De La Rue: Gateshead

Lord Beamish Excerpts

Thursday 25th June 2020 Commons Chamber

[Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend and parliamentary neighbour the Member for Blaydon (Liz Twist) on securing this debate. As she eloquently said in her speech, the workers from the site come from across the north-east, and I have quite a number in my constituency.

People might say, “Well, 255 is a small number.” No, it is not, because of the type of jobs that we are talking about. They are high-quality, well-paid jobs. The individuals who work there have worked there for many years, in some cases. They have dedicated their lives to producing top-quality banknotes, and latterly passports. It is quite ironic that, in terms of withdrawing from the European Union, the Government said much about how great it was that we were going to get the blue passports back—although when I look at them, they seem more black than blue—but we then find that they are going to be printed abroad.

In the past few days, people have been saying that the reason the Government have done this is European procurement processes. That is complete nonsense, because no other European country has done this. They have, quite rightly, seen the integrity of the passport system as critical national infrastructure and as part of their key manufacturing capability. That is what should have happened with this contract. I share some of my hon. Friend’s concerns about some of the management at De La Rue over the years.

In the north-east, we are going through dark times at the moment with the pandemic. I spoke about that in the previous debate. Unfortunately it is going to get a lot worse, not only in terms of the pandemic affecting the north-east and the higher rates of mortality than in other areas, but the massive economic impact. So this is a further blow to the north-east economy. We should be looking at this decision and seeing how we can reverse it. In the coming months and years, the Government have to step in and direct contracts and support to those regions such as the north-east that need that support. Without that, we will be in a situation where, as I said in the previous debate, we will return to the dark days of the 1980s in the north-east, where unemployment will be at record levels and the lost generation that we saw in the ’80s will be repeated again. We cannot afford to do that.

These are high-quality and very sought-after jobs. Anybody who works there will say that they are proud of working for De La Rue, because the jobs are not only well paid but highly skilled, and the terms and conditions are good. We do not lose those types of jobs in the north-east easily—they will not be easily replaced. I hear a lot from the Prime Minister about levelling up and investment in the regions. Well, he could do something about that now by reversing the decision on the passports. The north-east went through a terrible time in the 1980s and ’90s. We have turned the corner in some areas, but we are not going to do it in this current climate without some direct Government support.

It saddened me this week, for example, when I learned of the Government’s decision to award the vaccines manufacturing and innovation centre to Oxford. Why Oxford? My right hon. Friend the Member for Warley (John Spellar) asked where the other potential site was. It was in the north-east. So where the Government can actually help the north-east, they are clearly still not doing it. This has to be changed. We cannot have a situation whereby jobs are going to be lost, but also what should be retained in the UK in terms of manufacturing should be retained in the north-east. This was a Government decision—they cannot get away from that fact—and it needs revisiting. Without that, the Government have to step in somehow to ensure that the types of jobs that are being lost are going to be replaced.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Kevan Jones]

There were two shortlisted sites, according to the response given to my right hon. Friend the Member for Warley (John Spellar): Oxford and the north-east. If the Minister really wants to level up and actually put investment into the north-east, why did not he not insist on putting it in the north-east?

[Nadhim Zahawi]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. The VMIC project had already been awarded and was already happening. All I did was bring it forward by 12 months so we can have it ready by summer next year, not the year after. But I am grateful for his passion and for quite rightly holding the Government to account on what we will do in the north-east, which is also a key region for developing offshore and renewable energy technology.

We are committed to ensuring that Tyneside and the north-east remain a key manufacturing development hub. The right hon. Gentleman speaks of life sciences development. Of the £3.4 billion that the Government have committed to growth deals across the northern powerhouse, £379.6 million—almost £380 million—has been allocated to the North East local enterprise partnership area. I am pleased to say that Gateshead has benefited directly from that investment, including just under £1 million for PROTO, a state-of-the-art research and development facility for emerging digital technologies, and £5 million for the development of a new 12,500-seat arena, conference and exhibition centre on a 10-acre site at Gateshead Quays.

I would like to acknowledge the work done by the North East local enterprise partnership. Skills, employment and economic inclusion are at the heart of the North East local enterprise partnership’s strategic economic plan, which was refreshed in 2019.

Nissan in Sunderland

Lord Beamish Excerpts

Monday 4th February 2019 Commons Chamber

[Greg Clark]

In my statement I mentioned the Faraday challenge, which we established as part of the industrial strategy. Not only is there a quarter of a billion pounds to fund the latest research on the future of batteries, but we have established in the west midlands the national battery manufacturing centre to make sure that we not only invent the technology but deploy it. We have a reputation as one of the places in the world with the greatest prospects for the new types of propulsion that the industry is moving to rapidly. Nissan is of course one of the prime exponents of that and one of the prime beneficiaries.

[Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)]

Many of my North Durham constituents work at Nissan or in the supply chain and were very disappointed by the announcement at the weekend. Will the Secretary of State refute the allegation in yesterday’s Sunday papers that because of this decision the Government will somehow penalise Nissan in respect of future Government grants? Also, will he be an advocate for the clean diesel engine? That would help not only Nissan, but the entire UK motor industry.

[Greg Clark]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for what he said, and I can certainly refute that. He knows that I have given particular attention to the expansion of prospects for the automotive industry, including by establishing the programme for battery technology and connected and autonomous vehicles. I travel the world to make the case for Britain as the home of the vehicles of the future. Of course, Nissan is a hugely valued investor, employer and innovator in this country, and we will work closely with it in future.

On clean diesel, I have said to Members from all parties that the country will undergo a transition to fully electric and zero-emission vehicles, and a new-generation clean diesel is a perfectly reasonable choice for people to make, especially those who, for example, use it regularly for long journeys. People should be clear about that.

Good Work Plan

Lord Beamish Excerpts

Monday 17th December 2018 Commons Chamber

[Greg Clark]

Obviously, we keep the standards that we have under constant review. The appointing of a group, under Matthew Taylor’s chairmanship, to consider all aspects of our labour markets and regulation was an open and transparent way to proceed. We are acting on almost every one of his recommendations. They are substantial reforms. I stand by them and I am proud of them.

[Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)]

It is important to have employment rights, but I would argue that an individual’s ability actually to enact those rights is equally important. The Secretary of State said in his statement that he would

“give all workers a right to request a more predictable contract, and address the obstacles employees can face in building up continuous service.”

My hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson) just mentioned the increase to two years in the length of time required to get full employment rights. How would someone get their rights enacted if they did not have the two years of service? It is clear that in the real world people will just be sacked if they ask for their rights and have less than two years of employment.

[Greg Clark]

Part of the point of making it a statutory requirement that employers should entertain a request for a more permanent contract is to prevent precisely that kind of abuse. That would be unlawful under the proposals.

Budget Resolutions

Lord Beamish Excerpts

Wednesday 31st October 2018 Commons Chamber

[Chi Onwurah]

My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. All our constituents have had to suffer cuts to services, so for the Secretary of State to say that austerity is over is an insult to our intelligence.

[Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)]

Like Liverpool, Durham County Council has lost nearly half its budget since 2010, and the cuts are still going on. This Budget contained no change to next year’s cuts in revenue support grant, so another £40 million will be taken out of the council’s budget.

[Chi Onwurah]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The services that make such a difference to our constituents’ daily lives face increased cuts, which is why our constituents know that austerity is not ending under this Government.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chi Onwurah]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. He could give a lesson in basic economics to most Conservative Members.

[Mr Kevan Jones]

Is it not a fact that debt was 43% of GDP when Labour came to office in 1997 and went down to 40% by 2006? That was down to good management of the economy before the crash. Through those years, the Conservative party was not just agreeing to our spending commitments, but asking for more expenditure, so we will have no lessons from the Tory party about reckless spending.

[Chi Onwurah]

Absolutely. The Conservative party initiated and promoted the reckless deregulation of our financial sector, which contributed significantly to the financial crisis, and then failed to manage the economy in such a way as to ensure sustained, significant growth. Under this Government, we have had half the historical level of growth.

The prognosis for growth is reflected in business investment, which is the lowest in the G7. We are the only major economy in which investment is falling. Our productivity is 15% lower than in other major economies, and it has not grown this slowly since the Napoleonic wars—there is an achievement. The average real wage growth since the second world war is 2.4% a year, but under the Conservatives, pay has fallen by 3% and the UK remains the most regionally unequal country in Europe.

We needed a big Budget to rebalance our economy and to provide the industrial strategy with the backing it needs to address the serious problems, but the Budget is deeply disappointing. We got an arbitrary announcement of more funding for the national productivity investment fund, but that will be in 2023, with no information on where the money will be allocated.

On research and development, we had another repackaging of money that was announced last year dressed up as additional funding when, in fact, of the £1.6 billion cited by the Government only £180 million, barely 10%, is new. Although we are pleased that there has been a marked increase in R&D expenditure, there is still no overarching strategy for its direction or for how the Government intend to meet their target of spending 2.4% of GDP on R&D. We are a world leader in science, but, let us be clear, the Government’s 2.4% target is average when it comes to R&D spend. Labour’s target is 3% to become one of the leading nations in R&D spend.

What little information there was in the Budget again focused on sexy high-tech areas like nuclear fusion and quantum mechanics. As an engineer, I understand the desire of the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State to be associated with sexy technologies, and it is of course a vital part of our industrial strategy to support the industries of the future, but the Secretary of State has repeatedly failed to recognise that supporting our biggest sectors to improve their productivity through technology and investment is so important.

Retail is one of the biggest employers outside the public sector, and it is facing a unique crisis. Over 100,000 jobs have been lost in the past three years, and over 25,000 shops stand empty. High streets are the centre of communities, and they should and can continue to be vibrant spaces of which communities are proud, but to achieve that we need proactive policies from the Government, as Labour have been demanding for months.

The Secretary of State has been a bit cheeky and stolen a number of Labour’s policies in this area. A register of empty properties, an adjustment to business rates and a high street taskforce were just some of the policy proposals in the conference speech of my hon. Friend the shadow Secretary of State. It would be churlish of me to demand our policies back, but that is where the consensus ends.

The Government’s overall package, “Our Plan for the High Street,” simply does not do enough. Business rates relief would not have saved a single House of Fraser or Debenhams—the vast majority of retail workers are employed in such shops. The British Retail Consortium has said that the Government

“must engage in more extensive business rates reform to help all retailers and their employees through this period of transformation.”

The CBI responded:

“Smaller businesses will be relieved by the support on Business Rates… But larger retailers and manufactures—and the millions they employ across the UK—will continue to suffer needlessly until there is a full, in-depth review.”

Yet the Budget contained no commitment to a review of business rates.

The future high streets fund is yet another fund allocated out of the national productivity investment fund, and there are no details of where the money will be targeted, who will be responsible for administering it or how quickly funds will be made available. The proposals for planning reform have missed the point. It seems that the Government’s idea to save our high streets is to turn them into non-high streets. Frankly, much more work is needed if we are to protect our high streets and the millions of workers who rely on them.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Davis]

Shadow Secretary of State, yes. I do not think my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State requires any help in recovery. He is a formidable champion for business, as I know, sometimes to my cost, from my old job. He has been a brilliant exponent and driver of the enabling of the modernisation of the British industrial estate. I wish to pick up on one point made by the hon. Lady. She talked about the treatment of employees, the so-called “gig economy” and so on. My right hon. Friend was the one who brought us the Matthew Taylor report, with all of its innovative ideas to improve the protection of employees in our country and at the same time not destroy the jobs that they enjoy. That is pretty formidable in its own right, so I commend my right hon. Friend for that, although I do not intend to take us down that route today.

I have only three quick points to make. I shall be brisk and I probably will not take any interventions. Traditionally, the Budget is dominated by the technical metrics of growth rates, inflation rates, taxation, deficits, debt levels and spending. All those things are incredibly important issues. Indeed, one reason why it would be a disaster to have a Labour Government is that they would ignore all those things and deliver us into national bankruptcy, with the economic crisis and the social crisis that would follow. What is important is to understand that a Conservative Government do take all those things seriously, as they are the box in which we deliver the Budget. The Budget is about improving people’s lives and delivering the best outcome for our nation. As Conservatives, we believe in a narrative of a property owning democracy encompassing opportunity, personal responsibility, economic freedom, fairness and social mobility. For most of my colleagues, our view of the right sort of society for us is one where there is no limit to which anyone might rise and a limit beneath which no person may fall.

With that, I want to measure this Budget against the aspirations of our citizens: does it meet their aspirations to have a good university education; to get a job and build a meaningful career; to buy a home and raise a family? Those are aspirations that everyone shares, across the House and across the nation—we share them with all our constituents. Everyone should have the opportunity to pursue them.

All political parties talk a good story when they are trying to persuade people that they are on their side, but it is what Governments do, not what they say, that matters to the people. Nowhere is that more true than in the Budget; the language of public finance is the language of priorities, which is why this is so important. Starting with the definition of a decent society, both the ladder of opportunity and the social safety net are determined for the least well-off by the benefits system—by the welfare system. That is the key that underpins the opportunities and security for all the least well-off.

For decades, the British welfare system has been a nightmare of complexity in which hard work was in effect penalised, sometimes to the point of it being not worth while at all from an economic point of view, although work is always worth while from a moral point of view. The coalition Government started the necessary reform by introducing the universal credit system. Much has been said about it—it has been controversial—but the whole system is a significant step in the right direction.

The tax credits and benefits system introduced by Gordon Brown all too often trapped people in a cycle of dependency, which was not unforeseeable. I was the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee when he introduced that system, which he copied from a system in America that was already failing, and it was clear what was going to happen. Many people who made the effort to go out and find work faced an effective tax and withdrawal rate of up to 95%.

A benefit system should seek to aid people’s return to work, not trap them in unemployment. Universal credit seeks to correct that problem by helping more people into work and enabling them to keep more of what they earn, but it absolutely has to be properly funded. I therefore welcome the most important part of the Chancellor’s Budget: his announcement on universal credit. We must make sure that those in most need, including single parents—those who know me will know that single parents are of particular importance to me—couples without children, and those who should not be economically dependent on their partners, are not left wanting by subsequent changes. Universal credit will need further funding beyond what is promised in the Budget, and I shall certainly watch out for that. Nevertheless, the Chancellor has taken excellent action, for which I commend him.

The next most important way to help people make the most of their lives is through education and training, which the Secretary of State has been a great exponent of in his role. However, today, the cost of getting a university education, plus the confusion around financing, act as a disincentive to getting one. I am afraid the policy on student loans has failed. Almost half the loans will never be repaid. They are a falsehood in the national accounts. Crucially, the loans system has failed to deliver a market in university education—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Jonathan Reynolds) should not be smiling: Labour basically invented the system and created the problems that I am about to talk about.

The loans system has failed to deliver a market in university education, with the least valuable courses at the worst universities costing precisely the same as the most valuable course at the most prestigious university. That is not a market. At least some of the money has gone not into world-class research but into overpaying some pretty second-rate vice-chancellors. The whole system needs to be revamped and turned into a proper graduate-contribution system with honest accounting, clear rules and no retrospective changes to the interest rates or other terms. In the long run, we should move away from loans all together; that would have a liberating psychological impact on young people.

[Mr Kevan Jones]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr Davis]

No, I will not give way on this issue.

[Mr Jones]

I wonder why.

[Mr Davis]

I will tell the right hon. Gentleman why I will not give way: because he was part of the Government who invented the system that created this crisis in the first place.

We need to do more on housing, which is an issue of utmost importance. Home ownership levels are plummeting, and many young people believe that they will never have a home to call their own. As a party of aspiration, we must do better. Help to Buy is failing: it is not increasing the supply of housing; rather, it is increasing the cost of new homes by 15% and inflating developers’ bonuses. It should be scrapped immediately. We need to increase the supply of new homes dramatically and to make those homes attractive and affordable. Perhaps the best idea that is being mooted—forgive me if I go off piste for a second, Mr Speaker—is that of garden towns, garden cities and garden villages. Garden villages of between 1,500 and 5,000 houses will be big enough to justify schools, shopping centres, buses and so on.

The landowners where such developments are created make spectacular windfall gains—in the south of England, they make as much as £1 million an acre—which is where the Treasury comes in. There is no reason why half of such gains should not be funnelled in a way that reduces the final price of the house. That way, when we create affordable housing, it will be proper affordable housing, of a decent size—it will not be a little box, a progressively shrinking option. That is how we will get the affordable houses that we need. However we do it, we in the Conservative party have to grasp this problem and solve it. This party has for more than 50 years been the party of the home owning democracy. We need once more to make home ownership available to a whole new generation.

Since the Gordon Brown crash—I was going to call it the 2008 crash—we have heard a lot about the threats to capitalism, which are of course real in, for example, the personality of the Leader of the Opposition. The simple truth is that free markets, free trade, property ownership and social mobility have delivered improvements to the lives of billions around the world. Capitalism has taken people not just in Britain but around the world out of poverty and given them a future. The best defence of capitalism in this country is to deliver those benefits to a new generation of young people. Britain is an aspirational country and we are an aspirational party; we need to deliver on that.

The first step is the economy’s fantastic jobs performance. The Opposition never like to speak about the fact that we have the lowest unemployment in my adult lifetime and the highest employment ever in this country. That is a remarkable achievement given the mess we were given when we came into office. The right hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) intervened on the shadow Minister earlier to say that when Labour came into power in ’97, the debt was such and such, and so on. When Labour came into power in ’97, the chief economic adviser to the then Prime Minister Tony Blair said publicly, “This is the best economy any Government have ever inherited”—

[Mr Kevan Jones]

rose—

[Mr Davis]

No, I am not giving way; I am coming to the end of my speech.

We have never, ever inherited such an economy from any Labour Government in history, and there is a good reason why that is the case.

[Mr Jones]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I do not want to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman’s leadership speech, but this is supposed to be a debate. He referred to something that I said earlier in the debate and would not let me come back on it. Is that in order?

[Mr Speaker]

I do not think the Chair is the arbiter of normality. Sometimes the Member on his or her feet gives way, and other times not. The right hon. Gentleman is experienced enough in this House to know that. He has registered his mild irritation, but the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis) has adhered to the rules today, as on previous occasions.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)]

The Prime Minister said in her conference speech that this was the end of austerity. The Chancellor had an opportunity on Monday to make that a reality, but it did not happen.

The Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy relied on the usual Conservative mantra, which is that austerity is all Labour’s fault. I remind Conservative Members that up until 2007, they did not complain about our spending; they said that they would match it. In some areas, they wanted more expenditure. They wanted less regulation of banks, not more. If we had done what the Conservatives suggested we did with the banks when they crashed, we would be in a worse state now. My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North East (Mr Sweeney) is correct: the economy was growing in 2010. It was the reckless emergency Budget in 2010 by the incoming coalition Government that crashed the economy, and it is that austerity we are suffering from now.

The Secretary of State said that Labour is anti-business. I am not anti-business. Business is very important for my constituents and the health of the economy, but strong local government and strong communities are also important for that. The Government have a role in ensuring that we have economic prosperity.

As my right hon. Friend the Member for Delyn (David Hanson) said, austerity clearly has not finished in the Home Office, and it has not finished in local government. The one-off proposals show that Durham County Council, which has lost £200 million in grant over the past eight years, will lose another £14 million next year, because the revenue support grant has not been changed. There is no change—communities and councils up and down the country will still face austerity, so the idea that austerity has somehow finished in this country is complete nonsense.

On strong local communities, I welcome the commitment in the Budget to £2 billion for mental health, but the Government have got it wrong, because the investment needs to go into local community services. We do not want people to get to A&E. It is great having a psychiatric nurse or professional in A&E, but we have failed if people get there in the first place. Likewise, I welcome the proposal to put mental health workers in schools, but many of the young people we are talking about do not attend school. We need investment in local communities’ support network.

We must also ensure that we have the mental health professionals in place, because there is a crisis with them that we need to address. That is where the money needs to go. We need to hardwire mental health into Government policy making and not have this ridiculous situation where policies such as cuts to local authorities and universal credit lead to a mental health crisis. We need to address the core problem, and this Budget is not doing it.

I want to briefly touch on defence, which Members will know is another one of my interests. Great play has been made of the extra £1 billion for defence, but we must remember that in the past eight years, the coalition and Conservative Governments have cut 16% of the defence budget. I asked yesterday what the extra £1 billion will be spent on, but the Government cannot say. I suspect that it is not new money, but rather drawdown from the money already committed for the nuclear deterrent, so this will not be a bonanza for defence and will not meet the £20 billion black hole in the defence budget.

Likewise, I welcome the fact that the Chancellor announced £10 million for the Armed Forces Covenant Fund Trust to support veterans’ mental health, but is that new money or existing money? If we look at the covenant report, there is already £10 million in that budget annually. If there is an extra £10 million, that is good, but we do not need a sticking plaster. We need to mainstream veterans’ mental health in the health service and do what I suggested in 2010, which is to ensure that we have veterans’ tracking in the health service. We announced that in 2010, and the first thing the coalition Government did was to stop it and not replace it.

This Budget is a missed opportunity. Communities are going to suffer, and if we get what we have had from this Conservative Government in the past few years, even where there is extra money, it will be doled out like a pork barrel to areas that support the Conservatives. Other areas that they do not really care about will get nothing. We only need to look at the north-east to see that that strategy is continuing with this Budget, and it is an absolute disgrace.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Robert Jenrick)]

This Budget demonstrates yet again that careful stewardship of the economy and meeting serious challenges in a serious way, thereby creating an environment for wealth creators to succeed, is always the right course. Now, the hard work of the British people is paying off. We see that in the record numbers in employment, with 3 million more jobs since 2010. We see it in rising real wages, with the fastest rises in real pay among the lowest paid in society. Above all, we see it in our strengthening public finances.

We see in the Budget how a stronger economy enables us to support the NHS, which will receive, as my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Vicky Ford) said, that record-breaking £20.5 billion real-terms per-year increase. Furthermore, a stronger economy has enabled us to cut taxes and to freeze the important duties—whether on fuel, spirits or beer—so that millions of people throughout the country can enjoy more of the money that they have earned. Those achievements did not fall into the Government’s lap—apologies to the Chief Secretary—they were hard won by the people of this country, and we will not be complacent. This is an optimistic, future-facing Budget, and a Budget for economic growth.

Having listened to much of the past three days of Budget debate, I could summarise the contributions from Opposition Members as wanting more spending and higher taxes. With some notable exceptions, they have had very little to say about how we grow the economy and create wealth. When asked recently, the shadow Chancellor, the right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell), could not name a single businessperson whom he admired. We on the Government Benches understand that behind every business is a story worth knowing—that cafés and gyms and restaurants do not come out of nowhere. We respect and admire these people, and this Budget is for them.

The Federation of Small Businesses, the CBI, the retailers, the convenience stores, the pubs, the oil and gas industry that supports so many thousands of jobs in north-east Scotland, and the manufacturing groups such as the EEF all support the Budget. Of course there are challenges. Of course we are in a moment of high uncertainty as we enter a pivotal stage in the Brexit negotiations, but each of those groups—and more—that I have spoken to since the Chancellor sat down believed that we were listening to them and acting. We are delivering for businesses and job creation throughout the country.

As my right hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Sir Michael Fallon) argued at the beginning of the debate, the Budget recognises that the UK has to pay its way in the world. It must be an attractive place for people to invest. To ensure that it is, we have cut corporation tax from 28% to 19%, and receipts have risen by 55%. We have reaffirmed the incentives for entrepreneurs that are attractive for people—including those in the constituency of the hon. Member for Hampstead and Kilburn (Tulip Siddiq)—who come here from all over the world. They are attracted here because it is a great place to create businesses, and that is driving the unicorns and tech businesses of this country.

We are extending the start-up loan scheme, and as we have already heard, we have increased the annual investment allowance from £200,000 to £1 million. We have listened to manufacturing businesses, particularly in the midlands and the north, that want to invest in plant, machinery and digital technology. This is about not just the sexy technologies that we heard about earlier but ensuring that manufacturing in this country can continue to thrive.

For working people, we are increasing the national living wage from April and thereby contributing to rising real wages, and we are giving a tax cut to 32 million people throughout the country by increasing the personal allowance and the higher-rate threshold. As we heard at Prime Minister’s questions, it is still unclear whether the Labour party supports that tax cut. The shadow Chancellor reluctantly says he agrees with it, the shadow Foreign Secretary, the right hon. Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry), says otherwise, and the Mayor of Greater Manchester says that shadow Chancellor’s views send a shiver down his spine—and that was before Halloween.

We believe that everyone in this country should pay their fair share of tax. There are measures, which we have heard about from right hon. and hon. Members in this Budget debate, to continue to close the tax gap. It is at a near record low, and lower than it was in any year of the previous Labour Government. This Budget does create the world’s first digital services tax.

[Mr Kevan Jones]

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. We have had a very good debate this afternoon, and there have been some great contributions from all parts of this House. Members can call me old-fashioned, but I thought that the role of the Minister replying to the debate was to address the issues that have been raised in this debate. He has now been on his feet for nearly six minutes, and apart from some reference to two Conservative Members, he is making just a general speech, which he could have done in an opening speech.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Lindsay Hoyle)]

The Minister has got time to address the issues, and I am sure that that is where he will take us now.

[Robert Jenrick]

That was unfair, because I am addressing the points that have been raised by Members from all parts of the House. [Interruption.] The right hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) may not like the answers, but I am providing them. With respect to the digital services tax—it is a tax that has been mentioned by numerous Members across the House—we are the first major country to do this, and it will raise in excess of £1.5 billion, ensuring that, in our thriving economy, our tech-friendly economy, those who generate value from UK users will pay a fair contribution to tax. We look forward to publishing more information and to the consultation on that, which, clearly, hon. Members may wish to take part in.

We chose in this Budget to invest in the long-term economic infrastructure of the country—a subject that has been raised by a number of my colleagues—raising investment levels in this country to the highest sustained level in my lifetime. That is the mark of a mature economy, which is not just spending everything on immediate consumption, but spending money for long-term investment. Public capital investment in this country will be £460 million a week higher under this Government than it was under the previous Labour Government. We have heard some of the ways that we will spend that. We will spend it by increasing investment in our roads—in every type of road. A number of colleagues from across the House—

[Mr Kevan Jones]

Which Members?

[Robert Jenrick]

Well, there was my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Vicky Ford), for example. She made a representation for the Chelmsford flyover, and we will deliver on that. Let me say one other thing in response to the right hon. Member for North Durham: we listened to those Labour Members who came to see us at the Treasury with genuine representations to grow the economy, but they were few and far between. There was the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann), for example, and we responded to his requests—[Interruption.]

--- Later in debate ---

[Robert Jenrick]

We are investing in a whole range of different infrastructure projects, which will make a huge difference to the future of this country, from the productivity pinchpoints to investing in potholes. We did hear from a number of Members today a slightly snobbish attitude to investing in potholes, but these things matter to ordinary people. They matter to people in my northern constituency of Newark. They matter to people in Walsall, in Halesowen, in Stoke-on-Trent, in Mansfield and in towns that we have heard about here and, in fact, in towns across the whole country, including in the right hon. Gentleman’s constituency.

[Mr Kevan Jones]

Where is it?

[Robert Jenrick]

In North Durham. [Hon. Members: “Ah!”] Yes, there you go. Incidentally, the last time that the right hon. Gentleman and I sparred was over cleaning up illegal waste sites.

[Mr Jones]

You have done nothing about that either.

[Robert Jenrick]

Well, you have not read the Red Book, because we put £10 million—[Interruption.]

GKN: Proposed Takeover by Melrose

Lord Beamish Excerpts

Tuesday 27th March 2018 Commons Chamber

[Greg Clark]

When I receive the appropriate advice and make a decision as to whether an intervention is required, I will of course inform the House.

[Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)]

I thank the Secretary of State for his statement. He rightly raises the importance of GKN to our defence sector. In his statement, he said that

“in the event of a successful bid, the Ministry of Defence would look to require a legally binding commitment relating to the management of any defence contracts.”

What assurances has he had from Melrose about the protection of GKN’s intellectual property and classified contracts, particularly in relation to their sale to countries that we see as a security threat? Not only would that be a threat to UK security, but it would hinder our future co-operation with our “Five Eyes” partners in developing new technologies.

[Greg Clark]

These are all precisely the issues on which Melrose is required to reach agreement with the Ministry of Defence, for all the reasons that the hon. Gentleman states.

draft Electricity Supplier Obligations (amendment and excluded electricity) (amendment) regulations 2017

Lord Beamish Excerpts

Monday 16th October 2017 General Committees

[Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Gapes. To follow up on the clarification requested by my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough, I am always concerned when Ministers say that it is about £1, and it will affect domestic bills for the next few years. Should I assume that the explanatory memorandum is wrong in referring to £1.80 as the additional figure? It rightly points out that the cost of the increase will fall disproportionately on low-income households because they spend more of their disposable income on electricity than others. I would like the Minister to clarify what the actual figure is, because just to throw the line out, as the Minister did, that it will be about £1—which could mean 99p, 90p, or £1.80 as the explanatory memorandum says—is not clear.

The Minister said “for the next few years”, but the explanatory memorandum says that this will take up to 2020. If that is the case, what work is being done on what will happen after our exit from the EU? Will we have to re-examine the regulations, or is it the Government’s intention to continue rolling them forward? Do the Government have a policy in mind to take a more aggressive stance on subsidies to make them more competitive vis-à-vis our European competitors? What thought has gone into that?

Over the period up to 2020, what will be the cost to UK household bills? We are talking about the mythical £1 to which the Minister referred, but we ought to try to get a global figure of what it will actually cost UK households in that period.

--- Later in debate ---

[Margot James]

I thank Committee members for their questions. I am very pleased that they agree with the direction of this important statutory instrument. In answer to the questions from several hon. Members, led by the shadow Minister, concerning the discrepancy in the notes on the increased cost of household bills due to this measure, the difference in estimates of an additional £1 and £1.80 to people’s bills is because the population of eligible energy intensive industries is less than we originally estimated. As a result, the burden on consumers has reduced from approximately £1.80 to £1 a year. In answer to another question from the shadow Minister, there have been no over-exemptions as yet, as the regulations have not yet been enacted. We have general powers to claw back any over-exemptions if needed, but we are looking at whether a specific mechanism would be helpful.

[Mr Jones]

There is a huge drop from £1.80 to £1. I understand what the Minister is suggesting, but what is the percentage drop for the industries that will be eligible? If it is of that order—nearly 100%—it must be quite big. Are the estimates wrong about the number of industries that would be eligible or, as the policy has developed, have certain industries been taken out of the process?

[Margot James]

The estimate was too high in the first place and it has reduced. I will look into the reasons for that and I will write to the hon. Gentleman. In his speech, he asked about the policy for this sector of the economy post-Brexit—might we pursue a more competitive approach vis-à-vis the rest of the European Union? I think that he is asking what our policy on state aid will be after we leave the European Union, and that is a matter for the negotiations.

I think I have addressed the questions raised by Committee members. The hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow said that the average increased cost of electricity for a medium business user would be £3,100 a year—she is correct on that point.

[Margot James]

For this measure to be cost neutral, the cost of exempting some energy intensive users has to be distributed fairly among businesses. For an average user—a medium-sized user—the uplift will be about £3,100. As yet, the Government do not have plans to mitigate that.

[Mr Jones]

What assessment have the Government made of what types of businesses will be affected? I see the logic of the draft regulations in helping energy intensive industries, many of which consist of large entities that I accept are in international markets, but £3,000 a year is a huge amount for a small or medium-sized business. Has any assessment been made of which businesses the burden will fall on?

[Margot James]

I said “a medium-sized user” of electricity; I did not mention small businesses. I agree that that would be a significant increase for a small business. We are developing a package of measures to support businesses to improve their energy use and productivity and to make them more energy efficient. That is how their bills will be reduced in the long term.

The average increase represents less than 0.5% of the total electricity bill of a medium-sized business. I feel that that is an appropriate price to pay for the benefit that energy intensive users will gain. The shadow Minister indicated the Opposition’s support for this measure. As she said, if we do not do this, high users of energy might be driven out of the UK, which would result in carbon leakage. That would not be a satisfactory outcome, so we have amortised the costs elsewhere. I think that 0.2% is a sustainable increase for the average medium-sized business user of electricity.

[Mr Jones]

I accept that, but I have to say that the Minister is flying blind here. Have the Government made any assessment of the businesses that will be affected? Do not get me wrong. I support the main thrust of the draft regulations, which aim to protect substantial users of electricity, but if the Government do not properly assess their effects we might protect one side of the economy but lose jobs elsewhere.

[Margot James]

Eligible energy intensive industries can also be small and medium-sized businesses. Very few of the vast array of companies across the country are exempt. The cost of the exemption will be amortised across many million businesses, so the average increase will be small, and the average company can bear that. I will write to the hon. Gentleman with any further information that we have that demonstrates the assessment that we have made of those companies.

I mentioned that we have developed a package of measures to support businesses to improve their energy efficiency. That aims to improve energy usage by at least 20% by 2030. We have also launched an independent review of the cost of energy, which I am sure the shadow Minister is familiar with. That review is led by Professor Dieter Helm and is all about helping companies to reduce their energy usage, which will be good for the environment and for company costs.

Bombardier

Lord Beamish Excerpts

Tuesday 10th October 2017 Commons Chamber

[Greg Clark]

The aerospace sector is a good example of how taking a strategic approach, bringing together the industry firms with universities and research establishments, makes it attractive for small firms in the supply chain to establish themselves. That has been the basis of the aerospace sector’s success, and it is the approach we take in the industrial strategy. As the Minister of State, Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Claire Perry) said in response to the urgent question earlier, an aerospace sector deal will build on that existing reputation and further advance the industry’s prospects.

[Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)]

Bombardier is a UK success story; I congratulate the workforce and management in Belfast. I agree with the Secretary of State that the relationship with Boeing is important, not only from a commercial point of view but from a military view. Does he agree that if Boeing does not relent on this issue, it will put at risk its plans for both technology enhancements and commercial opportunities in the UK?

[Greg Clark]

Yes.

Nissan: Sunderland

Lord Beamish Excerpts

Monday 31st October 2016 Commons Chamber

[Greg Clark]

As I said earlier, it is unambiguously good news, and I hope that the whole House will welcome it.

[Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)]

Many people in my North Durham constituency work at Nissan, so I warmly welcome the news and thank the Minister for his involvement. If he has done a special deal for Nissan, good. I just look forward to many more for the north-east companies that rely on exports.

[Greg Clark]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his words. I do believe in being active and vigorous and in meeting companies and understanding the challenges that they face; I make no apology for that. My whole ministerial team will be active in securing investments for this country.