Recall of Tumble Dryers

John Redwood Excerpts

Monday 17th June 2019 Commons Chamber

[Kelly Tolhurst]

I appreciate the hon. Gentleman’s concern, specifically for his constituency, given the desperately sad incident that occurred there. He is absolutely right to ask these questions and raise these concerns, as would be any consumer who believed they were at risk.

We carried out the review at the behest of my predecessor, my hon. Friend the Member for Burton (Andrew Griffiths), who ordered a review of the Whirlpool modification process in 2018. As the hon. Gentleman will know, the review looked at the effectiveness of the technical modification and the adequacy of the outreach programme. It concluded that the risk was low, and was further reduced by the modification. Following the review, we issued a 28-day notice letter to Whirlpool, specifying issues on which we wanted more information and assurances. We were unsatisfied by its response, which is why, on 4 June, we issued a letter of intent of notice of a recall.

Following conversations that I had with the hon. Gentleman last week, he wrote to me at the end of the week asking for a meeting. As I said to him last week, I should be more than happy to meet him to discuss any of his concerns about the ongoing process. My absolute intention is to ensure that we hold companies to account when we do not believe that they are carrying out their legal obligation, which is to place safe products on the market.

The hon. Gentleman is entirely right to be concerned about the future prevention of fires. I can tell him that, according to Home Office data, there were 224 fires caused by tumble dryers in 2017-18, a 10% reduction on the previous year’s figure of 808. We will obviously do all that is required to ensure that consumers are kept free of harm. We are following due process, in line with the regulations, in order to ensure that Whirlpool carries out its obligations.

I am more than happy to answer any further questions from the hon. Gentleman in detail as the process continues, and, as I have said, I am also more than happy to meet any colleague at any time.

[John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)]

Can the Minister give us some indication of how many machines the Government think are still out there which could be risky, in the light of the high incidence of fires that she has reported?

[Kelly Tolhurst]

In response to a query from Which?, Whirlpool said that 1.7 million cases had already been resolved. It estimates that another 500,000 machines are still in people’s homes.

British Steel: EU Emissions Trading Compliance

John Redwood Excerpts

Wednesday 1st May 2019 Commons Chamber

[Greg Clark]

Well, history is important in this because one of the reasons why our electricity prices have been high compared with others is that in the last five years of the previous Labour Government, industrial electricity prices rose by 64%. What we have done since then is provide £291 million in compensation for energy-intensive sectors, to correct some of the inflation that took place during that time.

As the hon. Lady knows and has acknowledged, my firm view is that in a world where manufacturing in this country and its opportunities around the world are undergoing a revival, there is absolutely no reason whatever why British Steel should not make a major contribution to that, right across the country. I am keen that we should conclude a sector deal with the steel sector. There have been important discussions. All sector deals require co-investment from the Government and the companies. No one is keener than I am to conclude one: as I hope is evident from my statement today, I am prepared to act in support of a sector that is important—not just for the economy, but for the towns across the country in whose lives it plays such a prominent role.

[John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)]

If the Government had kept their word and taken us out on 29 March without the withdrawal agreement but tabled a comprehensive free trade agreement, we would not be in this mess. What are the Government going to do to have a proper industrial strategy, which can work only if there are more adequate supplies of much cheaper power?

[Greg Clark]

What my right hon. Friend has said is not the case. Our legal obligations for 2018 would be there, and the company would have to comply. Had we left without a deal, the company would be in the position that it is in.

When it comes to the competitiveness of the UK steel sector, it is clear that the markets are international and, especially in the case of British Steel, very substantially across the continent of Europe. It has been very clear that we need to make sure that we continue to trade on terms at least as favourable as we do at the moment with the European Union, which is why both British Steel as a company and the steel sector have been absolutely clear, in terms, that we need to ratify an agreement such as has been proposed, and we need to do it very quickly.

Climate Action and Extinction Rebellion

John Redwood Excerpts

Tuesday 23rd April 2019 Commons Chamber

[Claire Perry]

In the right hon. Gentleman’s remarks we hear the passion that he has bought to this portfolio for many years, and I share that passion. Let me correct him: I do not disagree with the protests. I disagree with some of the methods, but certainly not with the message. As I have said to him before, I think that just a few years previously he and I would have been out there ourselves carrying placards.

Let me pick up on the challenges the right hon. Gentleman talked about. He is right to acknowledge that the Government were bold to ask for advice on a net zero economy—we are the first industrialised economy to do so. I will consider that advice carefully and proportionally and, crucially, I will work out how we are going to pay for it. He will know from his time in his climate change role that the Committee on Climate Change was unable to recommend a net zero target when previously we asked for that advice, because the committee did not believe it could be done cost-effectively or, indeed, that we had the technology. It is right that we give that work the focus that it requires.

The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to say that we need to take a whole-of-Government approach. I was really pleased to see the Chancellor stand up and make the first ever green financial statement, in which he brought forward some extremely ambitious programmes to ensure that from 2025 no new homes will be built in this country that rely on fossil-fuel heating.

The right hon. Gentleman asked about the declaration of a climate emergency. The thing is, I do not know what that would entail. I could stand here and say, “I believe there is a climate emergency,” and he could say that, too. Many of our local councils, including my own council in Wiltshire, have done that. The question is: what are we going to do about it? That is why we should be proud of the fact that we have the most detailed proposals for how we will hit our carbon budgets.

I will answer the right hon. Gentleman’s point about carbon budgets in a moment, but he needs to look, as I am sure he has, at what other Governments have done. It is the easiest thing in the world for a politician to stand up and say, “I’m going to do this and I’m going to set these targets,” knowing that they will be dead and buried before the targets have to be met. The responsible thing to do is to put in place legislation, as the right hon. Gentleman did, to bind every successive Minister who comes along to meet the budgets, or to explain why they are not met, and to hold every future Government’s feet to the fire—as he says, it often is a fire—in respect of how we deliver on our ambition.

The right hon. Gentleman made a point about carbon budgets. He will know that we are not woefully far off: we are at 95% and 93% of the way to being where we need to be to meet the budgets that end in seven and 12 years. And that is without even costing or calculating the carbon savings that we will have from the homes changes we have made. This is an ongoing process and we are absolutely committed to delivering.

I take the right hon. Gentleman’s point about citizens’ assemblies. The wonderful thing is that everybody can talk about this issue. A national conversation is now happening. We have to engage with citizens, businesses, politicians, local authorities, bill payers and taxpayers—with everybody—because there is not one single thing that will move the dial. We have to change everything, do it rapidly and do it in a way such that no future Government can wriggle out of their responsibilities.

[John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)]

In this policy area, it is most important that everything is based on the best possible science. I am sure we would all agree about that. What is the Government’s view on the likely changes in water-vapour levels and cloud cover, and on levels of solar radiation? Those are also important matters.

[Claire Perry]

My right hon. Friend is right. As a newly appointed fellow of the Royal Geographical Society—I had to get that in there—he will know that we have some of the best climate modelling in the world. The problem we have is that the planet is an unbelievably complicated ecosystem. We are finding some feedback loops that we did not even realise about: for example, what happens to the Thwaites glacier in Antarctica could have a meaningful impact on our sea levels immediately. We have the best scientific evidence base we have ever had. The 1.5° report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change was based on the best peer-reviewed science the world has ever seen. We have the message from our scientists; we must now continue to act.

Leaving the EU: Protection for Workers

John Redwood Excerpts

Wednesday 6th March 2019 Commons Chamber

[Greg Clark]

I warmly welcome the tone in which the hon. Lady has approached this issue. We have different preferences on what would be ideal, and I know that both the TUC and her own Front-Bench colleagues would prefer EU directives automatically to take their place in UK law and to be enforced through the European Court of Justice, as they are now. She knows that we disagree with her on that—in our view, it would not be consistent with leaving the European Union or with the sovereignty of this Parliament—but I accept that that is her position and that she has said that, notwithstanding that, we should explore whether we can meet her perfectly reasonable observations. I am grateful for that.

What we are publishing this afternoon are draft clauses that have not yet gone into the Bill. I am open to working with all Members of the House—of course, continuing to include the hon. Lady—to see which of the observations can be accommodated, subject to the general approach we wish to take. I think that she recognises, and I hope other Members will recognise, that this is an important opportunity. If we are to pass a withdrawal agreement and implementation Bill, the chance to have on the statute book from the outset—literally within the next few weeks, I hope—some important protections for workers is one that I think we should all take.

The hon. Lady asked some specific questions, of which I shall attempt to answer as many as I can. She observed, in effect, that future Governments and Parliaments may take a different view from that which we intend. As we know, it is a fact that no Parliament can bind its successor, but it can express a clear intention, set up a test and provide mechanisms against which proper scrutiny of any proposal can be mounted, and that is what we are doing. I acknowledge her right hon. and hon. Friends’ contribution to and, in fact, origination of this idea.

The hon. Lady is concerned that the statements that are provided for could be ignored and may not be as effective as she intends. The case law clearly establishes that if a statutory consultation is provided for, it cannot be lightly swept aside. There is a requirement properly to engage with the recommendations that come from such a consultation, but I hear what she said about that process being open to workers as well as to people who might represent them. We can talk more about that.

The hon. Lady asked about the application to future changes to workers’ rights that may come outside primary legislation. Clearly, the big changes come through primary legislation, but in the spirit of what I said earlier, I am certainly open to exploring what assurances we can give on other significant pieces of legislation that might be in scope.

The hon. Lady mentioned the jurisprudence of the ECJ. It would clearly be inappropriate after Brexit for the ECJ to have a remit in the UK, but of course, as she knows as a lawyer herself, any court can have regard to the decisions of any court that it considers to be relevant in the case being considered.

The hon. Lady mentioned enforcement, on which we strongly agree. There are industries—sometimes concentrated in particular places in the country—in which what she described is correct: a calculation is made that employers who abuse the rights of their workers are unlikely to be detected and enforced against, which leads them to think that they can get away with it with impunity. The intention behind the strengthened enforcement body that I described, and our intention in terms of resourcing it, is to firmly remove that idea from the mind of any such employer. I will work closely with the hon. Lady on that.

It is appropriate to recognise in the House and draw some pride from our record of employment rights. We have a successful labour market that combines a reputation for high standards—standards that have been recognised throughout the EU as being among the best in Europe—while having what is the most important right for workers, which is the right to work. Many more people in this country are able to work as a result of the effectiveness of our labour markets. We need to preserve that while giving expression to the objectives articulated by the hon. Lady’s colleagues, to make sure that the commitment we have given to build on that strength in future is something that is not just a matter of words but has parliamentary force behind it. I am grateful for what the hon. Lady said about working together.

[John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)]

I am assured that the Government and this Secretary of State want high standards of employment rules in this country, and I look forward to our having independence so that we can have our own domestically crafted high standards, which will be above the minimum EU standards, but will the Secretary of State please explain why he has proceeded with this statement? I thought its sole aim was to win over the Labour party, but it seems Labour is in complete disagreement with it.

[Greg Clark]

I was very much influenced by the exchange between my right hon. Friend and the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann) when the latter spoke to his amendment in January. As I recall, my right hon. Friend correctly intervened on the hon. Gentleman to reinforce his personal commitment to establishing and maintaining Britain as a place of voluntarily high standards. Because that represents a point of agreement in the House and is a reflection of our traditions—our reputation is as place of high standards, thanks to the accretion of steps taken by Governments of both parties—I think this is an opportunity to work together to see whether we can establish something that is rooted in the sovereignty of this House, which my right hon. Friend quite rightly insists on, but also provides assurance to those who want to see measures as well as words.

Exiting the European Union (Structural and Investment Funds)

John Redwood Excerpts

Tuesday 19th February 2019 Commons Chamber

[Richard Harrington]

I totally agree with everything my hon. Friend said, other than not asking my views were on no deal. I think he knows those, and I hope most people in the House do.

[John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)]

Will my hon. Friend just tell us what the dispute resolution procedure is?

[Richard Harrington]

If my right hon. Friend would bear with me, I will address that later in my remarks—I thought he was going to ask me the same question.

This instrument includes a transitional provision that enables the guarantee to be paid out to bodies involved in a European territorial co-operation programme. The power to fund beneficiaries of cross-border programmes currently comes from European law, and therefore needs to be continued in domestic law through this instrument to protect beneficiaries in a no-deal situation. That will enable the United Kingdom to continue to participate in cross-border European territorial co-operation programmes involving Northern Ireland, Ireland, and Scotland. Those programmes, known as Peace and Interreg V-A, support peace and reconciliation on the island of Ireland.

The EU has made special provisions to enable the United Kingdom to continue in both Peace and Interreg V-A in a no-deal situation, if the United Kingdom continues to pay for its share of those programmes. The transitional powers in this instrument enable the United Kingdom to make such payments to the EU to enable our continued participation in the event of a no-deal. That is consistent with our general commitments to Peace and Interreg V-A. In this arrangement, the European regulations do not need to be retained. The United Kingdom will sign an agreement with the EU to ensure that programme beneficiaries continue to follow relevant rules. The transitional provision to pay the guarantee to European territorial co-operation beneficiaries also ensures that beneficiaries of cross-border programmes other than Peace and Interreg V-A can be paid sums from the guarantee. Specifically, this provision gives Her Majesty’s Government and the devolved Administrations the appropriate powers to ensure that UK partners of such cross-border projects can receive the guarantee through domestic arrangements, to safeguard for all possible no-deal scenarios.

Among such scenarios, the House should note that in a no deal, without further changes to the European Commission’s regulations, UK organisations would be unable to continue in the majority of European territorial co-operation programmes, other than Peace and Interreg V-A, as they would not have third country access to the programmes. This instrument is designed to enable UK partners to access funding in such a scenario. The EU has published a no-deal regulation that would allow the UK to continue participating in EU programmes in the event of no deal until December 2019. However, that would depend on the UK agreeing to continue to contribute to the 2019 budget as if we were a member state. This proposal is subsidiary and without prejudice to the EU’s specific proposal on Peace and Interreg V-A. The Government are currently analysing the Commission’s proposal, but hon. Members should rest assured that this instrument will allow the guarantee on European territorial co-operation programmes to be distributed in any scenario.

Without this statutory instrument, delivery Departments would not have the powers to pay out the guarantee to beneficiaries of European territorial co-operation programmes.

Without legislation, the United Kingdom would not be able to pay for its share of the Peace and Interreg V-A programmes involving Northern Ireland. That would mean we could not take part in these two important programmes, and current beneficiaries of those programmes would be at financial risk.

I mentioned briefly the separate legal provision being made by the EU for the UK to continue to participate in the Peace and Interreg V-A programmes. That provision is intended to enable continued access to the programmes in the event of no-deal, but it does not resolve the problem of payment powers. That is why we need both the EU regulation and this statutory instrument to safeguard these programmes and to ensure the continuation of their benefits.

[John Redwood]

Before the Minister moves on from the money, will he explain how the money would be calculated, and whether we would have to make a contribution to the administration costs or just to the actual costs of the programme?

[Richard Harrington]

If I may, Mr Speaker, I will use this opportunity to answer my right hon. Friend’s earlier question about the dispute resolution. Any disputes in relation to how funding is spent are dealt with through the audit and default functions and the provisions set out in the existing funding agreements. As for his second question, I will have to give the matter some thought, as I must confess I do not know the answer. If I do not think of it in the next half an hour or so, I will certainly write to him with the answer on that. My memory is quite good and usually things come back in due course, as I know they do to you, Mr Speaker.

I mentioned that the EU is making separate legal provision for us to continue to participate in the Peace and Interreg V-A programmes. That provision is intended to enable continued access to the programmes in the event of no deal, but it does not resolve the problem of payment powers, which is why we need both the EU regulation and this statutory instrument to safeguard those programmes and to ensure the continuation of their benefits. Not having this instrument in force by exit would also prevent the Government and our devolved Administrations from paying out the guarantee to UK partners of other territorial co-operation programmes, risking their financial viability.

Nissan in Sunderland

John Redwood Excerpts

Monday 4th February 2019 Commons Chamber

[Greg Clark]

First, let me remind the hon. Gentleman that a greater amount of financial investment is going into Sunderland than was anticipated in 2016; this is a long-term commitment that has been made by the firm. He should welcome that and reflect that the future jobs of those employed in Sunderland have been secured by that investment in the Qashqai. That is a welcome factor.

The hon. Gentleman is right to point out that the company has expressed an urgent concern that we should resolve the question of Brexit, but he is wrong to say that the deal the Prime Minister has negotiated does not command the positive confidence of the industry. I have talked about Nissan, but let me mention the head of Ford in Europe, who said:

“It’s important that we get the agreement ratified that’s on the table at the moment”.

The chief executive of Aston Martin has said that it is “obvious” that the deal that we see

“meets the needs of all the requests we put forward as an industry and as Aston Martin.”

Toyota has said that it welcomes the announced deal, which

“would provide business with the certainty of a transition period and help avoid the significant production disruption a ‘No Deal’ outcome would have for ‘Just in Time’ supply chains in the automotive industry.”

I share the hon. Gentleman’s view that we should bring the uncertainty to an end, but the only way to do that is by backing a deal, and I commend to him the deal that has the support of every one of the employers in the automotive sector that I have quoted to him today.

[John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)]

The big increase in vehicle excise duties, the squeeze on new car loans, and the general tax and regulatory attack on new low-emission diesels has had a predictable effect, in greatly reducing the demand for and sales of new diesel cars in the UK. Will the Government reconsider these damaging policies, given the strong bias in our industry to produce those Euro 6 diesels?

[Greg Clark]

I say to my right hon. Friend that, in fact, the extra investment is going into new Powertrains—cleaner Powertrains. Far from being critics of this, Nissan, as people who know the industry well know, is among the principal advocates for more ambitious environmental standards and has been a pioneer in establishing electric vehicles in this country. It is recognising that that is the way consumer demand is going, but it recognises that this is a positive step.

Nuclear Power: Toshiba

John Redwood Excerpts

Monday 12th November 2018 Commons Chamber

[Greg Clark]

I am grateful for the comments from the Chair of the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee. She will know that it is only very recently that it has been possible to invest in new nuclear. The Labour Government she supported had no future new nuclear build programme. She will know from her visits to Sellafield and other nuclear installations that we are taking forward the recommendations of the Public Accounts Committee, including at Wylfa in north Wales, to look, where we do have a counterparty with which we can negotiate, at new financial models, and it is right that we should do so. However, as the hon. Lady would expect, that depends on being able to demonstrate value for money for bill payers and taxpayers.

[John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)]

How likely is it that the Secretary of State will find an alternative developer for a nuclear project in Cumbria? If we do not, how will we generate the power we are missing?

[Greg Clark]

We have a substantial pipeline of new energy projects, as a number of hon. Members have made clear. When it comes to the Moorside site in Cumbria, it was always available to developers to leave it. It will now revert to the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority. It will be open to developers to come forward to make proposals. However, whether with nuclear or other sources of clean power, we have a substantial pipeline of new projects coming forward to add to our energy supplies.

Domestic Gas and Electricity (Tariff Cap) Bill

John Redwood Excerpts

Wednesday 18th July 2018 Commons Chamber

[Claire Perry]

I strongly believe in competitive, well-regulated free markets. Indeed, in this market there are now more than 60 energy suppliers, all bidding for our business. I have recently switched again to a company that appears to be offering a very good green tariff. However, the problem, and the reason for the Bill, is that there is a very large group of customers who are sticky—who stay on expensive standard variable and default tariffs because they do not know how to switch, or they are not aware that they can. We can all think of grandparents, parents and others who fall into that category—it also includes young people who are renting accommodation—and they tend to be the furthest from the white heat of the switching market.

Understanding what the Bill does to the economic conditions in the market is, of course, an important part of Ofgem’s role. To go back to the original CMA report, however, we also know that the current pricing practices result in £1.3 billion of what it described as “excessive” returns, and we expect that number to come down. If you will indulge me, Madam Deputy Speaker, I wanted to make sure that the House was aware of that.

It is important that we have a level playing field for companies in the market. I have received representations stating that the customer accounts threshold for offering warm home discounts and ECO should be dropped to ensure that more companies can offer them to customers. We introduced legislation recently to reduce that threshold from 200,000 to 150,000, in increments of 50,000. Customers in receipt of warm home discounts will have a lower chance of losing them if they switch.[Official Report, 4 September 2018, Vol. 646, c. 2MC]

I hope the House agrees that amendment (a) is the most appropriate response to the concerns that have been raised, and that it will be welcomed by Members in this place and the other place. I hope that we will be able to move swiftly on this issue and keep our remarkable outbreak of cross-party consensus going, because I think the Bill is an absolutely vital piece of legislation.

[John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)]

Can the Minister give us some indication of the kind of saving we that we could expect from the managed market, as a result of the amendment, compared with where we are at the moment?

[Claire Perry]

I do not know whether my right hon. Friend is referring to the per-household saving. We have been quite careful not to talk about that, because although we can understand that a total maximum excessive disbenefit of £1.3 billion is created by current pricing practices, how much of that is saved and passed on to consumers will depend on all sorts of things, including changes in the wholesale market and the efficiency of companies. I can reassure him, though, that the absolute price cap that was brought in to protect customers on pre-payment meters and those classified as vulnerable has led to savings of about £60 per household since it was introduced. Of course, prices go up, but customers are still better off than they would have been. Our expectation is that both overall and per household, consumers will see bills lower than they would otherwise have been.

Leaving the EU: Airbus Risk Assessment

John Redwood Excerpts

Monday 25th June 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Given that there is a further urgent question to come, thereafter to be followed by a ministerial statement and subsequently a debate on the Heathrow motion, which I can tell colleagues is extremely heavily subscribed, the Chair’s accommodation of the extensive interest in this matter will require brevity from Back and Front Benchers alike—to be demonstrated in the first instance by a co-author of the short questions textbook, Mr John Redwood.

[John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)]

Does not Boeing’s decision to make a major manufacturing investment in this country show that a complex supply chain can be run with a lot coming in from outside the EU perfectly well and give the lie to the idea that we will not be able to supply the wings to Airbus?

[Greg Clark]

I want Britain to be the best place in the world to produce advanced manufacturing products, and that means we should be tenacious in looking at every way to make the supply chain competitive. Given that our parts go backwards and forwards between the UK and the continent, if we can avoid frictions, as I am certain we can, that enhances our ability to compete, which is to the advantage of Boeing as well as any other company in the industry.

Energy Policy

John Redwood Excerpts

Monday 25th June 2018 Commons Chamber

[Greg Clark]

The hon. Gentleman represents a country that has prospered from the development of the offshore wind industry. The truth is that if a decision had been taken to subsidise this proposal, that money would have come out of the budget for offshore wind, which would have led to job losses in Scotland and elsewhere around the United Kingdom. He mentions a proposed subsidy. The truth is that if a project that is not viable is subsidised by the taxpayer, it is simply a taxpayer-subsidised unviable project. That is no basis on which a project can be approved.

The hon. Gentleman refers to the nuclear power programme. If he regards the price agreed for the power from Hinkley Point C as too high, that is all the more reason for him to oppose this proposal, because it is so much costlier. He must accept that there is a responsibility for the use of consumers’ and taxpayers’ money that comes with being in office. When a proposal is so out of kilter with what can offer value for money, the necessary decision must be made, and he should respect that.

[John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)]

I accept that, on the Secretary of State’s figures, this would be a very bad investment, but can he tell us about the amortisation period of the investment? Surely a barrage will last a lot longer than, say, a wind farm. Will he explain why his advisers think that the project would generate so little power on a not very reliable basis, given the reliability of the tides?

[Greg Clark]

My right hon. Friend is correct to point to the amortisation. As someone who has spent a career in finance, he is aware that in discounting the value of earnings in future generations, the great majority of the value is in the earlier years, and that has been the standard basis of the assessment made. What has not been taken into account is the prospective decommissioning cost of the proposed lagoon, which has been estimated at £1 billion. That has not been included in the analysis, but it would be a further liability for the taxpayer.