Recall of Tumble Dryers

Kirsty Blackman Excerpts

Monday 17th June 2019 Commons Chamber

[Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)]

This matter does not seem to have been handled well, either by Whirlpool or by the UK Government, from start to finish. Surely our first priority should be, as the Minister said, to protect our constituents and ensure that they are not at risk from fire. If there are still 500,000 unmodified products out there, and if the risk of them going on fire is 1%, we are looking at a potential of 5,000 fires. If the risk is half that, we are still looking at 2,500 fires and the risk to life that comes with them. What assessment has been made of the risk from the modified tumble dryers? Concerns have been raised that modified dryers are also continuing to go on fire.

The other thing I am confused about is why the Government took so long to take action, given that this issue was first recognised by Whirlpool in 2015. If it takes the OPSS and the Government so long to undertake a review and put sanctions in place against a company, there is surely an issue with the system. Will the Government, as a result of the issues raised, look at the product recall system in general and ensure that a review is undertaken, so that we no longer have such incredibly lengthy waits when products are recalled, and so that the Government can take action more quickly than they have done in this case?

[Kelly Tolhurst]

As I outlined earlier, the review of Whirlpool was a review of the modification programme. It looked at the effectiveness of the technical modifications and the adequacy of the outreach programme. The review concluded that there was a low risk from unmodified machines, and an even lower risk from modified ones. The wider review was concerned with the actions that Whirlpool took to resolve any risk of lint fires in its machines. I believe that its findings were robust and proportionate. The info that was provided to us via Which? and “Watchdog” and the testing carried out by Which? were also featured and taken into account in the review. However, the review very much focused on the technical effectiveness of the modifications.

The reason that this has taken so long, as the hon. Lady suggests, is that we followed due process in carrying out a substantial review, making our assumptions and providing Whirlpool with laid-down notice to come back to us with what it would do to rectify the situation. I would just highlight that part of enforcing consumer and product safety involves ensuring that we carry out a review when we believe that manufacturers are not fulfilling their obligations under the regulations, and that we follow due process in doing so. We will continue to do that where there are concerns about any product that is placed on the market. We will ensure that organisations and large manufacturers comply with the law.

Exiting the European Union (Structural and Investment Funds)

Kirsty Blackman Excerpts

Tuesday 19th February 2019 Commons Chamber

[Brendan O'Hara]

The hon. Gentleman makes the important point that we are discussing the SI before Report stage of the Agriculture Bill. I will come back to that. I do not necessarily defend the way in which the CAP is administered—the way in which every pound is allocated—but it is important to recognise the amount of money and support that the CAP gives UK agriculture, particularly those less favoured area support scheme parts of my west of Scotland constituency.

[Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)]

My hon. Friend is making a great speech. On the lack of certainty beyond 2022, are not those in farming communities planning a long way ahead for what they intend to do with their land? Certainty beyond 2022 would help them in their long-term planning for their stewardship role as well as for trying to make money.

[Brendan O'Hara]

My hon. Friend is right that it is vital that our farmers have the ability to plan into the future. At the moment, we enjoy that ability to plan long term, and the fear is that that is being taken away.

The common fisheries policy is co-financed in Scotland through the European maritime and fisheries fund, and Scotland is allocated 44% of the total UK figure, with £42 million—over 80% of the Scottish allocation—already committed to projects. Competitive funds are awarded directly by the European Commission to organisations, and that includes significant research, innovation and education exchange programmes. Since 2014, Scottish organisations have secured €533 million of Horizon 2020 funding, €65 million of Erasmus+ funding and €58 million of European Territorial Cooperation funding. Even since 2016, the European Investment Bank group has signed loans worth €2 billion for projects in Scotland.

These EU-funded programmes represent a vital source of funding to communities right across Scotland, but as I said earlier, they are particularly important to peripheral communities, which are in greater need of support. That is why, when the question was asked in 2016 whether we wished to remain part of the European Union, every single part of Scotland, without exception, urban and rural, said yes to staying in the EU. Our communities knew—and still know—the benefits of being a member of the European Union and the significant difference that that has made to their lives, economically, socially and culturally.

[Brendan O'Hara]

It is absolutely remarkable that all 32 Scottish local authority areas—urban and rural, with the vast differences that exist between them—said with one voice that we as a nation wished to remain in the European Union. That cannot and should not be ignored. Its significance cannot be underplayed.

The loss of the funds I listed earlier could be absolutely devastating for our farming and fishing communities. As yet, there are no guarantees about the continuity of these funds beyond 2020. Here we are, a month from Brexit day, and there is still no certainty for our farming and fishing communities as they plan for the future.

[Kirsty Blackman]

My hon. Friend is making a great point about funding. Does he share my concern that these communities will be hit doubly, because there will also be changes to immigration, which may mean they do not have access to labour? Given that some of our areas are suffering from depopulation, which we have worked very hard to counter, does he feel this is a double whammy that rural communities cannot afford?

[Brendan O’Hara]

My hon. Friend may well have been looking over my shoulder, because I was about to come on to that very point.

My constituency of Argyll and Bute is suffering from massive depopulation. We are losing population at a rate that we cannot sustain. We need to get people to come and live, work, invest and raise families in Argyll and Bute, and much of our plan is predicated on EU nationals coming to Argyll and Bute to fulfil that function. We are being denied access not only to funding, but to people. Unless we can find a way of squaring that circle, which I do not think is possible, then I fear for the future. That is why independence, with an independent Scottish Government being represented as an equal partner in the European Union, is without doubt the only way that Scotland is going to prosper.

It has been reported just today that the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Secretary has told the National Farmers Union, in relation to UK farmers, that

“there is no absolute guarantee that we would be able to continue to export…to the EU”

under a no-deal scenario. This is the chaos into which we have descended.

As has been said, the UK Government have of course promised to replace EU funds with a much-vaunted UK shared prosperity fund, but despite all the repeated promises, still no detail or definition has been given about how that new structure will operate. May I ask the Minister when we will find out the detail of this shared prosperity fund, and when will we know exactly what it will mean for people across the UK, including for people in my Argyll and Bute constituency?

Will the Minister tell me, post-2020, when the cycle of these current EU funds comes to an end, how the proposed new system will operate? What consent and control will the devolved Administrations have in relation to this future funding model? What consultation has been carried out to ensure that this new system will have the consent of and remain consistent with the devolution settlement? Will he explain why, as I said to the hon. Member for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland (Mr Clarke), this statutory instrument has come to the Floor of the House before the Agriculture Bill and the Fisheries Bill have even reached their Report stages in this place?

Given that the President of the European Commission has promised to support Irish farmers financially in the event of a no-deal Brexit, why have the UK Government not offered similar support to Scottish farmers? Finally, does the Minister agree that so much of this worry, angst and trauma we are being put through and putting other people through could all be prevented if the Government simply took no deal off the table?

FTSE 100 Company Pay Ratios

Kirsty Blackman Excerpts

Wednesday 23rd January 2019 Westminster Hall

[Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)]

It is a pleasure to take part in this debate, Mrs Moon, and I congratulate the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh) on having secured it. It is unfortunate that it is not as well subscribed as I had expected it to be; I had thought that this was a great debate to be involved in, on an issue that matters a huge amount to an awful lot of people who live in all the countries of the UK. I will highlight a few figures, some of which have already been mentioned by the hon. Lady; I will also talk about what we are doing about some of these issues in Scotland, and what we would like to do about them.

The remuneration of FTSE 100 CEOs between 2009-10 and 2017-18, over the course of this Conservative Government, has gone up by 66%, which is a significant increase. One of the interesting stats that I discovered when I was looking into this issue is that in 1980, median FTSE 100 CEO pay was 11 times that of the median worker. By 2010, that had risen to 116 times the pay of the median worker—an absolutely massive increase that surely does not reflect an increased workload of that level. I imagine that those CEOs are not doing 10 times the amount of work they were doing in 1980, and that the people who are working at the bottom of those companies are working just as hard as they were in 1980. An increase in the ratio to that extent cannot be justified.

In 2017, the mean pay of a FTSE 100 boss was £5.7 million. Compared with many people who live in my constituency or throughout these islands, I have a significantly large salary. I am very grateful for that, but even on my relatively large salary, £5.7 million is a number that I cannot even comprehend. It is a ridiculous amount of money for people to be earning.

I understand that the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden was talking not about the particular salary that those individuals receive but about the ratio, and that is what I want to come on to. The important point about this debate is that it is about equality, and it goes much wider than FTSE 100 companies. We have massive inequality throughout the countries of the UK and much more can be done to improve the situation. When seeking to improve things, I tend to say that we can do so in Parliament, because we have the ability to lead the way as parliamentarians. We often fail, but we have that ability. We also have the ability to legislate to ensure that FTSE 100 companies can lead the way for all companies across the UK in removing the levels of inequality.

It is not only the person on the street or the person working at the bottom of these companies who is unhappy; there is also continuing shareholder dissent. It is important that shareholders are empowered and have the ability to make changes. They are unhappy and there is backlash from them about the massive bonuses and huge pay increases received by CEOs. If we empowered shareholders a bit more, they would have the ability to make those choices to help reduce inequality throughout the companies. Shareholders do not want to be associated with a company that has a CEO receiving a massive salary, massive bonuses and massive pay rises while the worker working on the basic wage is having their bonus scheme removed, for example. It is important that shareholders who have that moral compass can make that mark on the company.

It is important to look at corporate governance legislation and regulations. The changes on reporting the gender pay gap are helpful, but they do not go far enough. It is good that we have reporting on the gender pay gap, but there should be something—not so much a carrot, as a stick—to ensure that the gender pay gap improves. It would be unreasonable to ask companies with a massive gender pay gap to reduce it to nothing in one year, but it would be reasonable for the Government to mandate companies to show progress in reducing the gender pay gap. That should involve not just saying, “This is what we will do about it”, but, “This is the timeline on which we expect to make progress. We will reduce our gender pay gap by 5% in the next two years and reduce it further after that.”

A similar approach could be taken to wage ratios. Companies could be subject to a reporting requirement to submit details on how they will improve the ratio with set targets, and they could be subject to some kind of punishment if they do not meet those targets, rather than them just saying, “This is what we are doing”, but with no set outcomes. That is where a lot of people are on gender pay reporting and ratios.

In Scotland, the Scottish Government have put social justice at the heart of civil service pay policy. Public sector employees in Scotland are paid at least the Scottish living wage, and we have no age requirement for that. Under-25s who would receive a lower minimum wage under UK legislation are eligible to receive the Scottish living wage if they work in the Scottish public sector, no matter their age. We recognise that just because someone is 24, it does not mean they have fewer outgoings than someone who is 25. They could be in exactly the same set-up, renting a flat and with a small child, whether they are 24 or 25. The Government desperately need to tackle the fact that under-25s are being paid less. The Scottish National party has been vociferously making that case at every possible opportunity, including my hon. Friends the Members for Glasgow Central (Alison Thewliss) and for Glasgow East (David Linden) with a ten-minute rule Bill.

The UK Government are not taking the necessary action, so we are asking them to give Holyrood the power to legislate on maximum and minimum wages. That would address the lower end of the spectrum where people should be paid an actual living wage—one that they can really live on, not a pretendy living wage—and, at the other end, maximum wages and bonus payments. We want power over wage ratios. That is not to say that we have a set idea of exactly how we would legislate on high wage ratios, but if Holyrood had the power to do so we could at least have those conversations and consultations. We could come up with a policy that would work for employees, shareholders and the general public. We believe that we are more likely to take action than the UK Government, given their track record. They have not moved as far as we would to tackle inequality in Scotland.

In terms of SNP policy, in June 2018 we had a very good debate at SNP conference about wage ratios. We agreed as a party—our policy is made at party conference—that wage ratios would be one way to tackle inequality and that we would consider it and take it on. An independent Scotland would have a wage ratios consultation and discussion and, if possible, a policy. We would look at the best possible way to do that.

I want to talk a little about the real living wage and employment in Scotland. Employment law is reserved to Westminster, which we have argued against because the SNP and Scottish parliamentarians in general—this view is not reserved to the SNP—have much more respect for workers’ rights, so there is much more likelihood of them improving if we had the ability to legislate in our Parliament. Despite not having power over the issue, we have tried to make changes in our society and, to a limited extent, we have. A lower proportion of people in Scotland are on zero-hours contracts than in any other nation of the UK. The Scottish Government were the first Government in the UK to become a living wage employer, so we are putting our money where our mouth is. We are saying to people, “We are proving that we can do this. We are proving that we will put workers’ rights at the heart of what we do. That is why we believe that Holyrood should have power over that.”

Down here, we vociferously opposed the Trade Union Act 2016. We disagreed with a huge number of things in it. It is incredibly important that we have strong trade unions. If trade unions had the abilities that they previously had, their voice would be heard much more loudly. It would be amplified by the legislation, rather than quashed. Wage ratios would be tackled much more vociferously by the trade unions.

In this Parliament, we have also promoted a Bill to ban unpaid trial shifts, which would give rights to those workers who are forced to work for nothing while doing a trial shift. We promoted a Bill to give workers in precarious work the same rights as employees. It is incredibly important to ensure that they enjoy the same rights as people in more stable employment. In fact, it is even more important for someone in precarious work to have those rights than someone in work that is a bit more stable. That was a good Bill, promoted by the SNP.

Our most recent Bill was on employment rights. It would have stopped gig economy workers and small and medium-sized enterprises getting late payments, which is important for cash flow. Our Bill made clear the importance of someone working in the gig economy being paid on time.

Lastly, I want to talk about what the Scottish Government have done. In Scotland, we have the fairest income tax system in the UK. Some 55% of our taxpayers pay less than they would if they lived elsewhere in the UK. About half of English taxpayers pay more than they would if they lived in Scotland. It is the lowest-paid workers, not those at the top, who are paying more in England and less in Scotland. Next year, the top 1% will be asked to pay a little more on their income, and the remaining 99% will pay the same or less than at present. I therefore suggest that the Scottish Government’s policy on income tax is much better and fairer than that of the UK Government.

We are regularly attacked by the Scottish Tories for what we have done to improve fairness in income tax, but since we introduced the Scottish rate of income tax and varied the rates, our economy has grown faster than that of England, so the suggestions that all sorts of chaos would follow have not come to pass. There is a real difference between the actions of the Scottish Government and those of the UK Government. At every opportunity the Scottish Government have pursued fairness and attempted to reduce inequality, and the Bills that the SNP has promoted down here have attempted to reduce inequality in the whole of the UK because workers’ rights are currently a reserved matter.

Holyrood does not have the full range of powers over this matter. We want workers’ rights to be devolved to Scotland. However, given the chaos that is happening and the impact that Brexit will have on the lowest paid in particular, it is increasingly evident that Scottish independence is the only way forward. If Scotland had control over workers’ rights, we would make better decisions than the UK Government are currently making, and that makes the case for Scottish independence ever stronger.

[Laura Pidcock (North West Durham) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh) for securing this important and timely debate. Such debates expose our politics and the difference between political parties. It is vital that we discuss not only pay ratios, but solutions to extortionate pay, such as an excessive pay levy, and improved collective bargaining for workers through strong trade unions as a way to uplift the pay of millions of workers. It is also crucial that we are able to place the extortionately high pay of FTSE 100 chief executives in the context of low pay and the crisis of work in this country, where millions struggle to make ends meet, and where work is certainly no longer the preventer of poverty, which is a reality for millions of people.

Despite this state of affairs, as was mentioned, by lunchtime on 4 January, the top chief executives in the UK had been paid more than their average employee is paid in an entire year—an extraordinary fact. Every single year, that date and time comes sooner in the year. Unless action is taken, it will be one minute past midnight on 1 January when those people will have been paid much more than their employees. Every year, the Government take no action on that extraordinary fact. Those at the top are increasing their wealth.

I agree with my hon. Friend: perhaps this place should relax a little, because “fat cats” is exactly the right title for those executives who now get 133 times more than the average worker, which means that the salary of the average FTSE chief executive is the same as that of 386 workers on the minimum wage. It is politically poignant to note that some people are not outraged by that statistic. They are quite comfortable with the inordinate, huge salaries of executives who are paid grossly more than those who work for them.

I am sure that nobody would argue—my hon. Friend touched on this—that a FTSE 100 chief executive works 133 times harder than a hospital porter, a cleaner or a caterer. I went on a solidarity protest yesterday with strikers at the Ministry of Justice and the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy. Let us think about the caterer on exactly £8 an hour fighting for the London living wage. That works out at about £1,280 a month if they work a 40-hour week every single week of the month. If we think of rent, transport, bills and food, that person has a tiny amount to live on every month. I am sure nobody would argue that a FTSE 100 chief executive works 133 times harder than a teacher or a nurse in our NHS, or that they somehow have a combined worth of 386 workers.

[Kirsty Blackman]

The hon. Lady is making an incredibly powerful point. Does it annoy her as much as it annoys me that the Tories talk about hard-working families, but they do not mean hospital porters? They mean people who are much higher up the tree. Hospital porters, cleaners, chefs and the people she talks about work incredibly hard every day just to make £8 an hour.

[Laura Pidcock]

And that work should be valued. It is no coincidence that those people who work really hard, but very often still cannot survive and do not have enough money to pay the bills, get into debt to pay for everyday items—not for luxury holidays, or any luxuries at all. Those people should be at the heart of our concerns in this place. I am mindful never to use the word “earn” when we talk about the pay of the very few at the top. What could they possibly do to earn such large amounts of money?

It is crucial to recognise the context in which FTSE 100 pay ratios are widening. In a stark contrast to the stockpiling of wealth by a few, years of austerity and wage stagnation mean that millions of workers across the country struggle to make ends meet, as I say. In-work poverty is rising and household debt is at its highest rate. Many people rely on borrowing, and one in five workers—more than 5 million people—are paid less than a living wage. That is a huge increase from 3.4 million in 2009. Insecure work has without a doubt become the norm, with nearly 4 million people—one in nine workers—facing uncertainty and worry. They are trapped. To illustrate the low-pay trap, one in four employees earning the minimum wage for five years has been unable to move out of that low-pay trap. Some people do two or three jobs to try to pay the bills, but it has not always been like that.

In 1980, as was mentioned, the median pay of directors in FTSE 100 companies was £63,000, and median pay across the country was £5,400. The ratio of executive pay to the average wage then, less than 40 years ago, was 11:1. In 2002, the pay of a FTSE 100 CEO had shot up to 79 times that of their average employee, and last year it had reached 150 times. This place is doing nothing to stop that runaway train of inequality. I seriously hope that those ratios are unacceptable and completely unjustifiable to anyone. It is particularly obscene that this escalation has come at a time when millions of people are struggling. There is a stark contrast between those two sets of people.

No doubt the Minister will refer to the Government’s reforms to tackle excessive pay in her speech shortly, but I want to make it absolutely clear that under this Government, not only has pay inequality continued to rise, but so has the speed at which it increases. I am proud that Opposition MPs are committed to taking action, because doing nothing is not good enough. When I have been out campaigning, loads of times I have heard people say, “The rich continue to get richer and the poor get poorer. There is nothing we can do about it,” but I fundamentally disagree. Yes, the rich are getting richer, but we can definitely do something about it.

In contrast to the Tories, a Labour Government would ensure pay ratios of no more than 20:1 in the public sector, for example, and we would introduce an excessive pay levy that would charge a 2.5% levy on earnings above £330,000 a year, which is a huge amount, and 5% on those above £500,000. It is estimated that that alone would raise £1.3 billion a year.

I am sure that the Minister will mention that from 1 July the Government will ensure that companies with more than 250 employees will be obliged to reveal and justify their pay ratios. However, there is no obligation on those companies to take any meaningful action beyond the act of publishing those facts. It is yet more empty rhetoric. How is it helpful just to have the injustice out there, without any action to remedy it?

We need practical, political solutions to curb undeserved excessive pay, and to create mechanisms for better income distribution. That is why we commissioned a report by Prem Sikka, published last year, suggesting a range of measures that would apply to the more than 7,000 companies in the UK that have more than 250 employees, accounting for more than 10 million workers. Needless to say, we are looking at the report’s recommendations closely, including proposals requiring executive remuneration packages of all large companies to be subject to a binding vote.

That is just one solution to excessive executive pay. Trade unions are the collective voice of workers, and they have to be central to the debate. They are a huge player in reducing inequality in the workplace, but, after years of anti-union policies, the vast majority of workers have absolutely no say over their pay, conditions or hours of work. Protections that existed before under collective bargaining agreements have been completely lost.

Workers deserve a lot more. Pay ratios are just one aspect of tacking pay inequality. That is why a Labour Government would set up a new Department to roll out sectoral collective bargaining—protecting the interests of workers, strengthening trade unions, and introducing new rights and freedoms so that every worker gets the support, security and pay at work that they deserve.

Surely it is time to end the excessive greed. People are feasting on the backs of workers who are struggling to make ends meet, and who have the gut-wrenching feeling that they cannot afford nappies for their children, even though they work more than 40 hours a week. Surely that cannot be right. The Government must act to end that injustice.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Kelly Tolhurst)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Moon. I congratulate the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh) on securing today’s important debate. She has a strong, long-standing record of campaigning on behalf of low-paid workers in the economy. I highlight the constructive way in which she approaches working across the House on some of these issues; I know that she secured an Adjournment debate on whole-company pay policy last July.

Executive salaries and pay ratios are undeniably high. Currently, the ratio of the pay of the average FTSE 100 chief executive officer to that of the average UK employee is around 160:1, based on the mean. The median average is 145:1, but it is important to set current levels of pay in a longer-term context. The data shows that executive pay more than quadrupled from the late 1990s to the early 2010s. Pay ratios increased over that period from 47:1 in 1998 to 132:1 in 2010. However, that has stabilised in the last five to seven years, albeit with minor fluctuations from year to year.

The High Pay Centre, which campaigns against high levels of executive pay, acknowledged in its most recent report that UK executive median pay peaked at £4.2 million in 2013, and is around £3.9 million for the latest reported year. That puts the UK on a par with Germany and only slightly above other major EU countries on executive pay levels, despite our quoted companies generally being much larger. In the US, CEO pay is much higher. Median CEO pay for Standard & Poor’s 500 companies in 2017 was around £9.3 million, giving the US a pay ratio of 399:1.

That sets the context, but it is certainly not grounds for complacency. Shareholders and people in wider society have increasingly been questioning how such wide differentials can be justified, both in terms of individual performance and in relation to company pay policy as a whole. The Government share those concerns.

We do not believe that it is the job of the Government to set company pay levels or impose arbitrary caps. However, it is our position that there must be transparency and accountability in executive pay, and that shareholders must have the information and the powers to challenge unjustified pay in the boardroom. That is why we legislated in 2013 to require listed companies to secure binding shareholder approval for their executive remuneration policies at least once every three years, and to disclose every year the total single figure that each director is paid.

It is also why we are continuing to take steps to force companies to disclose and explain how executive pay is matched by performance, and how it relates to wider employee pay. In particular, we recently introduced a new requirement for companies to disclose and explain every year the ratio of their CEO pay to the average pay of their employees. I am pleased that the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden welcomed the legislation, which came into effect at the beginning of this year, meaning that companies will have to report their ratios when they publish annual reports next year.

Pay ratio reporting will, for the first time, show systematically and clearly how pay at the top of quoted companies relates to pay across the rest of the company. Companies will have to report each year the ratio of the CEO’s pay to both the median and the quartile employee pay at the company. The hon. Lady expressed concerns that the pay ratio was being calculated only in relation to the median; in fact, we require pay ratios to be published for the first quartile, the median and the upper quartile. We thought hard about whether to use the median or the mean, and finally decided on the median as a more robust figure. In part, that was a response to the TUC, which argued strongly that we should use the median. In most cases, we use the median because the result is the bigger ratio.

Shareholders, employees and others will get a clear and consistent picture from year to year of how CEO pay relates to pay across the whole company. Companies will need to explain the reasons for any change from previous years, and any pay ratio trend over time. They will also need to explain whether any change is due to a change in the company’s employment model—for example, if the reason was the outsourcing or offshoring of low-paid workers. Critically, the company will have to explain whether, and if so why, it thinks that the ratio is consistent with the pay, reward and progression policies of the company’s UK employees as a whole.

Those pay ratio explanations will be watched closely by investors, who are strongly behind the new pay ratio reporting, as well as by employees and wider society. Any company that puts forward weak or misleading explanations can expect to face significant shareholder and public criticism. As the Financial Times wrote in 2017 when we announced the plans,

“a single-figure ratio will attract attention. And that will help investors curb companies’ attempts to inflate chief executive pay—and the pay gap”.

Pay ratio reporting is part of a wider package of reforms aimed at making a real change to the level of engagement between boardrooms and employees. That package includes an important new provision in the UK corporate governance code for remuneration committees to consider workforce pay alongside executive pay, and to engage with the workforce to explain how executive pay aligns with wider company policy. It is too early to tell what the impact of the new reforms will be. The Government expect companies to respond positively and creatively to the new requirements, recognising that no one size will fit all and that there will be a variety of approaches.

We are already seeing some encouraging progress, on a voluntary basis, this year. For example, Marks & Spencer has agreed that the chair of its business involvement group, which represents the interests of the company’s 81,000 staff, will be invited to attend two boardroom meetings and at least one remuneration committee meeting each year. We must also remember that pay ratios are determined by average pay in the workforce, as well as by pay at the top, so ratios will fall where average pay increases faster than executive pay. In that respect, the Government are taking steps to boost the wages of working people through our industrial strategy to deliver better-paid jobs across the country, our £37 billion productivity investment fund and our increase in R&D investment to 2.4% of GDP by 2027.

We have taken concrete action for low-paid workers by introducing the national living wage, which is on track to hit its target of 60% of median earnings by 2020. Its introduction marked a pay rise for more than a million workers across the UK and has helped to deliver the fastest wage growth for the lowest-paid in 20 years. In April, we will increase it again to £8.21 by an inflation-busting 4.9%—an increase in earnings of more than £690 a year for a full-time worker, and a total pay rise of more than £2,750 a year since we first brought it in. Up to 2.4 million workers are estimated to benefit.

Real progress is being made for hard-working people. As a working-class Conservative MP—as a Tory—when I speak about hard-working families and hard-working people, I find that I am accused of referring to higher earners. As somebody who undertook many of the jobs outlined in this debate before I came to Parliament, I actually find it offensive that when I talk about hard-working people, I am accused of not referring to hard-working people separated across our economy.

[Kirsty Blackman]

I appreciate the Minister’s honesty. The problem is that when the middle-rate income tax threshold goes up, there are Conservatives who make the case that it will improve life for hard-working families, but very few people in the jobs we are talking about are making £43,000 a year. Maybe the Minister needs to tackle the issue with some of her colleagues.

[Kelly Tolhurst]

I thank the hon. Lady for clarifying her point, but I have to say that it is this Government who have increased the threshold year on year. As a working-class Conservative MP, I am proud to say that I am standing up for hard-working people—and when I talk about hard-working people, I mean people who go out every day to earn a living, no matter what sector they are in or what job they are doing.

The Government have responded to the challenging world of work with plans for the biggest upgrade of workers’ rights in 20 years. In December we published the good work plan, which sets out how we will implement the recommendations of the Taylor review. The plan commits us to introducing a right to request a more predictable and stable contract for all workers and to bringing forward proposals for a single workers’ rights enforcement body in early 2019.

Oil and Gas Industry

Kirsty Blackman Excerpts

Tuesday 9th October 2018 Westminster Hall

[Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk (John Mc Nally) for obtaining the debate. The timing is good, as other Members have mentioned, given that we are in the run-up to the Budget.

I want to talk first about Brexit, which several colleagues from throughout the House have mentioned. The economic report put out by Oil & Gas UK makes the point that 7% of the offshore workforce are from EU countries and refers to the fact that before Bulgaria joined the EU it took four days for goods to come from there to Aberdeen to be used in the oil and gas industry, but that they were routinely held up for an additional week because of customs controls. If we do not have a customs union deal that allows for those goods to come through the border without being held up for a week, it will cause problems for our supply chain companies and for the wider industry. A fifth of people living in Aberdeen were not born in the UK. We have done immensely well at attracting immigration, which has been good for our industry. It is a huge concern that that might be less easy after Brexit, particularly if the immigration plans mentioned at the Conservative party conference go through and we end up in a situation where very few immigrants are allowed to come to the UK. That would cause a real problem for my city and for the oil and gas industry as a whole.

The hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Andrew Bowie) set out particularly clearly the requirement for a stable taxation regime for the oil and gas industry. One of the points most often raised with me is that if there is a story in the Financial Times about the possibility of the Treasury increasing, or massively changing, tax in relation to oil and gas, that story alone causes a problem for the industry—it makes a dent. We need a clear commitment from the Chancellor in the Budget to stability and predictability in the taxation regime.

[Colin Clark]

We were both at the same meeting when the Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury came up. I think it was the myth being peddled that did the damage—he clarified it from the Treasury. Does the hon. Lady agree?

[Kirsty Blackman]

I do not disagree at all. I understood that that was a private meeting, so I did not want to talk about what that Minister said during it, but it would be good if the Chancellor could make a clear statement in the Budget. I agree that it was the myth, rather than any statement by the Treasury, that caused the problem. I am sorry; I thought I had been clear on that point.

There are other asks for the Budget. I have not heard anyone on the Opposition Benches being negative about transferable tax history. I apologise to the hon. Member for Gordon (Colin Clark), but I was calling for that in March 2016, which was more than a year before he was elected. We have consistently called for changes in the taxation regime for late-life assets. I have made the case for that on many occasions, and I am pleased that it may be coming through—we hope it will. It is a good example of the industry working together. Things have happened a bit more slowly than I would have liked, but the industry worked well with Government, and the conversation went well about trying to make the tax regime work from the point of view of both the Government and the industry.

The importance of transferable tax history is because of what happens when assets at the end of their life are transferred to another company. Something that belongs to a big company with many different onshore installations will probably not be its No. 1 priority, but if it belongs to a new entrant and is all that it is concentrating on, it will be a priority. That is why transferable tax history is so important for maximising economic recovery.

The point about end-use relief is a good one. My hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk and the hon. Member for Waveney (Peter Aldous) both mentioned it. Whatever happens, it is vital that the Government should speak to the industry about the best way to make the change work, if there is to be a change, and that as much notice as possible should be given of changes to end-use relief. We nearly had a big disaster in July, with the pulling of end-use relief. It is clear that that cannot happen. The industry and the Government need to continue to speak to each other to make it work better.

The final Budget matter I want to speak about is the sector deal. If the Chancellor could announce progress on that it would be phenomenal—excellent. I would be really pleased. If not, it would be good to know when a commitment is likely. My impression from speaking to those in the industry who worked on the deal is that they feel they worked together incredibly well on it. They feel that the proposal that has been put forward to the Government reflects the industry’s needs and requirements, so it would be positive if the Government brought it forward sooner rather than later.

I want to talk about “Vision 2035” and focus on the subject of the debate—the future of the oil and gas industry. I will not talk much about the industry downstream—I apologise to anyone involved in it—because I represent Aberdeen and because my hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk, who represents Grangemouth, and the hon. Member for Waveney have spoken about that important aspect of the industry. “Vision 2035” is the Oil & Gas Authority’s vision for securing the supply chain and the oil and gas industry in the north-east of Scotland to ensure that, in 2035, it still makes money for the Treasury, supports our local economy and provides jobs in the local area. That will happen only if the Government provide support now, including the stable fiscal regime that we spoke about earlier and support for the supply chain. They must talk positively about the industry, consider its asks, and make changes if need be.

The North sea field is a late-life asset—it is incredibly mature. It was one of the first fields in the world to reach that level of maturity, so our engineers who go out there are doing incredibly innovative things. They are working on enhanced oil recovery, bringing in tech in the supply chain, and using longer tiebacks so that small pools can be exploited. It is groundbreaking, world-leading stuff; this is the first time some of it has been done. If we get the technology right, we will be able to export it around the world even when there is no oil and gas in the North sea, but we must ensure that those companies stay anchored in the north-east of Scotland and the wider area.

The hon. Member for Gordon mentioned how many oil and gas companies he has in his constituency. I am sure he has more than I do, but I have the services that support those companies—two local authorities, the hospital and all the other vital things that the industry requires. As the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine said, it is hon. Members from the north-east of Scotland and those who represent constituencies with oil and gas industries who come to speak in debates like this. I have taken part in many such debates in my time as a parliamentarian, and it is interesting that we and Conservative Members are largely asking for the same things: transferable tax history, the sector deal and support for the Oil & Gas Technology Centre, which is doing absolutely phenomenal work. Previously, we were asking for the Aberdeen city deal. We are calling for the same things because we all go out there and speak to people who work in the oil and gas industry, and the companies involved in it. We ask them what they need, and they say pretty consistently that the most important things are stability and predictability.

Support for exploration is also hugely important just now. Anything that can be done to encourage exploration and help big projects be signed off will be incredibly important. More big projects have been signed off in the past year than in the previous couple of years, which is hugely welcome news, but we need them to keep coming through the pipeline so that we can secure the future economic benefit.

Hon. Members in the Chamber largely speak with one voice and have the same asks for the oil and gas industry, but I sometimes feel like we do not make as much headway with Ministers in the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy and the Treasury as we could. I hope that the Minister hears everything we are asking for. We are all calling for the same things, because we are reflecting the voice of the industry. I would very much appreciate it if he would ask the Chancellor to make a clear commitment to a stable fiscal regime in the Budget.

Erasmus Plus Programme

Kirsty Blackman Excerpts

Thursday 21st June 2018 Commons Chamber

[Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)]

I very much thank the hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Lloyd Russell-Moyle) for securing this debate and the Backbench Business Committee for granting it. It is a very useful and timely debate for us to have. It has obviously created a lot of interest. I have been contacted by the National Union of Students, the British Council and Universities Scotland, which are all lobbying for the scheme to be kept because they see its importance.

Before I get into my comments, I will briefly take issue with what the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Huw Merriman) said about the doubling of the scheme’s cost. The cost of the scheme is going to increase if the number of participants doubles. That is just how it is. It is not that the costs have spiralled out of control; the scheme is looking to increase the number of participants and to widen the type of participants involved in the scheme, which is really positive.

One thing that the House of Commons and the UK Government—not just this Government, but previous Governments—do not do particularly well is evaluate schemes to see how effective they have been, before deciding whether to take them forward. The Erasmus+ scheme has been incredibly effective and made a huge difference to people’s lives. I therefore understand why people are looking to increase the number of participants, so that more people can benefit from it.

In 2017, the Erasmus+ scheme was worth €21 million to Scotland. Daniel Evans from West Lothian College said that it was “life changing” and had made a huge difference to people’s lives. The effect of the scheme on individual participants is important, and Daniel Evans made the case that the scheme makes a really positive difference, particularly for the most disadvantaged students.

[Stephen Kerr (Stirling) (Con)]

As is well known I represent the constituency of Stirling, which is home to the world-renowned University of Stirling. The university benefits enormously from Erasmus+. The hon. Lady is describing the benefit of the scheme for its participants, but one point that was put forcefully to me by the university is that the whole university community benefits from the presence on campus, and in tutorials and lecture theatres, of more than 100 international students who come to Stirling under that programme.

[Kirsty Blackman]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention, and I will come on to talk about those wider benefits. I will talk particularly about Aberdeen, but also the wider Scottish context.

In 2015, 2,098 students from Scottish higher education institutions travelled abroad—a huge number of students had that opportunity. Around 200 students a year from Aberdeen University get involved in the Erasmus+ scheme, and 350 students come to Aberdeen and become part of our university life. Aberdeen has the highest percentage of students who are EU nationals of any Scottish university, which make up a significant proportion within Scotland. Those EU nationals have shaped the university in my constituency, and made a huge difference. Indeed, 25% of people who live in Aberdeen city were not born in the UK, and a big reason for that is the number of students who come to both our universities—Aberdeen University and Robert Gordon University in the south of the city.

Scotland has much higher levels of participation in Erasmus+ than other parts of the United Kingdom, and 9.7% of students from Scottish institutions travel abroad. More than half of outward student mobility in Scotland is accounted for by the Erasmus+ scheme, so I cannot overstate how important it is. In England, fewer than 7% of students take time to travel abroad, so the scheme is particularly important for Scotland.

It is therefore important that we receive clarity. It is good that the UK Government have committed to participating in the scheme until the end of the current funding round, but universities need clarity now about whether they will be able to participate beyond that, so that they can plan for the future. Universities are looking at their courses and numbers of students who will go there in future years, and that clarity will make a huge difference.

Let me move on to the wider benefits of the scheme. Some 93% of learners agree that they see the value of different cultures after having participated in the Erasmus+ scheme, which is hugely important. If the UK Government wish to pursue a global Britain agenda—that is despite shutting us off from Europe in many ways that I would prefer they did not do—we need young people who are taking part in life in our universities to be able to travel, participate in and see the value of different cultures, and to make those links. The reality, however, will be more difficult.

[Jim Shannon]

One thing that came out of the information we all received was that 64% of employers considered an international experience important for recruitment, and that was up by 37% since 2006. If any evidence were needed to reinforce what the hon. Lady is saying, that is it.

[Kirsty Blackman]

I absolutely agree. Earlier we heard the statistics for students who are unemployed, and how low those numbers are for students who have studied abroad when compared with those who have not. That is incredibly important.

We need to make sure that we increase our links with the rest of the world, not decrease them. When our brightest and best students take part in the life of universities across Europe, they showcase the talent we have in Scotland, England, Wales and Northern Ireland. We are able to receive the brightest and best students from other places so they can study in our universities. I have discussed this with Aberdeen University. The students who come to study in Aberdeen go back to their country and continue to have links with companies in our constituencies and our cities. They keep up the links they make, which has a huge positive economic benefit. Being part of the scheme is incredibly important.

[Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)]

I recently met Emma Shotter, the president-elect of the student association of the University of the West of Scotland. She spoke not only about the benefits for Scottish students using Erasmus as an opportunity to study overseas, but how it internationalises campuses, as the hon. Member for Stirling (Stephen Kerr) alluded to earlier. Not only does it enrich our campuses, but our local communities. For that reason alone, Erasmus has to continue after Brexit.

[Kirsty Blackman]

I absolutely agree. Aberdeen is an international city shaped by its two universities. They have made a really positive difference to our city.

It is very important to have this debate now, because universities need clarity as soon as possible. It is all well and good for the Government to say that European countries have an interest in us continuing in the scheme, but we need to make it clear how strong our interest is in continuing in the scheme. We need to make it clear that we absolutely want to continue to participate in it going forward. The more the Government can do to state that case, the better for our universities, our students and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North (Gavin Newlands) said, our communities.

Oral Answers to Questions

Kirsty Blackman Excerpts

Tuesday 12th June 2018 Commons Chamber

[Andrew Griffiths]

I can assure the hon. Lady that, together with the retail industry, we are looking at business rates, their impact on businesses and our ability to ensure we have a fair taxation system.

[Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)]

The industrial strategy challenge fund round closed in April, but the Government are not expected to make a decision until the tail end of this year. Can they speed up the process please?

[Mr Gyimah]

We are determined to speed up the process, and obviously we are investing more than ever before, but it is important that we take our time to make the right investments to benefit UK industry.

National Living Wage: Under-25s

Kirsty Blackman Excerpts

Thursday 3rd May 2018 Commons Chamber

[David Linden]

My hon. Friend has made a powerful and valid point, which I shall come to later.

I hope very much that when the Minister comes to the Dispatch Box, he will not trot out the usual lines, which fall apart when subjected to any scrutiny. Let me deal with one or two of them now. For example, Ministers tell us that younger workers have less experience and should therefore receive less pay. Unfortunately, younger workers do not get a discount on their shopping, fuel or rent when it comes to paying their bills. One area in which young people do qualify for help is housing benefit, but only after a recent screeching U-turn from the Government on their abhorrent policy of excluding 18 to 21 year-olds.

The discriminatory exclusion of under-25s from the national living wage takes no account of how people actually live. For example, by the time I was 25—which was actually not that long ago—I had already been married for three years. I owned a house, and I was a father. I urge Ministers to look at the actual data rather than rehashing old arguments, and to consider the economic case for including under-25s in the national living wage.

[Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)]

The point that my hon. Friend is making about experience is very important. When I was 18 I started work in a pub on the same day as someone who was 25. Neither of us had worked in a pub before, so we had exactly the same level of experience, but the 25-year-old was eligible for the 25–year-old’s minimum wage, while I was paid the 18-year-old’s minimum wage. Does my hon. Friend agree that that was just unfair?

[David Linden]

Absolutely. That is what drives the Scottish National party’s fair work agenda. It is about fairness, and about lifting people out of poverty. I thank my hon. Friend for her powerful intervention.

[David Linden]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. What he has said takes us back to the central point that a fair day’s work should result in a fair day’s pay.

If the Minister looks at the data, he will see that 2.5 million young people do not live with their parents. That is 2.5 million young people paying for shopping, rent and utilities. Statistics from the Office for National Statistics show that approximately 20% of mothers are under the age of 25. The discriminatory exclusion from the national living wage means that they must get by on poverty pay.

The current national minimum wage—and we should bear in mind that that legislation was passed in the last century—is not only a clear example of direct age discrimination, but an example of discrimination based on class. It flies in the face of the very concept of social mobility. How can a 22 year-old first-year apprentice on a miserable £3.70 an hour be socially mobile? That is what the law currently allows, as is stated on the UK Government’s website. That is what an employer who is thinking about employing an apprentice is encouraged to do.

A recent report by KPMG showed that one in five people are struggling to escape from low pay. For example, one in four women earns less than the real living wage. Put simply, that means skipping meals, living in debt and using payday loans just to get by. The fact is that there is a solid evidence base out there that makes the case for equal pay for under-25s.

[Kirsty Blackman]

Does my hon. Friend agree that there could be a positive impact on productivity? If people are having to work extra jobs and cannot afford to eat, they will be less productive, but if they were paid a living wage, they would do better work for their employers as a result.

[David Linden]

My hon. Friend makes a powerful point. If an employer pays someone under 25 the real living wage, that sends a message of real encouragement to the employee; there is clearly a productivity point here.

I commend and thank the Young Women’s Trust, which produced an excellent report last year entitled “Paid Less, Worth Less?” I have placed a copy of the report in the Library of the House this afternoon, and its testimonies make pretty stark reading. I will share just one today. It comes from Katie, a 19-year-old from Newcastle:

“I was a customer service apprentice in a small shop—only me, another apprentice and my manager worked there.

I had to do a lot—serve customers on the till, clean the store, display the products, update the online store, pack and post online orders and more.

I was paid £2.73 per hour, which went up to £3.30. I got paid on a Friday at the end of the month. The next week I was skint.

I remember one day I had 40p for dinner, so I got one doughnut from M&S.

My manager noticed and offered to buy me a McDonalds.

I felt so stupid.

A quarter of my monthly income was spent on bus fare getting to and from work. It was a struggle.”

It is sometimes easier for us in this House to focus on statistics rather than people, but Katie’s story succinctly and eloquently outlines the pay inequality that still exists in the UK in 2018.

Katie is not the only one. Only last week, following an oral question from me in this House, the Chancellor wrote to inform me that there are approximately 22,000 apprentices in the UK being paid just £3.70 an hour. Surely no self-respecting Minister thinks £3.70 is a decent hourly rate; I do not think any of us would be happy to turn up here and get paid just £3.70 an hour.

There are also particular sectors in the employment market where deliberate wage depression is a major issue and could have a major impact on the sustainability of business, particularly when free movement of people is restricted post Brexit. These sectors include retail and hospitality, which are often largely staffed by young people.

I would hope that the Minister would distance himself from the comments made by the Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media & Sport who back in January 2016 said younger workers would not get a pay rise because they are “not as productive” as older workers. It would take a particularly brave Minister to repeat that, especially on an election day.

Finally, the Minister might be worried about how businesses would react to under-25s being included in the national living wage. However, let me assure him that there is clear polling evidence from YouGov, on a sample of some 4,000 HR managers; they think that young people should be paid the same as older people for work. Some 79%—that is four in five—of employers think there should be equal pay regardless of age, as do 77% of small and medium-sized organisations. Some 80% of employers also said that young people make a bigger, or the same, contribution as older workers, and that on the whole younger workers came with a fresh perspective and injected some energy.

Most employers when asked said they would not cut back on hiring young people if the national living wage was extended to under-25s. Indeed, the New Policy Institute found in a report commissioned by Unison on the topic that, historically, raising wages for people under the age of 21 in the UK has not harmed their employment outcomes. So the evidence is clear and so is my message to the Government today.

[David Linden]

My hon. Friend is right: giving under-25s that spending power would boost the economy and could help kick-start the economy.

[Kirsty Blackman]

As an employer, I have taken on a number of young people on internships, and I have paid the real living wage, not the Government’s pretend living wage, regardless of their age. I found that they made a very valuable contribution to my office and a real positive difference. Has my hon. Friend got experience of doing similar?

[David Linden]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for leading me down that particular path, which I had not quite thought of. She will be aware, as will my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow South West (Chris Stephens), that I am going through the process of recruiting for the first ever John Wheatley intern—a young person will come to work in my office. I believe passionately that if we are to get more people into politics, we need to open up that process; it cannot just be the same people taking on political interns. When I started the process of advertising for that internship, I was conscious of the need to advertise it at the real national living wage. Last week, I set up seven or eight interviews, and I am sorry to have to tell the House that I got a phone call this afternoon to inform me that one of the young guys I was due to interview had sadly passed away. I want to take this opportunity to pay tribute to Scott, who is no longer with us.

The evidence is clear for equalising the national minimum wage to include the under-25s, and my message to the Government is also clear: if we want to build a country that works for everyone, we need to end this discriminatory pay inequality. The Government need to pay a real national living wage, and they need to pay it to the under-25s too.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Griffiths]

The Government have always listened to the expert advice. In particular, we listen to the Low Pay Commission, which is made up of employers, academics and experts in the field and trade union representatives and is specifically devoted to protecting the rights of workers, including young workers. It is the commission that says that this policy is right and that sets the lower rates after considering all the facts.

[Kirsty Blackman]

The Minister has laid the stats before us, saying that the unemployment rate is 3% for over-25s and over 10% for under-25s. Does he not agree that that shows that the system he is presiding over is broken, and that something needs to be done to fix it?

[Andrew Griffiths]

No, I think it shows two things. It shows that the hon. Lady does not understand the labour market, and it shows the difficulties that young people have in demonstrating that they have the necessary skills, in gaining the necessary experience and in convincing employers to take a risk in taking them on and giving them an opportunity.

The hon. Member for Glasgow South West talked about our record in relation to unemployment. I will just remind the House that we are seeing record levels of employment in this country, and that unemployment rates are lower than we have seen for 40 years, so I will take no lessons from him.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Griffiths]

I have given way plenty enough; we will move on.

The Government have increased the national minimum wage for young people to record levels. As I am sure the hon. Member for Glasgow East is aware, last month the Government gave the lowest-paid workers an above-inflation pay rise, as the national living wage and all the national minimum wage rates increased in real terms. The national living wage increased by 33p, to £7.83, meaning that a full-time worker on the national living wage will see their annual earnings rise by more than £600. Following increases to the personal allowance threshold and the minimum wage, a full-time worker earning the national living wage will be taking home over £3,800 a year more after tax. That is something this Government have delivered and are incredibly proud of.

[Kirsty Blackman]

Will the Minister give way?

[Andrew Griffiths]

I think I have given way enough.

The national living wage will rise further to reach 60% of median earnings in 2020, subject to sustained economic growth. We have awarded younger workers in receipt of the national minimum wage the biggest hourly pay rise in more than a decade. In particular, 20 to 24-year-olds saw a 33p increase in their hourly rate to £7.38, meaning a full-time worker in that age group will see their earnings rise by £600 a year, like those aged 25 and over in receipt of the national living wage. Those aged 18 to 20 saw an annual increase of 5.4% to £5.90, and those aged 16 and 17 are now entitled to a minimum of £4.20 an hour, an annual increase of 3.7%. Finally, apprentices aged under 19, or those aged 19 and over in the first year of their apprenticeship, saw an increase of 5.7%, the largest annual increase of all the hourly rates. In total, we believe that more than 2 million workers, 400,000 of whom are young workers under 25, have directly benefited from the latest increases in the national minimum wage.

UK Oil and Gas Industry

Kirsty Blackman Excerpts

Thursday 19th April 2018 Westminster Hall

[Colin Clark]

Yes, but many parts of the country feel they are underinvested in. The engine room of the Scottish economy is taxed that much more than other areas—if we do not invest in it, we risk killing the golden goose. That is the important thing. I am not saying that other areas are not deserving; I am saying that if we do not invest in the north-east of Scotland and the surrounding area, it will not be an attractive place to live, and it will be very difficult to attract people to work there.

[Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the same concepts apply to the £330 billion of oil revenues that came to the Westminster Parliament?

[Colin Clark]

I will not disagree, save that the principle is that that £330 billion was to the UK Treasury, which invested for many years throughout the United Kingdom. As the hon. Member for Stockton North will remind me, not only the original Scottish sector has oil, but the islands, the rest of the UK east coast and now the west coast of Scotland as well.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)]

It is a delight to have the opportunity to speak in this debate. It is always good to have a debate focused on oil and gas; we have not had enough of them recently. I am also delighted to be in Westminster Hall—I feel like I have not been here for some time—and I am thankful for the air conditioning, which is incredibly useful today.

I will not spend an awful lot of time disagreeing with my constituency neighbour, the hon. Member for Gordon (Colin Clark), because I agree with most of what he said, but I will start with a slight disagreement about helicopters. I agree with what the hon. Member for Stockton North (Alex Cunningham) said about people’s nervousness. We and the companies involved ask people to undertake dangerous helicopter journeys just to go to work. In conversations with Airbus and other organisations involved with the helicopters, I have said, “It is not me you have to convince that the aircraft are safe; it is the people who are asked to fly on them.” To do that, those organisations need to have as many conversations and answer as many questions as possible. That is the only way they will possibly regain the confidence of people in the industry.

[Alex Cunningham]

On that basis, does the hon. Lady support my call for a public inquiry so that we have full transparency about exactly what happened and what is being done to rebuild confidence in particular models, which are still yet to come back into service?

[Kirsty Blackman]

I appreciate the hon. Gentleman’s question. To be perfectly honest, I am not clear that an inquiry is widely called for; an awful lot of information has been published. If lots of individuals from my constituency and from the industry more widely asked me for such an inquiry, I absolutely would look at that. I am not saying no, but that is not something that people generally have asked me for. They have looked at the evidence that has been published so far and taken decisions on that basis.

I will talk first about the oil and gas industry in general, although obviously I will speak particularly from the perspective of the north-east of Scotland, as Members would expect of an Aberdonian. I will talk about where we have come from, where we are and where we will go with the industry, and about how to get to those places. As I said, some of my asks are not dissimilar to those of the hon. Member for Gordon.

We were in a situation where the industry was overspending significantly. When it was told that it could have a widget today for £400 or tomorrow for £4, it chose to have it today for £400. There was an awful lot of fat in the system. Now the industry is able to make more profit at $60 a barrel than it was at $120 a barrel, just because it has slimmed down a lot of those costs. One of the most important things for us to do is to capture that—to ensure that, whatever we do, we do not lose the gains we have made.

We have undoubtedly been through an incredibly painful period. We have had an awful lot of pain and suffering in the north-east of Scotland. I get that. A number of people have found alternative jobs—they have been supported in that by various organisations; the Scottish Government have put a lot of effort into that—but some have not. We do not want to forget that there are people who still have not got through the pain of having to go through a redundancy process. We need to remember that and ensure that, whatever we do, we do not set ourselves up for another fall like the one we had. That is really important.

We had a very competitive system, in which companies were unable to work together or point in the same direction. Local authorities were not particularly good at that, either. What really brought local authorities, the business society and civic society in all of Aberdeen city, Aberdeenshire and the north-east of Scotland together was the bidding process for the city deal. Working together on that was really important. I am pleased that we got a city deal. Anyone who has read anything I have said about the deal will know that I was unhappy about how low level it was—I would have liked significantly more money for my city, and I am not sure that many people in the north-east of Scotland would disagree—but the process was very beneficial, as was the direction that the city and the shire took. I hope that we keep hold of that.

[Colin Clark]

The hon. Lady is gracious in giving way. Does she worry that there is a perception that the north-east of Scotland is relatively wealthy and therefore will take care of itself, and that sometimes that affects investment in the region?

[Kirsty Blackman]

I certainly worry that the city deal that was signed was looked at on a different basis from some other city deals. The Scottish Government have put in significant additional funding to the city deal, particularly recognising the issues with infrastructure. I was pleased to hear the hon. Gentleman talk about looking at additional infrastructure projects and so on. The Aberdeen western peripheral route will make incredibly positive changes. No one can wait for it to come—I think we are expecting it in the autumn. It will be hugely positive and will make a big difference, and I think that it will help encourage people to come to the north-east.

Let me turn to where we are now. Companies are working together like never before. I was at the forefront of calling for changes to transferable tax history, but other parties supported them; the Conservative party was behind the call, too. I very much appreciated the Chancellor making those changes in last year’s Budget. I would have preferred them to happen more quickly, but we cannot have everything. We are looking forward to their implementation later this year. I could not be clearer about how important they are, and I am sure the Government recognise that.

Just for a bit of information, if a big company owns a number of rigs and one of them is nearing the end of its life, the company has a choice: it could put a lot of work, capacity and people into that installation to try to get the maximum recovery from it, or it could say, “Look, this is not a priority for us. We are focusing on other things.” That is completely understandable, but the transferable tax history allows a new company—a new player in the market—to take over that asset to ensure that the maximum recovery is made from it. That is really positive, and I am pleased that it has happened. That is a helpful measure in terms of maximum economic recovery, which we are fully behind.

Where are we going? I was pleased to hear the hon. Member for Gordon mention Vision 2035, because it is incredibly important and people do not talk about it enough. It is the vision for the future of the Oil and Gas Authority, which so far seems to be doing a good job. It focuses in particular on the north-east of Scotland, but also on the wider industry across the whole of the United Kingdom. Vision 2035 is about ensuring that we get maximum economic recovery, extract oil and gas from the small pools and have a supply chain that is anchored—particularly in the north-east of Scotland—so that once we get to the stage when no oil and gas is coming out of the North sea, everyone will know that the very best supply-chain companies for oil and gas are in the north-east of Scotland and parts of the wider United Kingdom. Then, rather than seeing those companies lifted and based in the US or other countries, they could continue to sell their expertise, with a tax take continuing to come in and be spent here—preferably in Scotland.

We must anchor the supply chain now for the future, and there are a few ways to do that. In relation to small businesses, all too often such businesses in oil and gas come up with a great concept, start working on it, grow the business to a point and then they are sold. I get that that is a way forward for some, but both the Scottish and UK Governments are beginning to ensure that if such companies have the potential to grow, they do not get sold and their concept lost within a bigger international company but can access the finance they need to anchor themselves and have that next step of growth, whether that is through beginning to export or ensuring that their intellectual property is turned into something real that can be sold. That is really important for the supply chain, rather than seeing companies sold on to somebody else who may not pay as much tax here because they are not a wholly owned United Kingdom company.

On maximising economic recovery and exploration, even though we have a super-mature basin we should still be doing exploration; there is more that we can do. I think someone from Statoil said to me, “You’re most likely to find oil and gas somewhere you have already found oil and gas.” We should do exploration in those areas. We have better ways of surveying now than ever before, and of trawling through and understanding the data from that surveying, which will be important going forward. Anything the UK Government can do to ensure that exploration continues, even in a super-mature basin, would be welcome.

[Claire Perry]

I am really enjoying hearing another perspective from the hon. Lady’s fine city. Could I put on record that I am a little mystified about the Scottish Government’s decision to refuse to allow exploration for gas onshore when we know it is there because it is a geologically identical strata? Ultimately, the same operators would be looking to extract it. We can do it safely and in an environmentally secure manner, because that is what we do in Britain, as we have done demonstrably in the North sea basin. I find that an ideological rather than a practical decision.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kirsty Blackman]

What Governments do in any decision is look for best value—the good things and bad things that would come out of it. The Scottish Government and Scottish Parliament decided that fracking will not happen onshore in Scotland, and it is within that Parliament’s rights to take that decision.

[Claire Perry]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Kirsty Blackman]

In a moment.

[Mr Virendra Sharma (in the Chair)]

Order. The Minister will get a chance to respond to the debate, and I would appreciate it if she would—

[Mr Virendra Sharma (in the Chair)]

I will send you another bottle of water.

[Kirsty Blackman]

Thank you, Mr Sharma. In terms of ideological decisions, the onshore wind decision, taken on a blanket basis across the whole United Kingdom, could be applied flexibly to Scotland, and we would very much like that. There would still need to be a planning process, but it would be great if the blanket ban was not there.

[Colin Clark]

Almost 50% of turbine applications called into Holyrood to the reporter are then given permission. The hon. Lady just said that the Scottish Government have decided not to allow fracking—as I said in my speech, I think it is nimbyism, frankly, but fair enough, because that is their right—but if local communities and local councils say—

[Colin Clark]

Thank you, Mr Sharma. I will keep my question to the hon. Lady. Does she agree that there is a contrast between the two positions? Can one give permission for turbines that people do not necessarily want in their local community when one may not believe in having fracking in Scotland? Perhaps she does believe in having fracking onshore.

[Kirsty Blackman]

I do not believe in having fracking onshore in Scotland, and I am sure the hon. Gentleman would not expect that. The benefits of fracking are not as big as they are made out to be. Were it to be allowed, it would bring very little in the way of jobs or tax take, and the loss to our communities and the upheaval caused in them would be so significant that it would not balance out those jobs and tax take.

I am incredibly pleased to hear the Minister talk so positively about carbon capture and storage. What happened previously in relation to that was a train wreck—it was horrendous. It was awful how the rug was pulled from under it; I could not be clearer in my condemnation. I recognise that it was not the Minister’s responsibility at the time and I do not blame her in any way for that. I am pleased that she is being so positive.

We need to ensure that, whatever we do on decommissioning decisions and changes to allowances made by the OGA, we do not prejudice future carbon capture and storage opportunities. For example, we should not prematurely decommission a pipeline that could be useful for carbon capture and storage. As we do not yet have a full grasp of what carbon capture and storage technology will look like, it is very difficult for such decisions to be made. However, I ask that whatever is looked at is considered carefully in those terms and that carbon capture and storage is considered when any decommissioning decision is made. Any decision on any of that needs to be made very carefully.

I am also of the opinion that decommissioning, if done right, can bring some jobs and some revenue. However, I do not think it will be the biggest windfall in the entire world. I appreciate the action that the UK Government have taken on decommissioning through the OGA, and I also appreciate what the Scottish Government are doing through the decommissioning challenge fund. All those things are positive.

When I spoke to the Oil and Gas Technology Centre, which I will move on to in a moment, it said something interesting about decommissioning. On some rigs, there is an ability to do enhanced extraction techniques, but it is not possible to do them because of all the stuff on the rig that is doing the current extraction techniques. There is a need for a level of enabling decommissioning; taking off some of the widgets currently on the platform in order to put on new widgets so that the platform can be used to do things, but with different technology on it. There are smart things we can do on decommissioning that will ensure that we have jobs, but also that we have a positive way forward and get the maximum economic recovery out of the North sea.

The issue of STEM, which the hon. Member for Gordon mentioned, is important. I have been concerned as an Aberdonian, feeling the pain and seeing the changes and the negative atmosphere in the city, that we would have a situation in which young people would come through school saying, “No, I don’t want to go into oil and gas,” exactly as he said. The Oil and Gas Technology Centre is encouraging young people to get into STEM. Aberdeen Science Centre is doing similarly cool things to encourage STEM, and so is TechFest, which takes place every autumn. Those are all positive things that are supporting young people into STEM.

We do not have the same problems with the numbers of engineers that the north-east of England does—I have previously been told that it is much more difficult in the north-east of England to find some of the engineering skills that are required, but I could be wrong. That is something we could probably work together on quite positively, sharing the information and the positive things we have been doing on that, to ensure that best practice is shared and lots of people are encouraged into engineering.

As the hon. Member for Gordon said, some of the digitisation skills are important. One of the things I talked about with the Oil and Gas Technology Centre was the transferable skills that people get from studying something such as gaming, with the advanced interfaces they use, and how the virtual reality that can be created from that is incredibly positive and useful.

I have a couple more things to say—I am probably beginning to try your patience, Mr Sharma—and a couple of specific asks for the Minister. First, there is the oil and gas sector deal. I know that she is probably being heavily lobbied on that, but it could not be more important for the industry. We recognise that the Government have been working with the industry on that, and we look forward to that coming through.

Secondly, on the industrial strategy challenge fund, I understand that the bids for wave 3 closed at some point this week. Concern has been raised with me about the length of time the decision-making process will take. That is not so much the time in which funding will come through, but the decision-making process. If no shortlist is created until November, and we are looking at having a shortlist at some point late this year, no decision will be taken until a bit later than that. In reality, the chance that people can employ people and get up and running at the beginning of April next year becomes slimmer and slimmer. The quicker the decision can be taken—not necessarily the quicker the funding can come through—the better for projects being ready to go as soon as possible.

There are a couple more challenges. It is the case that Brexit is a challenge for the industry and that varying suggestions have come out about how much Brexit could cost the industry. I am still concerned about how visas are operating. I do not think the current situation works particularly well. I make a plea for post-study work visas to be brought back for the University of Aberdeen and Robert Gordon University. That would be a huge positive change for us. I know that the pilot took place in three universities in England and has been broadened out slightly, but it still has not come to the two universities in my city, and it would be incredibly positive for our industry.

On another specific offshore industry-type issue, I had a constituent come to me recently who is an EU citizen, but is not eligible to apply for the right to remain because he has spent so much time out of the country working for his oil and gas job that he cannot fulfil the residence requirements. He is a high earner, he pays tax and he is a good contributor to our city, and I am concerned that in these individual cases the Home Office’s policies are obstructive to ensuring that those highly skilled people are able to stay in our city. That is a specific plea.

I have one last specific plea for the oil and gas industry. I have requested a meeting with the Financial Secretary of the Treasury and I hope that will happen in the near future. There is a major issue brewing around customs, because there is something called the shipwork end-use relief that is heavily used by oil and gas operators. Basically, it is a customs relief that occurs for stuff that is going offshore; the stuff is not eligible for the same customs fees that it currently would be, because it is going offshore. I received reassurance from the Financial Secretary that that would continue to be applied post-Brexit, but the action that Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs is taking contradicts that.

There is a similar issue on manifests. Currently, paper manifests are okay for making a customs declaration, but we are looking at moving to a situation where electronic manifests are required. I understand that is because of changes in EU rules, but post-Brexit, the Taxation (Cross-Border Trade) Bill is not the same as the EU customs code, so they will possibly be able to revert to paper manifests, but we are not clear. There is an awful lack of clarity around that, and I am concerned that what the Financial Secretary is saying and what HMRC is saying are not the same.

That is becoming really important, because the changes have to be made in the early summer of this year. Companies are gearing up to make changes on the basis of HMRC guidance that is being contradicted by the Financial Secretary. Any assistance that can be given to ensure that those meetings take place and that clarity is given to companies would be incredibly useful.

The industry is in a good place, which is surprising after everything it has been through. There is a positive future. One of the amazing things it is doing is focusing on decarbonisation. That seems a bizarre thing for the oil and gas industry to do, but it has more of a need to do it, and more of a responsibility to do it, because it is the oil and gas industry. I am pleased that that has been written into what the Oil and Gas Technology Centre is doing, and that all the oil and gas companies, working together in ways they never have before, are positive about looking toward decarbonisation.

There is a positive future for the oil and gas industry. We must get it right. We must continue to encourage companies, we must continue to support and work with organisations such as the Oil and Gas Technology Centre and, when industry bodies and companies come to us and say, “This specific issue is a blockage,” we must look at those specific blockages and ensure that we do what we can to get rid of them, listen to industry and make the changes that are required.

[Peter Aldous (Waveney) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Sharma. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Gordon (Colin Clark) on securing the debate, and it is an honour and a privilege to follow the hon. Member for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman).

In the last four years, the oil and gas industry in the North sea has come under considerable pressure, and tens of thousands of jobs have been lost. The industry has adapted and, while challenges remain, it continues to be a vital component part of the UK’s economic base. It still supports hundreds of thousands of jobs and delivers more than half the nation’s oil and gas. There are up to 20 billion barrels of oil and gas still to recover, and the UK supply chain continues to be a world leader, with unrivalled experience in maximising economic recovery from a mature base. The industry makes a consistent contribution of around £1 billion per annum in tax revenues, and the wider tax contribution from across the supply chain is immense.

The Vision 2035 document confirms that the extraction of oil and gas on the UKCS is not a sunset industry. It has a vital role to play in adding to the UK’s energy security, ensuring a smooth transition to a low-carbon economy and creating highly skilled jobs that we can take around the world.

I will first provide a short overview on the national outlook, its successes in the face of adversity and the immediate challenges that need to be addressed. I shall then focus on the southern North sea off the East Anglian coast, where there are specific and exciting opportunities, although work is required if their potential is to be fully realised for the benefit of both the local and national economies.

I am mindful that, in the southern North sea, different energy sectors operate side by side, cheek by jowl—particularly gas, offshore wind and electricity transmission. I pose the question: should they come together and work as one? I am perhaps running before I can walk in saying that, but I will outline a scenario for how those sectors can work more collaboratively for the benefit of industry, people and the places from which those people come.

Notwithstanding the considerable pressures that the industry has faced in recent years, and while in many respects it is still battered and bruised, it is generally in a good place and there is exciting potential ahead of us. In 2017, UK upstream deals exceeded £8 billion. The UKCS production remains stable, despite some start-up delays and unplanned outages. Average unit operating costs have halved, from around $30 per barrel equivalent in 2014 to $15 in 2017. There were at least five exploration successes last year, with a combined discovery of 350 billion barrels equivalent. Around £5.5 billion of post-tax cash flow was generated on the UKCS—more than in any other year since 2011.

There is considerable potential to build on those successes this year, with at least 12 new developments, worth around £5 billion of capital investment, expected to be sanctioned, and with production forecast to increase by 5%. Set against that backdrop, 62% of supply chain companies surveyed by Oil and Gas UK have a positive outlook for 2018. That said, considerable challenges must be addressed if that potential is to be realised. Just 94 wells were opened up on the UKCS in 2017—the smallest number since 1973. Development drilling has fallen by around 45% in the past two years, with supply chain revenues falling by more than £10 billion from 2014. Despite the cost improvements for the supply chain, average EBITDA—earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortisation—fell by £1.7 billion from 2014-16. Moreover, cash flow continues to be a major concern.

Even if all the fields discovered last year were developed, the reserve replacement ratio of 0.6 is not enough to sustain production. The fall in investment from 2014-17 means that production decline is likely to increase in the early 2020s. Sustaining efficiency gains is vital if the basin is to continue to attract investment. Moreover, it is important to improve exploration success and the commercial viability of existing discoveries.

A particular challenge that the industry faces, which we have heard about quite a lot today, is to reinvigorate the supply chain and to make it more resilient. It is important that we tackle this task; not to do so would be irresponsible. A strong supply chain will help sustain the industry and will open up significant export opportunities. Operators need to work more collaboratively with their supply chain businesses—sharing information, encouraging innovation and looking at new working practices. Addressing this challenge should be part of the sector deal, and the Oil and Gas Authority and the Government should work with the industry to help promote a new approach to collaborative supply chain working. Much can be learned from other industries, such as car manufacturing in the north-east and the west midlands.

Since 2012, the Government have generally worked well and closely with the sector, improving the fiscal regime and thereby helping to attract inward investment. That will continue as the driving investment programme is delivered. However, while Government policy is supportive, a number of decisions by HMRC—as the hon. Member for Aberdeen North touched on—have been taken without full and proper consideration of the impact on the oil and gas industry.

A particular example, as the hon. Lady mentioned, is HMRC’s decision in January to end long-standing exemptions for shipwork end-use relief from July of this year. For the oil and gas sector, this exemption—known as CIP33—provides relief from customs duties for equipment that is destined to be used in offshore installations, such as spare parts. The decision was taken at short notice, with no consultation with the industry.

[Kirsty Blackman]

The other thing that particularly concerned me about this was that I received a letter from the Financial Secretary to the Treasury that directly contradicts the decision taken by HMRC, which confused the issue further. The two appear to be giving totally different guidelines on this. It would be great to have clarity.

[Peter Aldous]

I thank the hon. Lady for reinforcing that point. It is difficult to attract investment, and the Government have worked very hard to make this basin one of the most attractive in the world to invest in, but these sort of noises coming out of HMRC reverberate around the world. A solution needs to be found very quickly.

While much of the industry’s focus in recent decades has been on Scotland, when exploration started on the UKCS in 1960s it did so in the southern North sea. That area is now on the verge of a renaissance, with the opportunity of reinventing itself as an all-energy basin, which, with the right policies in place, can play a significant role in the UK’s future energy strategy.

The southern North sea is at a critical juncture. For more than 50 years, the basin has developed and delivered strong gas production through a diverse network of offshore platforms, pipelines and onshore terminals. The basin has been well exploited, and the opportunity to identify and develop large, landmark discoveries is increasingly limited. There is potential with both marginal pools and tight gas, but they are increasingly expensive and complex to access, the technical and commercial risks are high and opportunities can often be quickly disregarded as uneconomic.

The challenge for the southern North sea is now to search for innovative business and technical solutions. This challenge is made more difficult by depressed commodity prices, aging infrastructure and increasing unit transportation costs, as production from existing developments continues to decline. The selection of projects is based on their ability to have a big impact, their prospect of success and the potential to achieve it within a reasonable timescale.

There are currently five priorities in the southern North sea. The first is to realise the full potential of decommissioning opportunities for the benefit of the East Anglian region, which I will come on to in more detail in a moment. The second is to unlock potential tight gas developments. The third is to realise the full potential of the synergies between renewables and oil and gas. The fourth, in the light of Brexit, is to find the best way to work across borders with the Dutch sector. The final one is to minimise production losses due to salting.

It is estimated that 40 platforms in the southern North sea are to be decommissioned by 2022; as I said, it is the oldest part of the basin. That business is worth several billion pounds, with significant job safeguarding and enormous earnings potential for the East Anglian region. However, there is a real and present danger that we will lose much of that work to our European neighbours, where port infrastructures have received investment from their Governments.

East Anglia does not have a level playing field on which to compete with our main competitors in the southern North sea—as I said, on the other side of the sea. Locally, the councils, the New Anglia local enterprise partnership and other supporting agencies, such as the East of England Energy Group, stand ready to support the industry, but there is a need for central Government to get involved and back them if we are to realise for the region the full potential of that significant opportunity.

We need a decommissioning challenge fund similar to that in Scotland, to help to establish a cluster of expertise, as is happening in Dundee with the Tay cities deal. We need to have an aspirational UK local content policy, as already happens with offshore wind. That would help to ensure a return to UK plc, as the Government are already funding between 50% and 75% of UK decommissioning. It would focus operators’ attention on using the local supply chain and would help to support the supply chain action plans that have recently been introduced for decommissioning projects. As I said, EEEGR is willing—it is indeed eager—to lead and to host a taskforce to spearhead that initiative. It would be match-funded by other local agencies, although it would need funding from central Government to establish and then help to maintain it.

The other opportunity in the southern North sea with exciting potential is closer collaboration and working between the oil and gas, offshore wind and offshore transmission sectors. If that can be achieved, a significant contribution can be made to addressing the UK’s ongoing energy trilemma of keeping costs to consumers affordable, ensuring security of supply and smoothing the transition to a low-carbon economy. We need to integrate energy production activities—for example, in respect of oil, gas and electricity—and share common infrastructure for distributing energy. Doing that will achieve significant economic benefits. The co-location of gas-powered electricity generation with gas production hubs would help to maximise the economic recovery from gas fields. The better utilisation of common infrastructure would improve the economic value of both the associated renewable and the hydrocarbon production assets. Collaboration between those sectors is slowly improving and could be accelerated by facilitating and enabling Government policies.

Two main issues are inhibiting more effective collaboration between the sectors. First, the regulatory regimes are quite separate; some of the regulators are not used to working together and they have different policy objectives. Secondly, cross-sector collaboration is not incentivised, as Government policy is highly sectorised.

A possible starting point for improving the situation and promoting cross-sector collaboration would be consideration of the UKCS as an energy basin, rather than a series of separate energy sectors. That integration could be the specific responsibility of the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, albeit delivered through parties such as the OGA, National Grid, Ofgem and the Planning Inspectorate.

The three sectors would also benefit from incentives to work more collaboratively. Sector deals provide an opportunity to make it more attractive for the different sectors to work together, at both the developmental and the operational stages. That could include financial support for cross-sector innovation, improved regulatory cohesion, facilitating the movement of workforce skills between the sectors, and research and development. It may well be that a pilot could be set up for such innovative cross-sector working in the North sea. I would welcome the opportunity to discuss that with my right hon. Friend the Minister, along with industry representatives.

During the past 50 years, oil and gas extraction on the UKCS has brought enormous benefits to the UK. It has created hundreds of thousands of well-paid, highly skilled jobs, attracted significant inward investment from all over the globe and provided a huge annual dividend to the Exchequer. The past four years have probably been the most difficult in the basin’s life, yet notwithstanding a great deal of pain and personal anguish, it has come through this tough period in better shape than could reasonably have been hoped for and is ready to continue to play a full and leading role in the post-Brexit economy.

Since 2012, the Government have given the industry a very fair hearing and backed it, both fiscally and with the creation of the Oil and Gas Authority. Exciting opportunities lie ahead. It is important that the spirit of co-operation in the oil and gas supply chain continues, improves and, as I have outlined, extends to cross-sector working. It is said that if you go to any oil and gas basin around the world, you will hear Scottish, Geordie, Suffolk and Norfolk accents. We must ensure that that continues for at least 50 or—dare I say it?—100 more years.

Oral Answers to Questions

Kirsty Blackman Excerpts

Tuesday 27th June 2017 Commons Chamber

The Secretary of State was asked—

[Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)]

1. What recent discussions he has had with trade bodies and companies involved in extracting oil and gas from the North sea.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Richard Harrington)]

My Department is in regular contact with the oil and gas industry. As hon. Members will be aware, my predecessor, my hon. Friend the Member for Hereford and South Herefordshire (Jesse Norman), met industry representatives regularly, both in London and in Aberdeen. On 23 March the Oil and Gas Authority awarded licences for 111 blocks to enable exploration and production across frontier areas—the first licensing round to focus on frontier areas in two decades. I look forward to continuing this relationship, which is very important for jobs and the wider economy. Indeed, in my first week in post I attended a reception at Imperial College London and met several companies and trade bodies in the field.

[Kirsty Blackman]

I thank the Minister for that answer and warmly welcome him to his new post. In 2016 the Chancellor announced that action would be taken to improve the tax regime for late-life asset transfers. In the 2017 Budget he re-announced the same policy, but now an expert panel is to be set up. Can the Minister let me know how many times the expert panel has met so far, and when we can expect the outcomes of its deliberations to be made public, as it says they will be on the gov.uk website?

[Richard Harrington]

I thank the hon. Lady for that question. She and I have worked together in previous roles, and I look forward to visiting Aberdeen, where hopefully she will be able to explain this further. As far as late-life assets are concerned, we realise how important it is to get this right, and not just for the jobs and tax revenue, but for generating further investment. The discussion paper and the panel of experts are considering this. We look forward to hearing a wide range of views and will report our findings at the autumn Budget.

--- Later in debate ---

[Margot James]

Market towns, such as the ones in my hon. Friend’s constituency, will have all the support we are giving to the retail sector and high streets so that they can flourish.

[Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)]

T4. The National Audit Office recently published a report on Hinkley Point C that is nothing short of damning, describing it as “risky and expensive”. When will the Government listen to the experts and scrap this costly expenditure, and when will they invest instead in carbon capture and storage?

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Richard Harrington)]

If ever you decided not to be Mr Speaker, a career as chairman of the BBC Radio 4 programme “Just a Minute” would be appropriate. In answering the hon. Lady’s question, I will try to keep to your one sentence rule.

The Hinkley Point contract is entirely designed so as not to get the Government involved in expensive capital expenditure, and the nuclear power produced by Hinkley Point will be an excellent part of a mix of power for decades to come.