Amazon's Coventry warehouse in the coming weeks as new access powers come into force, companies like Amazon are prepared to spend millions on union busting activity. including using AI to surveil their own employees. Do you have confidence that the penalty level set out for breach of the access rights is set at a level that is .
16:06
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
Enough to. deter any company from bad behaviour? I think the access to access an important part of the package, I think it has anything to fear from those. I would point to. Some of the most productive. successful parts of the British economy are areas with. significant union density. We could look at automotive, aerospace, for instance, as a good. examples of that. I think the the the regime that's been put in place is effective, will be proportionate to what is required.
And I think .
And I think .
16:06
16:06
Dan Aldridge
-
-
Dan Aldridge
Department's responsibility. And Dan Aldrich is going to open the questioning. Thanks, Secretary of State. So on 12th October, the AI minister set out the government's plans for managing the risks of AI. A lot remains unclear. Obviously, this is a fast paced, moveable feast. One of the things that I am keenly aware of is it's been well over a year since the government's SM Digital Adoption.
16:07
16:07
Dan Aldridge
-
-
Dan Aldridge
Published its final report. This really matters to. constituencies like mine in Weston super Mare, where we don't have the infrastructure of cities and we rely on. volunteers and support services. When AI is used by lots of people in the sector, whether that's. retail health, social care, that really dominate our our economies. And it's often shallow adoption and. Micro-businesses don't have the time to do that.
So one of the questions, I suppose, is, when are the businesses in Weston super Mare and across the country going to start seeing the benefits of this task force .
So one of the questions, I suppose, is, when are the businesses in Weston super Mare and across the country going to start seeing the benefits of this task force .
16:07
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
And get a sense of the tangible progress that's been made? First of all, let me pay tribute to the I minister whose work you referenced there. I think this is one of the most. challenging subject areas in any developed economy. I think he's doing an absolutely terrific job, both in engagement with the public and with. parliamentarians and on the policy agenda. Some of the most.
16:08
16:08
16:08
16:08
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
We wouldn't say we're at a point where the. adoption of these capabilities is as widespread as we would want it to be. The SME Digital Adoption Task Force is a key part of that. I mean, it's the objective is to is to deliver this by 2035. I think an update was published earlier in the year. So it'd be more than happy to write to the committee and tell you where exactly I think that is at. But this goes to the heart of the. balance chair we're seeking to strike, which is, of course, when people see or hear alarming things about AI on, on, on television, on the media, they want to know we're doing the right things to keep them safe.
I think that we are. I think at the same time, we have got to be open to a.
I think that we are. I think at the same time, we have got to be open to a.
16:09
16:09
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
I would argue some of the recent GDP figures were starting to see, not. definitively some impact. The sector's doing best are ones perhaps most exposed to AI adoption. We've got to be seeking to use this to the benefit of the UK. But I mean, you know, whether it's in a whole range of things, frankly, if you think about the pressures on small business owners, whether that's on time, whether that's on, you know, the people they employ, the capacities they've got, there are functions using AI.
They can add a whole range of .
They can add a whole range of .
16:09
Dan Aldridge
-
-
Dan Aldridge
Things to make people's lives easier. And I think that has got to be something we're excited by. Yeah. I mean, I think one of the things that that definitely I noticed was that four of the ten. recommendations weren't implemented. And some of those seem like seem really, really important things. And one of the top lines was appointing a minister accountable for SME, digital and AI adoption. And obviously we do have the fantastic Canarian. But I think in terms of having that in a in the portfolio is really, really important. Also, we don't have a replacement for the European Digital Economy and Society Index in terms of that fast paced data that we will need to be able to monitor SME, AI adoption.
So I think it's really important. And if we could get a reflection back at some point from the department on that as a tool, because as to my point earlier, we can we only act on what we measure. And if we're not measuring SME adoption at that local .
So I think it's really important. And if we could get a reflection back at some point from the department on that as a tool, because as to my point earlier, we can we only act on what we measure. And if we're not measuring SME adoption at that local .
16:10
16:10
16:10
16:10
Sarah Edwards
-
-
Sarah Edwards
Yeah. Thank you. I think that's me. Okay. Sir Edward's thank you chair. Obviously, we've heard evidence only last week about the sort of the frontier AI and where where that could be going. And we've heard obviously from the the concerned warnings. I think what I would just like to know from yourself is we. recently did a trip to India, which showed that AI in their lens was very much about mission driven. So it was very clear where they wanted that to be deployed across government and across the economy. And I think that that also helps to.
identify what types of AI we would like to see and which we can put in the. We're not so sure about this category. And I just wondered, you know, we had some of the panelists in front of us last week who. profiteer from flooding social media feeds with far right hate and all kinds of things. And they are the same people who would quite like us not to regulate AI. And so I just wondered whether or not you have thoughts on whether you're pushing on your side to think about how to put in amendments to the Cyber Security and Resilience bill that deal with some of this so that we haven't got these huge.
identify what types of AI we would like to see and which we can put in the. We're not so sure about this category. And I just wondered, you know, we had some of the panelists in front of us last week who. profiteer from flooding social media feeds with far right hate and all kinds of things. And they are the same people who would quite like us not to regulate AI. And so I just wondered whether or not you have thoughts on whether you're pushing on your side to think about how to put in amendments to the Cyber Security and Resilience bill that deal with some of this so that we haven't got these huge.
16:11
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
Multinationals running away with AI, and we're left to pick up the pieces. There's a lot to that. I mean, first of all, I don't think we can even envisage every single use of AI that we'll see in our lifetimes. I think technology is moving so fast. The applications are so vast. It's an incredibly significant general purpose technology. You know, I think we've just got to acknowledge that we already are seeing some terrific things. I mean, cancer is being diagnosed more quickly because of AI. We've talked about some of the small business adoption as part of that.
I mean, the tension here, Sarah, is that. The question of, first of all, regulation. I mean, historically it would be true to say the UK strength is in that we regulate the application and the use of. technology in the sectors that it's in. I think that is a strength. Rather than attempt to do a general purpose regulatory effort of things we might not fully understand the. implications of. So you're talking about the cybersecurity bill. Great example of that, how we will strengthen that bill in the legislative process to protect our critical national infrastructure. I think, first of all, that is what good regulation looks like.
Where is technology being used? How will how will we ensure people are safe? As part of that, the wider question on the regulation of AI has to recognize that, you know, the frontier models are US firms and to an extent, China with an open weight model that lags slightly behind. But we can kind of see where that will be over time. And what is no use to anyone is having a regulatory system with no cards to play in terms of the market participants. You know, I think it'd be very easy to get to that point.
Keeping people safe at the minute is absolutely about retaining access to those frontier models, not just for the AI Safety Institute, but for our security services as well. Because when a. capability is.
I mean, the tension here, Sarah, is that. The question of, first of all, regulation. I mean, historically it would be true to say the UK strength is in that we regulate the application and the use of. technology in the sectors that it's in. I think that is a strength. Rather than attempt to do a general purpose regulatory effort of things we might not fully understand the. implications of. So you're talking about the cybersecurity bill. Great example of that, how we will strengthen that bill in the legislative process to protect our critical national infrastructure. I think, first of all, that is what good regulation looks like.
Where is technology being used? How will how will we ensure people are safe? As part of that, the wider question on the regulation of AI has to recognize that, you know, the frontier models are US firms and to an extent, China with an open weight model that lags slightly behind. But we can kind of see where that will be over time. And what is no use to anyone is having a regulatory system with no cards to play in terms of the market participants. You know, I think it'd be very easy to get to that point.
Keeping people safe at the minute is absolutely about retaining access to those frontier models, not just for the AI Safety Institute, but for our security services as well. Because when a. capability is.
16:13
16:13
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
We have to know what that will mean for the UK. We have to have access to that to keep the UK safe. And I think in. Parliament we've just got to reflect. There's some tensions there, but but that is what we need to do and we should have some confidence in what has already been set up, like the AI Safety Institute and in the capabilities of our security services, but where we need to strengthen the law in areas to keep critical .
16:13
16:13
Sarah Edwards
-
-
Sarah Edwards
UK safe. That is what successful regulation looks like. But I think just pulling up on we've got an. opportunity with the bill that's coming back to us. And I think, as you've already previously stated in this session, you know, parliamentary time allows is the classic phrase, where are those potential other opportunities? Because we need to, yes, regulate for its application. But I don't necessarily always know if we've been clear about where we'd quite like that application to be, to be able to try and be ahead of that and to not be .
16:14
16:14
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
Very, very wealthy global corporates. So I mean, you have to use I can tell you this as chief whip, the parliamentary opportunities that you have. So the cybersecurity bill is a good example of a piece of. legislation already underway that we can add those amendments to. There will be more in this space. I mean, the third session obviously hasn't been decided yet. I would honestly ask I really mean this chair. I think there is a really interesting perspective a committee like this could give, which is how in a parliamentary system like ours, which we all support, all, all believe in the checks and balances and routes that we take on legislation.
How can we make sure that can keep up to date with the technology? Okay. Well, look, I think, you know, we talk a lot about Chief Whip Henry the Eighth Powers, but, you know, we may need some .
How can we make sure that can keep up to date with the technology? Okay. Well, look, I think, you know, we talk a lot about Chief Whip Henry the Eighth Powers, but, you know, we may need some .
16:15
Liam Byrne
-
-
Liam Byrne
Areas where we give ourselves with appropriate safeguards the ability to regulate. I'm conscious that over the course of the 19th century, there was not one factory act. There were 20 factory acts as the technology and the perils began to change. And some of those acts were pretty hard fought and quite time consuming in in coming . And. The AI minister has said that they'll look at you'll look at amending the Cyber Security and Resilience Bill that's at report stage in the Lords. So either you're going to accept some backbench amendments in the Lords or ley government amendments of your own.
The only latitude the Commons has then got is to amend the amendments. So is that basically what the AI minister means when he says .
The only latitude the Commons has then got is to amend the amendments. So is that basically what the AI minister means when he says .
16:15
16:15
16:15
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
Yeah, it's different here. Well, we have got AI here too, but we do. We do. But it's it's not quite the same. Right. We had we led our industry. We could lead on regulation. This is not quite the same picture. We're affected by industry. But the frontier models are us. And I think we've just got to to recognise that's what makes this a much more. challenging but significant political and regulatory and policy challenge. I will defer to Amanda if she knows better, but I believe that is what Kanishka is intending in terms of the amendments that I know it's at the report stage in the Lords, but you have to you have to take the parliamentary.
opportunities that you have. And I think this is this is this is not .
opportunities that you have. And I think this is this is this is not .
16:16
16:16
16:16
16:17
16:17
16:17
16:17
16:17
16:17
16:17
16:17
16:18
16:18
16:18
16:18
16:18
16:18
16:18
16:18
16:18
16:18
Dan Aldridge
-
-
Dan Aldridge
Unilaterally. domestically and anything further. Yeah, I mean, the cyber bill, sorry, Secretary of State, the cyber bill has been years in the making, and these feel like rather last minute amendments. I mean, whilst we've been sitting here, we've seen that the AI minister has tabled some amendments and DCMs are looking to table amendments to this based on.
16:19
16:19
Dan Aldridge
-
-
Dan Aldridge
And external events that have caused real concern and worry to not just the UK but the global community. How are we able to make sure that we're keeping cyber secure and cyber aware, when we can't even get the bill through without feeling like we have to just keep adding extra bits onto it? What's going to happen .
16:19
16:19
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
Pass the bill, and then we're going to have to open up something else? I would push back quite strongly on that because the I wouldn't call them last minute amendments. I would reference the fact that the technology is moving so fast. There is a nimbleness required in government to use the vehicles in our parliamentary system to do the things that we need to do. And as we look at the challenges today, they're different, even to the. ones 6 or 9 months ago. Now, the challenge for all of us as parliamentarians is how are we going to give ourselves the tools at .
16:20
16:20
Dan Aldridge
-
-
Dan Aldridge
We need when we can see the the pace of technological change? I mean, I think the question is, that's all fine. We can capture that within this bill. But what happens when we pass it? I mean, I was working on informing this bill when I was at the British Computer Society before I came into this place, and for years in actuality. And so once you pass the the bill and it becomes an act, we have lost that opportunity then to add anything else in it.
So .
So .
16:20
16:20
16:20
16:20
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
We've got the legislative process. I think this goes to the heart of the conversation we're having at the point, which is, you know, what may we need to consider in future in terms of what we believe are appropriate powers for government and. Parliament to move at pace as challenges change. I think it's actually in all the debate. To be frank, this is one of the under. underrated elements of it, which is, you know, the traditional passage of an act of Parliament is over a time frame where it would be reasonable based on how quickly technology is changing to see a.
situation change. Now, I think, again, much of this is not about. domestic activity alone. It's about international cooperation. You've just got to recognise that is a key part of it. And we should have some confidence in, you know, the institutions we put in place, like the AI Safety Institute and retain access to them. But, you know, I go back to the original challenge. It is a it is a .
situation change. Now, I think, again, much of this is not about. domestic activity alone. It's about international cooperation. You've just got to recognise that is a key part of it. And we should have some confidence in, you know, the institutions we put in place, like the AI Safety Institute and retain access to them. But, you know, I go back to the original challenge. It is a it is a .
16:21
16:21
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
Safety laws at the speed with which the technology is changing. I think if we look at our aspirations for, you know, some of the regulatory powers that we want to do, some of the. sandboxing powers that we want in order to develop great British. businesses in the UK. There there is a difficult. question as to what is the right balance between powers we give to government, the so-called Henry the Eighth argument.
We're using secondary legislation to change some primary.
We're using secondary legislation to change some primary.
16:22
16:22
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
You know, measures on on the statute book. It's something as parliamentarians, none of us like. And we were very sensitive when we put those into things. We might just need an honest conversation in Parliament about how we have that going forward. You know, what is the point? I'm not in any way suggesting we move away from the the correct and traditional approach, which is we you know, we have an act of Parliament seeking to do something specific, have a second reading on the principles, go through the the detailed. stages of it. You know, there'll be proposals, as any government would have for the third session of this Parliament.
16:22
16:23
Charlie Maynard
-
-
Charlie Maynard
Mr. Maynard, I'm keen to move on to trade and EU, but. So discussing this for a moment, it's okay. So I mean, government and Parliament's job is to keep our citizens safe. You know, that US and China is where a lot of the development is happening. What's already happening with all these. breakouts is impacting citizens. And it at the speed of action that this is happening. It could it could be 100 fold very quickly indeed.
I'm nervous about this kind of no cards to play.
I'm nervous about this kind of no cards to play.
16:23
16:23
Charlie Maynard
-
-
Charlie Maynard
In terms of it sounds very. defeatist in terms of the UK is a G7 nation. We have to play our role here. domestically and. internationally as a convening. force to be finding ways. And I'm not suggesting it's easy at all, but finding ways to stand up to these very large. hyperscalers and find ways to have control over this, rather than ceding control .
16:24
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
Entirely to them. And I'm you don't seem to see it that way. I push back strongly again on that, Charlie. I mean, it's not that we have no cards to play. We have some cards to play. Some countries don't have cards to play. You know, we are the third most significant tech nation in the world. Every other country would want to be us other than the people who are one and two. So we have some cards to play, but it's about being clear eyed about where keeping the British public safe. And I do sometimes hear, not necessarily from parliamentarians, the wider political.
16:24
16:24
16:24
16:24
16:24
Charlie Maynard
-
-
Charlie Maynard
Currently have, which is the fundamental thing that we need to retain right now, if I may. Chair. So. So let's say AC says that model is unsatisfactory. We do not think you should release anthropic, for example. Anthropic goes ahead and does it. What are we going to do about it? And is the answer just like we can't do anything about it, it's .
16:24
16:24
16:25
16:25
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
You cannot take a model and somehow say that is entirely safe, could never be used for. nefarious ends. It just doesn't work like that. It's knowing its. capabilities and preparing the British state. Could be public services, could be our security services, could be businesses, could be public. services to make sure we're aware of that and prepared for that. But this this sense of things come to the Air Safety Institute.
And they say,
And they say,
16:25
16:25
Charlie Maynard
-
-
Charlie Maynard
A green light. That's not. I'm afraid it will never be a straight forward. Models have been taken down by the companies themselves. So. So that is already happening that the models are like this. You know, the Hyperscaler is saying we're not going to release this model. So so, you know, there are decisions being taken already on existing. models saying that's too dangerous to come out.
Now, let's say, you know, we have a difference of opinion .
Now, let's say, you know, we have a difference of opinion .
16:25
16:26
16:26
16:26
16:26
16:26
16:26
16:26
16:26
16:26
Joshua Reynolds
-
-
Joshua Reynolds
When it comes to our deal with the European Union, that sticking with the status quo is not good enough. He said last month that we could look at what George Osborne has said about the customs union. He's also said that the government could look at what Wales Liberal Democrats have said at our conference about the single market, or he said that the government could go all the way, which I can only assume means rejoin .
16:27
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
European Union. Where is the government on the European Union? Well, you've just outlined what the Prime Minister has said and how he's going to give a speech talking about this. I mean, Joshua, if we're producing a ten year plan, given what we've just talked about in this session, I would say it's impossible not to have some reference to the European Union, because what the European Union does, as we've talked about, whether it's steel tariffs made in Europe, has significant. consequences for us. He wants to have that conversation. He wants to acknowledge that. I would say from my part, perhaps the more productive part of the conversation is not on some of the models you've outlined.
No disrespect to Lib Dem policy, but you know, it's talking about the shared challenges. So we have got a US which is adopting a very different, more assertive trade policy than any point since the war. We've got multilateral institutions like the WTO in a very weakened state , because of some of the geopolitical pressures and tensions that go into that. We've got global overcapacity, we've discussed in steel, we've got challenges around climate. I think the better question is , how can .
No disrespect to Lib Dem policy, but you know, it's talking about the shared challenges. So we have got a US which is adopting a very different, more assertive trade policy than any point since the war. We've got multilateral institutions like the WTO in a very weakened state , because of some of the geopolitical pressures and tensions that go into that. We've got global overcapacity, we've discussed in steel, we've got challenges around climate. I think the better question is , how can .
16:28
16:28
Joshua Reynolds
-
-
Joshua Reynolds
Influence over the European continent in meeting these challenges? So say we need to have the conversation. I'm not necessarily sure that there's anything when it comes to the European Union that hasn't been said in the last decade. All of the thinking that can be thought has been done on this. Everyone has got a .
16:28
16:28
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
Where is the government's opinion? I think, again, I'd have to disagree respectfully on that, because what we don't know is the future direction of Europe. There are some very strong political currents in Europe. There is an evolving policy agenda that reacts to, for instance, the trade shock from trade shock from China. So we don't quite know where that will go in, but we know it will affect us. We know it will affect us. And I would say one of the things I very much admire about the Prime Minister is you can't say he dodges the big issues.
I mean, he confronts them head on and that is his style. He's right to do so. We've got to have this conversation. But again, I would I would steer you towards how we address these shared challenges. And I would say reference to the earlier conversation with with Charlie, don't. discount what we're working on for the UK, EU summit in terms of the significance of that for ourselves and for the EU, you know, SPF alignment, given that we don't have, you know, policy that's sort of more more akin to North America for Canada in the US, we have broadly aligned SPF policy with the EU.
Removing some of those trading frictions would be a massive deal for small business, for farmers, for fishermen. So, you know, I think let's. recognize we already have a significant degree of ambition. I think what the Prime Minister has done has, you know, talk perhaps in warmer terms more more kind of good faith terms .
I mean, he confronts them head on and that is his style. He's right to do so. We've got to have this conversation. But again, I would I would steer you towards how we address these shared challenges. And I would say reference to the earlier conversation with with Charlie, don't. discount what we're working on for the UK, EU summit in terms of the significance of that for ourselves and for the EU, you know, SPF alignment, given that we don't have, you know, policy that's sort of more more akin to North America for Canada in the US, we have broadly aligned SPF policy with the EU.
Removing some of those trading frictions would be a massive deal for small business, for farmers, for fishermen. So, you know, I think let's. recognize we already have a significant degree of ambition. I think what the Prime Minister has done has, you know, talk perhaps in warmer terms more more kind of good faith terms .
16:29
16:29
Joshua Reynolds
-
-
Joshua Reynolds
Seeking from the European Union. And we'll see if they can respond to that. We know what different. options could look like. So obviously we've got TCA, TCA plus customs union, Swiss deal E, a region. We know what many of those different options are. They've been modelled. We know what we would have to give. We know what we would have to take as a result.
Is there a sense within your department or a sense from the Prime Minister of what you want to achieve, and which of those .
Is there a sense within your department or a sense from the Prime Minister of what you want to achieve, and which of those .
16:30
16:30
16:30
16:30
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
Closer economic relationship with the European Union, which looks like the Prime Minister will set out those options. I'm not going to not going to preempt a Prime Minister's speech. But I you know, I think we have shown that we have a nexus of interests that are intertwined come what may and how we work .
16:30
16:30
16:30
16:30
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
Customs union, no rejoin. Is that is that an accurate statement? Well, I mean we have a manifesto commitment on on those. He is. He is those are his words that you're that you're repeating to me on the floor of the of the Commons. But he has made very clear when he's looking to this ten year plan, he wants to. recognise that what the EU does will have consequences for us. And he wants to take out uncertainty by talking about what the long term stable relationship with the EU might be, wants to set out the options on that, that that is what he is going to do as part of that.
And at the same time, we're working every day on our trade relationship with the EU and with the rest of the world .
And at the same time, we're working every day on our trade relationship with the EU and with the rest of the world .
16:31
16:31
16:31
16:31
16:31
16:31
16:32
16:32
16:32
16:32
16:32
16:32
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
So the obvious trade. priority after the success that we've had with India, the Gulf, South Korea, Switzerland would probably be Mercosur because of the EU deal. And you wouldn't want, for instance, trade disadvantage on things like whisky exports. As part of that, I don't have imminent news to share in relation to that. There are obviously some other specific challenges between ourselves and some of the statements from Argentina. recently as well. But as ever, we are .
16:32
16:33
16:33
16:33
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
And. accelerate the EU. Cptpp alliance? Well, so, I mean, this is really the potential, you know, super trade deal. There are already, you know, formal dialogues in place between the EU and the see TPP members. I think our role, our geography and our membership of the Pacific Trade agreement. You know, we have a role to play. It's not a sort of direct leadership .
16:33
Liam Byrne
-
-
Liam Byrne
Role, but we're an important bridge between those two agreements, I would say. Okay. The final thing we just wanted to put to you . before we close is around the post office horizon victims. Yeah. This is something we remain acutely concerned about. We have a total of 800 1800 claims which have still not been settled. About 447 of those claims are not recognised as fully formed claims lodged with the department. But in January this year, the ambition was expressed to us that these claims would all be settled by the summer. There's still 1800 outstanding. So as you've come back into the department, what are the instructions that you've given to your .
16:34
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
Officials as to the deadline, you want to see justice finally delivered by. So, look, I mean, you all know from our previous conversations about this. I have always made this a priority, both as the shadow secretary of state, supporting the significant legislative changes the conservative government did at the end in terms of getting justice for people. And in the launch of the appeals scheme, when we came in and in getting money out the door. I mean. 1.7 billion has been paid out. 87% of all applicants have been paid. I do like you, look very closely at the figures.
I believe I actually got them in my in my pack here. I mean. This has been a story and nothing will ever compensate for the level of injustice people have suffered. I just want to say that.
I believe I actually got them in my in my pack here. I mean. This has been a story and nothing will ever compensate for the level of injustice people have suffered. I just want to say that.
16:35
16:35
16:35
16:35
16:35
16:35
16:35
16:35
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
They have come from very specific. circumstances where applicants. themselves need more time to get their application in because of the incredibly difficult burden they have. experienced as part of this. I would say there are a few issues where what people believe their their loss is it's, you know, partly about. evidencing that. But if there is any. specific case where this committee or any parliamentarian for a constituent thinks somehow these schemes which are, you know. multifaceted and have considerable coverage if they feel a case is not being judged on the merits of what they what they feel they need for that.
We will take a look at that. But a lot of money has gone out the door. And frankly, I wouldn't want to put a timescale on, on the end of that, because in a way, I fear that could lead to a greater injustice where people do miss out on the .
We will take a look at that. But a lot of money has gone out the door. And frankly, I wouldn't want to put a timescale on, on the end of that, because in a way, I fear that could lead to a greater injustice where people do miss out on the .
16:36
Liam Byrne
-
-
Liam Byrne
Compensation schemes. But a great deal of progress has been made. That is an answer we welcome. But nonetheless, when we look at the scheme, a scheme, for example, 573 claims received, offers made, 100. Total claims settled. 26. That's only 5% of the claims that have been filed have actually been settled. I mean, it's just we can't justify a situation where 1800 claims have still to be settled. Notwithstanding the progress that has been made, 1.7 billion paid out is a significant achievement over the course of the last couple of years. But we will not leave this .
16:37
16:37
16:37
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
As part of that. I mean, I recognise that's the one that perhaps has the the discrepancy between claims and offers made. But, you know, looking down, for instance, I think on the on the group. litigation order, there is just a handful of claims still to settle. Same is true of the horizons. conviction redress scheme. So I promise you, chair, I will keep all of these schemes under close review in order to do that. But where cases have yet to be settled, there does tend to be some very specific circumstances. And it is the applicant who we are thinking of, the claimant that we are thinking of, because I know there's been conversations about deadlines or, you know, when certain schemes should be closed.
I've always said, I fear .
I've always said, I fear .
16:38
16:38
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
Grief that applicants have gone through actually would be alleviated. We've shown a willingness, I've shown a willingness to adjust schemes, introduce new schemes, add awards that, you know, allow people to get redress in a in an expedited way if that's what they want, or go through a longer process, if they want a more significant detailed. assessment of their loss. We will always consider that, and we will always try and make this work as best it can.
recognising we will never be able to, you know, fully answer the. incredibly .
recognising we will never be able to, you know, fully answer the. incredibly .
16:38
Liam Byrne
-
-
Liam Byrne
Horrendous experience many people have had as a victim of this injustice. That is an issue to which we will return. Thank you very much indeed to both of you for the evidence that you've supplied this afternoon. That has been a wide ranging discussion. Very good luck in your new role, and we look forward to working closely with your department and offering you and your colleagues the .
16:39