Energy Policy

Lord Harrington of Watford Excerpts

Thursday 28th June 2018 Written Statements

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

In its written ministerial statement of 11 January 2018, Official Report, column 9WS, the Government set out their commitment to put in place all the necessary measures to ensure that the UK can operate as an independent and responsible nuclear state upon the UK’s withdrawal from Euratom. As made clear in a further written ministerial statement of 26 March 2018, the UK will take legal responsibility for its own nuclear safeguards regime when Euratom safeguards arrangements no longer apply.

The necessary measures include the negotiation of new bilateral safeguards agreements with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). I am pleased to announce that on 7 June 2018 the UK and the IAEA signed these new agreements—a voluntary offer agreement and additional protocol—and we intend to bring these to Parliament for ratification this autumn. The new agreements will replace the current trilateral agreements between the UK, the IAEA and Euratom.

The conclusion of these agreements marks the successful achievement of a major Euratom exit milestone and an important step towards ensuring business continuity for the civil nuclear sector once Euratom arrangements cease to apply to the UK.

On 26 June 2018, the Nuclear Safeguards Bill, which provides the necessary powers to establish a domestic nuclear safeguards regime, received Royal Assent. The passage of this Bill marks another important Euratom exit milestone and paves the way for the secondary legislation, on which the Government will be publicly consulting over the summer, to be put in place before the end of March 2019.

The Government have also progressed their discussions on nuclear co-operation agreements (NCAs) with priority countries to ensure continuity for the civil nuclear sector. On 4 May 2018 the UK signed a bilateral NCA with the United States of America, and remains on track to have bilateral agreements with all priority countries in place when Euratom arrangements cease to apply to the UK.

In parallel with the above, the Government are negotiating with the EU on the UK's separation from, and future relationship with, Euratom. The UK and EU have now reached agreement on all Euratom related articles of the draft withdrawal agreement. The relevant text has therefore been finalised.

There is more detail on these matters in the second quarterly update which has today been provided to Parliament by way of a report. The paper will be placed in the Libraries of the House. As Royal Assent of the Nuclear Safeguards Bill was received on 26 June, the content and timing of these reporting updates to Parliament will be determined by the relevant provisions of that legislation.

[HCWS809]

Oral Answers to Questions

Lord Harrington of Watford Excerpts

Tuesday 12th June 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mr Robert Goodwill (Scarborough and Whitby) (Con)]

10. If he will make an assessment of the potential contribution of the Sirius Minerals polyhalite project to the industrial strategy.

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

The Sirius Minerals polyhalite project has the potential to create 1,000 skilled jobs at the mine near Whitby and on Teesside, with many more jobs in their supply chains. That is an important type of business that will benefit from our industrial strategy, creating skilled jobs in the north of England.

[Mr Goodwill]

I am sure the Minister is aware of the recent Quod report, which shows the long-term economic benefits of this investment. The polyhalite fertiliser mining project does not only bring the 1,000 jobs that the Minister mentioned but is the largest single investment in the north. Product will be exported to the world through Teesport, growing the local economy by almost 20% and adding £2.3 billion to the economy. Does the Minister agree that that is precisely the kind of project that the Government should be getting behind as part of the modern industrial strategy?

[Richard Harrington]

I agree with my right hon. Friend. This is a very important project for him, as the Member of Parliament for Whitby. It is an important developing business, and I agree that it is exactly the kind of business that would benefit from our industrial strategy.

[Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)]

I worked for some years in the chemical industry, so let us talk in real terms. We are talking about potash, and as one of the biggest reserves of potash in Europe, this business is seriously important. On a day like today, when we face the ruination of Brexit, when my local engineering companies are desperate about losing their markets in Europe and when Ministers are resigning, it is vital that we use this resource to compensate for the disaster in the rest of the economy.

[Richard Harrington]

I agree with the hon. Gentleman; this potash project is very exciting and very good for the UK. It is exactly the kind of business that he would want in his area, and it will help businesses throughout the United Kingdom.

[Julian Sturdy (York Outer) (Con)]

11. What steps he is taking to invest in science, technology and innovation throughout the UK.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs Madeleine Moon (Bridgend) (Lab)]

13. What assessment he has made of the capability of British steel manufacturers to produce high-grade steel for new markets.

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

In December 2017, we published Government-commissioned independent research that identified high-value market opportunities for UK steel producers worth up to £3.8 billion a year by 2030

[Mrs Moon]

The national shipbuilding strategy sought to improve UK prosperity through shipbuilding. The MOD fleet solid support ships contract is worth more than £1 billion. What steps will the Government be taking to ensure that British steel manufacturers are ready to bid for that contract?

[Richard Harrington]

As the hon. Lady will know, because I met her the week before last, I am very conscious that Tata is in Port Talbot in her constituency. I promise that I will do everything in my power to ensure that Tata and other British steel companies, all of whom I meet regularly, are poised to act on these contracts.

[John Grogan (Keighley) (Lab)]

14. What the timetable is for his receipt of the report of the carbon capture usage and storage cost challenge taskforce; and if he will make a statement.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)]

T3. Last night, I had the pleasure of travelling on the sleeper from Inverness to Euston, and with me on the sleeper was a consignment of delicious highland shellfish products. What are the Government doing to assist the transportation of fresh highland food products to markets in the south and, indeed, overseas?

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

As you may well be aware, Mr Speaker, highland products are absolutely excellent and should well be distributed to all parts of the UK. The Government’s policy, with the industrial strategy to develop business by helping with research and development and through keeping fuel prices low, without the troughs and peaks that the Secretary of State mentioned, will help significantly.

[Michelle Donelan (Chippenham) (Con)]

T8. Each year, I organise the Wiltshire Festival of Engineering, and this October’s event is set to reach thousands of young children. What will the Department be organising for this year’s Year of Engineering?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Virendra Sharma (Ealing, Southall) (Lab)]

T7. What assurances has the Minister received that the British steel industry can supply Heathrow expansion sufficiently?

[Richard Harrington]

As I hope the hon. Gentleman is aware, I meet the steel industry regularly, and I am very interested to meet him to hear his views on the subject. I can assure him that everything that can possibly be done to deal with tariffs is being done. I had a meeting with all the chief executives of the steel business. I went to Brussels last week and met the director general of trade, as well as other CEOs and European colleagues.

[Huw Merriman (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)]

High street businesses lose out when banks close, pensioners lose banking services, and post offices are also facing challenging times. What can be done to make sure that the main high street banks provide their services at least in a host post office that acts as a hub?

UK Automotive Industry: Job Losses

Lord Harrington of Watford Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd May 2018 Westminster Hall

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

Thank you, Mr Bone, for the iron discipline that you have exerted on the Members of Parliament here today. It has worked, because I have the time that you originally said I would.

I commend the hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington (Matt Western) not just for bringing about the debate—he has always very eloquently represented his constituents who work in the automotive industry—but for his speech. I think that it was described by the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for North West Durham (Laura Pidcock), as a tour de force, and it was. I agreed with a lot of the things that he said; I agreed with contributions from hon. Members on both sides of the Chamber. A lot of the views expressed are based on severe concern about the automotive industry. We all know how critical it is to our economy—specifically to the constituencies of hon. Members who have spoken today, but also to the economy generally.

I would like to put it on the record that the only comment that I could really object to—I do not take offence, because it is part of the political system to say these things—is that the Government do not really care about the industry or are not involved with it. I can say from personal experience that that is not true. The automotive industry is at the top of our list. As was well published in most of the press, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State uses the automotive industry in the Cabinet as an example of the complexity of business within the European Union. There are well known examples of what happens to different parts. I saw one part in a car factory that had been in and out of the country seven times. Hon. Members, in their contributions today, gave similar examples.

In relation to communication with and listening to the industry, hon. Members should know that I meet, as does the Secretary of State, every Wednesday morning with the business representative organisations. The particularly relevant one here is the Engineering Employers Federation, which represents thousands of businesses up and down the country; many of them are involved with the automotive industry. Stephen Phipson, the director of EEF, may be known to hon. Members. He had worked in industry for most of his life and more recently had worked for the civil service in relation to trade. He has written a letter to one of the newspapers, explaining his recent visit to the Canadian-American border. He saw how complex, after many years, billions of dollars of expenditure and good will on both sides, movements across borders are even with electronic trading. A very important part of what we do in government is listening to people about that kind of thing.

I have made visits since I took on this portfolio, and I should say that I asked for the automotive industry to be part of my portfolio. I have not had constituency experience of it, but in terms of manufacturing and this kind of manufacturing investment, I realise, as does the Secretary of State, how important it is to the economy. I think that it is fair to say that I have met executives from nearly all the major manufacturers in this country. I have met senior Japanese executives from Toyota, for example. That was with the Secretary of State, who made very clear the critical importance of frictionless trade between this country and the countries in the European Union. I agree with the comment made today that this country is not a big enough market on its own to sustain a healthy automotive industry.

The population is 60 million. The demand for new cars in a good year could be between 1 million and 2 million, along with all the components. This is big business. These are very complex parts. It is not as it was when the car industry started. We have to be part of a larger market. In whatever way it is worked out, it has to enable companies to do business as they are now. That includes regulatory matters, the frictionless—or near frictionless—movement of goods and the ability to recruit necessary labour. On a recent visit to BMW’s Mini plant in Oxford, I saw—I may be wrong by 1% or 2%—that 21% or 22% of labour there was from the European Union. Fortunately for our economy, there is not a large number of unemployed people in the Oxford area and it is clear that that labour will have to come in, to work in a good career, in a fantastic company and in a fantastic factory.

I mention all that because the engagement aspect has not been communicated enough to hon. Members, but is a very important part of what we do. I believe that the interests of the automotive industry have been reflected in the negotiations. The shadow Minister made an eloquent speech, but she said that one of the delays has been a disagreement among the Cabinet on how this should be approached. That, however, is part of democracy. There are different views within the two major political parties. That is a legitimate part of democracy. I wish everyone agreed with me. They do not always, but I believe we will prevail. I had better make some progress. I spoke a lot on engagement with other companies and I have completely ignored the notes I made earlier, but I did feel that I should react to that.

There has been speculation today in the press that the decline in the diesel market has been caused by uncertain messaging. I think that it was the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Richard Burden) who suggested that comments made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs had been prejudicial to the diesel industry. It is important to note, however, what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy said about this last week:

“Diesel cars have played an important part in reducing CO2 emissions from UK road transport. They can still play a valuable role in further reducing CO2 emissions during the transition to zero emission vehicles.”

We have stated that we will end the sale of new conventional petrol and diesel cars and vans by 2040. That is a general European-wide policy. But we will shortly publish the Government’s “Road to Zero” strategy, which will set out the gradual steps that we will take over the coming years to deliver our mission. The mission is for every car and van in the UK to be effectively zero emission by 2040. I think that will prove to be significantly beneficial to the UK car manufacturing industry.

[Richard Burden]

Consumer incentives will have to be part of the package that we hope will incentivise the shift towards zero emissions. The Government have scaled back both the plug-in car grant and the grant available for the home charging of electric vehicles. Does that not send out a confused signal, if we are trying to encourage people to make that shift?

[Richard Harrington]

One of the issues is not reducing the amount of grants, but where the grants should go, which I am happy to discuss separately with the hon. Gentleman, as I need to make progress due to lack of time. There are questions: for example, should hybrid cars receive the same grant as all electric cars? I would be delighted to meet him to talk this through, formally or informally.

I want to stress the importance that the automotive industry has to us with regard to the future. My hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Gillian Keegan), while stressing frictionless trade, mentioned Rolls-Royce in her constituency and how it might appear as a small blob on a map compared to vast production, but it is critically important to the country and the local economy. I would be happy to accept her kind invitation to visit with her.

Investment generally in the UK auto industry is important to us. The industrial strategy and landmark automotive sector deal show how the Government can work with industry at the forefront of new technologies, to ensure that we remain the destination of choice for future investment decisions. There was good news, which hon. Members have mentioned, about the Luton plant with the Vivaro vans. Toyota announced that it will build the next generation Auris in Derbyshire. Those decisions are not to be sneered at, but are important. While I accept that decisions are made over a long period, I think that 10-year decisions for any significant investments are also important, but they can be pulled. Like any decisions, a company can decide to do that at the last minute for whatever reason it wants—for example, if it is short of money or if there is uncertainty in the market or points are raised about Brexit. Although they are long-term decisions, they are not decisions until they are finally made. BMW’s investment in the electric Mini and Nissan’s investment in Sunderland mean that since 2016, this country has won every single competitive model allocation decision by major car manufacturers. That does not mean we can take it for granted.

I would like to speak for an hour on the EU exit issue. I cannot, however, due to your quite rightly ruthless chairing, Mr Bone. The Government have reached an agreement on the terms of the implementation period, but we have to plan for all scenarios. I have a lot of confidence that we will leave with a deal and that a no-deal scenario in March 2019, which I think would be disastrous for the automotive industry—I am happy for that to be on record and will defend it to anybody—is significantly less likely. I hope that it is totally unlikely. I hope that it does not happen and I believe that it will not happen. There needs to be a competitive market as part of a European-wide industry. It has been a huge success. It was Mrs Thatcher who persuaded many of the Japanese firms to invest here, because of the market that they would be involved in. Whatever hon. Members’ different views about Mrs Thatcher are, I think that they will all agree that that has been a good thing for the country.

Our vision for the UK is clear. We are seeking a comprehensive solution, which includes most of the things that the industry wants, such as vehicle standards, one series of approvals and simple, frictionless movement for parts and labour, where it is required in the industry. We are pleased that the Government are producing a White Paper, which will set out in detail the UK’s position on a future relationship. I think that it will be significant and show the exact terms of the relationship we are seeking with the EU and our preferred option for the future customs relationship, providing detail on precisely these issues, such as tariffs, rules of origin and mutual recognition, which are important to the industry.

I am happy to take up this discussion afterwards. I am meeting the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Justin Madders) and others later today, and I am happy to meet any hon. Member to talk in more detail about this complex issue. In conclusion, hon. Members should know how strong the automotive sector is for us. We are a strong manufacturing nation. I believe that we will be a lot stronger. I thank everyone for their attention today.

Parental Bereavement (Leave and Pay) Bill

Lord Harrington of Watford Excerpts

3rd reading: House of Commons & Report stage: House of Commons
Friday 11th May 2018 Commons Chamber

[Edward Argar]

It is a pleasure to speak at this stage of the Bill’s progress. I very much enjoyed my time on the Bill Committee, and pay tribute to all my colleagues who served on that Committee. Indeed, it was also a pleasure and a privilege to speak on Second Reading of this Bill.

As many hon. and right hon. Members have said during the passage of this Bill, we are, to a degree, righting a wrong. Although many businesses do the right thing, as we would wish them to do, in looking after and supporting bereaved parents in the dreadful circumstances of having lost a child, there are some, as we have also heard, who have not done that. What this Bill does is not only to send a very clear message to all businesses but to provide a basic level of protection.

I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake). I think that this is his second private Member’s Bill and, like his previous one, it stands a very good chance of success. He is always someone to have in one’s corner when taking a cause through the private Member’s Bill process. I also pay tribute to my hon. Friends the Members for Eddisbury (Antoinette Sandbach), for Colchester (Will Quince), and, although she is not in her place today, my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Victoria Prentis) and, of course, the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Patricia Gibson), all of whom have spoken extremely movingly, at different points, about their experiences and why this piece of legislation is so hugely important.

Let me turn to the specific amendments before us today. I can understand why each of them is hugely important, but we must also be careful that we do not try to make the perfect the enemy of the good. The key must be to get this legislation through the House. Amendments 22 and 23, tabled by the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran, are essentially about flexibility, which was also highlighted in the amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay (Kevin Foster). She makes an extremely valid point. If I recall, there are organisations, such as Together for Short Lives and Cruse Bereavement Care, which have all made the same point about the need for flexibility. Individuals and families cope and grieve in different ways, at different paces and at different times. Some will want to go straight back to work, while others will want time to grieve quietly. Equally, as we have touched on in previous comments, if there is an inquest or if the death has been sudden and unexpected that may well also increase the need for flexibility, because no one will know when they may need that time off.

Although I entirely take on board what the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran said—I will be interested to hear whether the Minister will allude to this—it may be that the most effective way of addressing the points on flexibility is to feed them into the consultation, which is due later this year, and to use that as a mechanism to address them, rather than necessarily putting them in the Bill. I am entirely sympathetic to the points that she makes. I would be grateful if the Minister could say what he thinks is the best method by which to achieve that outcome.

We then turn to amendments 24 and 25, which were mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge), about where the cut-off point should be. He was absolutely right in what he said. The hon. Lady made an extremely powerful moral case for her amendments. My hon. Friends the Members for Thirsk and Malton and for Croydon South (Chris Philp) were clear that the reasonableness test would address the issue, but, again, I would welcome clarity from the Minister on his interpretation of that.

Finally, let me address amendments 1, 2, 12, 14 and others on the definition of what a parent is in the context of this Bill. I argue that that is one of the hardest parts of getting this Bill right—how do we define the scope of what is a parent. There will be biological parents, and there will be the partners of someone who is not the biological parent, but still feels the bereavement as acutely. I believe that, in Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton mentioned the case of Mandy Ruston who talked on Facebook about the fact that, while she was able to get support from her employer, her partner, a non-biological parent, was told by his employers to return to work.

It is extremely difficult, particularly in the modern age, for us to define who is a parent. Perhaps, rather than looking at a legalistic or biological definition, we should look at it in terms of caring responsibilities. The challenge is to try to find a legal definition for the purposes of legislation. This Bill goes a very long way towards doing exactly that. It is not perfect, but I have yet to see, in my short time in this place, any legislation that I believe is entirely perfect as it passes through this House, or indeed as it emerges at the other end. There are always things that can be tweaked to reflect the changing nature of society or changing circumstances as the world moves on.

Throughout the passage of this Bill, we have heard a number of extremely moving, thoughtful speeches and contributions. As Members on both sides of the House have said, all those contributions have been made in a spirit designed to allow the Bill to progress and to work together to come up with the best legislation we can. With that in mind, the key for all of us must be to get the Bill on to the statute book. Where there are issues that still need to be ironed out, we should not shy away from that and we should continue to look at them, but the key must be not to let that slow down or impede the passage of the Bill. We should get the Bill on to the statute book and then we can, as necessary, refine and tweak by regulation or through the consultation.

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

I thank colleagues on both sides of the House for the moving speeches that they have made. As you may know, Madam Deputy Speaker, I usually try to start my addresses to this House with a quip or a humorous comment, but I am afraid that today is not an occasion for that. This is a very serious Bill. I am the third Minister to have had the honour of working on it. That is not because no one can be bothered with it, but because it is very important. Every human being, let alone every Member of Parliament, will have every sympathy with it.

Colleagues have made it clear that the Government fully support the Bill, and I reaffirm once again that it very much has our backing. Despite the public reading, quite rightly, of the system of opposition—some say that it is opposition for opposition’s sake and some say that people are being partisan—this is a very good occasion when the reality is not that.

I was in business for most of my adult life before first coming to this place, and I did not really think about this issue. When I first started to consider the Bill, I remembered an occasion when it was brought to my attention that someone had had a bereavement. I just said, not because I am particularly humanitarian or perfect but as anyone would say, “Take as much time as you need.” I think that the vast majority of employers do say that. Before there was statutory sick pay, statutory holiday pay and so on, I am sure that a lot of employers, even in the 19th century, just did what they thought was the right thing—for example, the non-conformists building houses in Bournville and elsewhere. Employers always have been, and certainly are in the present day, far more responsible than just relying on the minimum in law. However, it is our place to make laws to provide that basic minimum—not to insult those who do the right thing but to provide a safety net, or catch-all, for the employees of those who do not. Quite clearly, there are those who do not, and they should be ashamed of themselves, frankly.

Not every employer is like BT or a firm with tens of thousands of employees. My hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge) mentioned that he had a business with only two or three employees. That makes things much more difficult and employers have to be much more flexible. Big firms can make proper arrangements, and often do indeed have them. I have come across many cases of companies that have very responsible policies on this kind of thing, far and above what the law would provide, because that is the right thing for their employees.

--- Later in debate ---

[Bill Esterson]

Surely not!

[Richard Harrington]

The shadow Minister makes a good sedentary comment, but I detect a note of sarcasm.

The serious point here is that consultations in which charitable bodies and other institutions make points based on their experiences are an important part of the legislative process, because that is where the detail comes in. I can assure Members on both sides of the House that this is not a can-kicking consultation or a formality. It is very important. Anyone who is interested can submit a response, and the consultation is open until 8 June, so there is not long to wait. I feel that it is necessary. Sometimes consultations are formalities, but I do not think this is one of them.

[Kevin Foster]

I am reassured by some of what I am hearing from the Minister, but can he be clear that the Government will look at the results of that consultation with a view to being clear on primary care givers, rather than parents who are purely defined by biology?

[Richard Harrington]

My hon. Friend makes a good point, as is typical. He asked me whether I can be clear, and I can be clear that that is the case.

The definition of a bereaved parent will be the same in respect of both leave and pay for the Bill. We must not forget that this involves the two minimum rights, as I call them, of the leave that can be taken and the pay that goes with it. Those are the minimum rights, and I think many companies now fully exceed that. We have been clear all along that we want to introduce a system that prescribes clearly, based on the facts, who is eligible, for the benefit of employees and employers.

In some areas of employment law, legislation has been the right course of action. Legislation has set the principle, which employment tribunals interpret for particular cases, fleshing out how it should be applied. In this case, however, we do not want claims to reach an employment tribunal to establish whether an individual counts as a bereaved parent for these purposes, and it would not be right to expect people dealing with that tragic loss to muster the energy and time to follow that course of action. That issue came up on Second Reading and in Committee, and each time it became clear that the question who should count as a bereaved parent, which on the surface seems very simple, is not easy to answer.

The consultation seeks to get that right, so that when the regulations are published—this is not a case of regulations being published so that Ministers and not Parliament take control—they are correct. The regulations must be simple, but they must also be comprehensive and include all circumstances. That is a difficult balance to get right, but we are doing our best. I agree with the spirit of the amendment, but it is not appropriate to accept any measure that will effectively pre-empt the outcome of that consultation. We must allow the process to run its course.

[David Linden]

Can the Minister say when the Government will respond to that consultation? Have they set a timescale for that? We cannot just go on waiting for a consultation response—I would not be so bold as to say that that has happened before—so can he say when the Government will report back?

[Richard Harrington]

I fully accept the hon. Gentleman’s point, and we cannot allow this to go on and on. I think that it was Mrs Thatcher who said she was going to “go on and on”, but this is not one of those cases—well, it was not in her case either, as the hon. Gentleman will know. In all seriousness, I cannot give a direct answer, not because I do not want to, but because we must see how much information there is and process it. If I say “weeks”, perhaps he will hold me to that. I know that “weeks” could mean 5,000 weeks, but that is not what I intend. I hope that will give him a rough idea, but we cannot just hold the consultation one day, have a knee-jerk response and finish it, as I hope that he understands. There is no intention to stall. I have seen the spirit of the House today, and I hope that no one will think that this is a governmental stalling mechanism—far from it.

Amendments 3, 5, 20 and 23 consider the window within which leave and pay can be taken, and amendment 22 concerns the flexibility with which leave is taken. Given that this measure will join a fleet of others related to family-related leave and pay, we must maintain consistency. That is the genesis of the eight-week window and the ability to extend that through secondary legislation. We cannot have a situation in which the enabling framework is inconsistent with frameworks for other family leave provisions, thereby adding complexity and potential confusion.

Today, we have heard the view that the current eight-week window might not be enough. I have heard that message. That is one key element explicitly considered in the current consultation, and it is legitimate to ask people other than politicians for their views on this issue. The decision that leave could be taken at a later stage, while retaining a minimum timeframe of eight weeks in the Bill, is not unreasonable. We cannot accept any of the proposed amendments without waiting for the outcome of the consultation and then making a decision in view of the responses. Hon. Members and their constituents must engage in the consultation process, because we need the evidence base on which the Government can take responsible decisions. We need as broad a base of representative evidence as possible.

[Kevin Foster]

May I clarify for my benefit and that of other Members that the idea is for eight weeks to be the minimum timeframe and that the leave can be broken? This is not about a solid two-week period.

[Richard Harrington]

That is exactly what the Government are trying to find out. It may be that that is not appropriate, but my instincts are that what my hon. Friend says is right. Bills like this are strange. The natural thing would be to have as much flexibility as possible for almost anything, because these circumstances are different—of course they are. Each is a terrible tragedy, and we have heard speeches from hon. Members across the House about their own experiences, and those of their families and constituents. Everyone is different. We do not want to have to force everything into a narrow hole.

Employers have to know where they stand, however, otherwise we are just asking them to be nice people and to behave humanely. We do say that, of course, but it is not enough. We have to provide a framework and a balance must be struck. I think that we all agree that we need to provide employers with a simple set of rules, not an over-complex set of rules. The odd time—thankfully, it is just the odd time—that such a terrible bereavement happens, we do not want employers to be rushing around looking for papers, laws and guidelines. If an employer has only three or four employees, that is very difficult to do. I am sure their answer would be, “Take whatever you need,” but we have to provide the rules. I am absolutely clear that the amount of leave and pay is a minimum entitlement, so that all families who lose a child are given the bereavement support they need. I believe it is the absolute minimum.

The Bill was never about making sure that each parent who finds themselves in this situation has all the time off they need, because grief is different for each person. Grief is never time-limited and I am sure any reasonable employer would not or could not give people enough time off to deal with their entire grief—grief will happen over the rest of their lives. The intention is to set a minimum entitlement that employers must provide and to encourage a culture of support to develop around child bereavement. I am sure many employers would take into consideration the mental health needs of parents after bereavement, or extra time to deal with other children affected. This is the minimum; it is not everything. I hope that employers do not think, “Well, that’s all we have to do. That’s enough.” It never is. I am sure all responsible employers know that.

We have to consider employers’ rights. They have to have a clear framework. They need to know, in a way that is easily understandable, the minimum the law entitles them to. This may be obvious, but most employers will never come across this situation. When it does happen to an employee in a smaller company, employers will not have experienced the situation before. They will not have a file in a human resources department to tell them what their rights are. We found a consensus among employer groups for the minimum leave period of two weeks. It is sensible to continue with that, as long as it is known that it is the minimum entitlement in the Bill. Bigger, more organised employers will develop their own enhanced bereavement policies, as big firms often have very clear policies for almost every possible contingency.

On removing the age limit for a child, I cannot imagine how difficult it is to lose a loved one. The point was made, I think by my hon. Friend the Member for Chippenham (Michelle Donelan), that a child is a child. My mother is 89, but I am still her child. That may be obvious, but when we think of children for the purposes of the Bill one can assume that we mean little children. As my hon. Friend said so eloquently, to lose any child is not what nature intended but unfortunately it does happen. I can well understand why amendments seeking to remove the age limit for a child have been tabled. Having a sick child is understood easily by people. The way things are changing mental health, thankfully, is spoken about more now. However, people do not come across child bereavement very often, so it can be more difficult to speak about. The numbers, however, are not insignificant.

We have tried to get the balance right between those affected and those who need to administer this provision. It provides the minimum level of entitlement, but it does not prevent employers from enhancing their policies. I do not like the idea of having to consider costs in these circumstances, but they are unavoidable. There is a cost to employers and to Government, and the broader the scope, the higher the cost, so it is important to focus on the fact that this is a framework and a floor, providing a minimum. However, in so many areas of life employers go far beyond what the law sets the minimum for. Holiday pay and sick pay are good examples, and I am absolutely certain that the bereavement pay should be too.

[Michael Tomlinson]

The Minister is absolutely right: this is a statutory minimum. So many employers do so much better and I am sure that we all hope that they will continue to do so, but there has been this figure of a fivefold increase. It seems odd to be talking about money and financial costs in these circumstances. Can he explain, perhaps in more detail, the evidence that we have heard about a fivefold increase? Is it right that widening the scope and extending the age limit of 18 would increase it fivefold? If that is right, can he explain how?

[Richard Harrington]

I would like to consider my hon. Friend’s point. Perhaps I can drop him a line next week, or perhaps we can meet up and have a chat about it, because I do not want not to give a knee-jerk answer to a very complex question.

[Kevin Foster]

May I suggest that a letter with the information could be placed in the Library, given that we have discussed the issue on the Floor of the House?

[Richard Harrington]

Yes, I thank my hon. Friend very much for that suggestion. I would be very happy to do that and to correspond directly with my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Michael Tomlinson). We have to focus on the fact that this is a floor, as I think I have made clear. This is really about changing the culture around bereavement in general. It is my heartfelt belief that this Bill is not the be-all and end-all but that it will be a powerful driver of that culture change.

[Alan Mak (Havant) (Con)]

My hon. Friend mentioned the desire for a culture change among businesses. Will he continue to engage with the many business representative organisations to make sure that that message from this House is clear and spreads out across the whole country?

[Richard Harrington]

Yes. As ever, the good citizens of Havant are very well served. I make the point clearly that I meet business representative organisations, such as the Confederation of British Industry, the EEF, the Federation of Small Businesses and chambers of commerce, on a weekly basis. They are very responsible and I shall be bringing it up with them. This is a culture change, but culture changes do not happen instantaneously.

On remuneration, I really believe that the Bill again provides the minimum standard for employers. Hon. Members on both sides of the House have spoken about the level, but this is a minimum level, and bereaved parents have to know what the minimum is and what the entitlement is. However, it is not something that they should be negotiating with their employers. I am sure again that employers will be clear, and most will have a policy that is greatly in excess of that.

While I am on the subject, I turn to a point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay. When we were discussing the amendment that deals with remuneration, I was asked about the civil service and whether the Government will provide leadership. I am pleased to announce today that we have decided that civil servants should receive full occupational pay for the one or two weeks that they take off under the Bill’s provisions. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear!”] Many civil servants already take special leave when they find themselves in tragic circumstances, and we obviously want that level of support to continue when the Bill is implemented. I do not think that that makes the civil service particularly special. It should be standard, but I think we should lead by example. I have seen—not to do with child bereavement, but with sickness and other things—that the civil service is very flexible, and we as Government are very responsible employers in that way.

[Will Quince]

I thank the Minister for that very welcome announcement. It sends a very clear message to employers up and down the country that this is the gold standard and very much what we expect them to aspire to.

[Richard Harrington]

My hon. Friend is right: we must lead by example. Offering full pay to our own employees who lose a child means that we are a good employer, but it also provides a best-practice model for other employers to follow.

In relation to amendment 7, my hon. Friend raised an important point about consistency with other family-related leave entitlements. The Bill as drafted makes clear which contractual elements are applicable to parental bereavement leave or pay.

Let me now turn to amendment 8. I will begin with words that you have heard already, Madam Deputy Speaker: I agree with the comments made by many Members. It has been made clear that there is no desire to deviate from frameworks supporting existing measures in the landscape of family-related leave and pay, but that must not be at the expense of fairness and proportionality. Someone may be on family-related leave for many different reasons, and the forms of leave involved are a variety of lengths. They can be taken back to back. Sometimes it is natural for that to be the case, but sometimes it is not.

If the amendment were accepted, it might be possible for a bereaved parent who had been on leave for an extended period—perhaps consisting partly of maternity leave and partly of parental bereavement leave—to be entitled to return to the job that they had before going on leave, whereas a colleague who had been on other forms of family-related leave for the same period of time would not have quite the same right to return. We would not want a fixed “right to return” that was out of kilter with the other, existing “rights to return”.

The Government need the flexibility to set all this out through regulation after they have had time to consider all the various forms of leave and how they could interact with each other. I know that that sounds pedantic. Earlier this week, the hon. Member for Barrow and Furness (John Woodcock) accused me of being a nit-picker—there should probably be a Royal Society of Nit-pickers—but in this instance we have to nit-pick, because the detail is critically important. We should set out the rules only after we have considered the issue. That is, after all, the approach taken in the existing legislation on family-related leave and pay rights.

My hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South (Chris Philp) suggested the extension of leave to parents of premature babies. As I have said, all family leave provisions represent a floor. Employers are encouraged to go beyond the minimum when they can. Last year the Government worked with ACAS to produce new guidance on support for staff who have premature babies. The UK offers generous maternity-leave entitlements —some of the best in the world—and I think that they provide for a variety of circumstances. Parents also have access to other types of leave, such as shared parental and annual leave.

[Chris Philp]

I appreciate the Minister’s response to my earlier comments. I would point out, however, that the parents of very premature babies have additional caring responsibilities—particularly when the babies are in a neonatal intensive care unit—over and above the ordinary parental requirements involving a normal newborn baby. I therefore ask the Government to consider, at some future time, an additional leave right, over and above the normal one, for parents in those circumstances, when it is necessary for them to be present with the baby as much as possible.

[Richard Harrington]

I know that my hon. Friend has personal experience in that regard, as his twins were born prematurely. I was born quite prematurely myself. Some of us look as though we were not born prematurely. My hon. Friend has made a serious point, however, and I will definitely consider it.

Amendments 9 to 11 and 15 to 17 deal with notice requirements. In this context, we have to stop and think about what the word “reasonable” means. It looks sensible in drafting and in amendments, because people think, “Well, what’s reasonable is reasonable”, but it is very subjective. It is a word that remains open to interpretation and genuinely means different things to different people. If I was challenged on the grounds of reasonableness—for example, on the length of this speech—what would the outcome be? It is a serious point with a number of scenarios and thought processes, with the usual outcome that something can be considered reasonable or unreasonable for any number of reasons when viewed from multiple perspectives.

The amendment might inadvertently make it difficult for those who seek to rely on the provision to know exactly what it means for them. We cannot create a situation in which the issue of reasonableness ends up being a sticking point between employer and employee. Then we would have questions of whether it should go to an employment tribunal or how would it be arbitrated, when that would be the last thing that anyone wanted on top of dealing with the terrible tragedy of a child’s death. It would be the worst of all outcomes and I am sure that no Member would want to see it.

I understand the aim of the amendment, however, and I sympathise with its spirit. But given that we are dealing with such a delicate issue, in which clarity is key, we should keep the text of the schedule as it is.

[Kevin Foster]

I take on board some of the points that the Minister is making, but does he accept that “reasonable” is a word that has been in the law for a long time in various circumstances? For example, Lord Denning famously talked, in the language of his time, of the man on the top of the Clapham omnibus. One of the reasons we picked the word is because it has been decided on in the courts many times.

[Richard Harrington]

I thank my hon. Friend for that point and in my brief time not as a lawyer but doing a law degree I remember the Lord Denning case, which was about being subjective about reasonableness. It was fine for Lord Denning, as the Master of the Rolls, to opine on the issue, but we have to consider a system that will not, we hope, go to an employment tribunal or a court—that is the last thing that anybody would want. Although “reasonableness” seems a fine test on the surface, this is such a delicate issue that we need to keep the text of the schedule as it is, with due respect to Lord Denning and my hon. Friend, although I agree with him about the “reasonable” test generally in English law and other systems.

As for the eligibility for pay, I look at this from my business background. Keeping the qualifying period for the pay element aligned with family leave provisions avoids questions arising at this sensitive time about who is entitled to take both parental bereavement leave and pay, because employers are already familiar with how it works. If employers are able to follow the legislation easily it will, in turn, enable them to act in a way that reduces the stress and uncertainty of the bereaved employee. ACAS has opined a lot on this subject and my officials have worked with it to establish how the Government can best support employers when an employee suffers child bereavement. Much of it will have to do with guidance and support to reflect the new provisions after Royal Assent and once the regulations have been made.

In supporting the Bill, the Government want to ensure that employees and employers are both involved in managing child bereavement, in the context of existing family leave and pay legislation. So I think it better that we leave the Bill as it stands in this respect—consistent with existing family-related pay entitlements when it comes to eligibility for statutory pay.

On amendment 18 and the liability of HMRC, the point has been covered a lot in the proceedings on the Bill, and I believe we need to ensure that protections are in place in the event an employer does not fulfil his legal obligation.

To allow time for Third Reading, I would just say that this is as good a time as any to reiterate the Government’s full support for the Bill, and my appearance as the third Minister to represent the Government is not a signal of wavering commitment. It is a signal that we are trying to get it right and treating the subject with the importance it deserves. I hope that after today’s important stages the Bill will make a swift transition for consideration in the other place, so it can proceed and receive Royal Assent at the earliest convenience.

--- Later in debate ---

[Richard Harrington]

I will not go through the long list of speakers, because other Members have already done so. Let me merely endorse what they have said.

Bills such as this give rise to two types of emotion: one prompted by our political views or policy ideas; and the other due to our personal experiences or those of our constituents. We have felt a great deal of the second type of emotion today. It would not be right for me to single out individual Members’ moving and emotional speeches. In my eight years in the House, I have never experienced anything quite like them—certainly not as a Minister responding to a debate.

I covered most of the points on Report, but I should mention some of the voluntary and other organisations and people who have taken part in this whole process: Rainbow Trust Children’s Charity; Together for Short Lives; and Lucy Herd of Jack’s Rainbow. I hope that they are pleased with the progress that we have made today. People campaign, they lobby their MPs and MPs campaign, but in the House today, MPs have spoken on the basis of their own personal and, I am afraid, tragic experiences. That is different from normal politics.

Being present, as the Minister responding to the Bill, from 9.30 am until 2 pm has meant more to me than just being on duty. It has been an experience that I will not forget. I am very pleased and very proud to be, in my small way, a part of this process, and to reconfirm the Government’s commitment to the Bill. I look forward to the speedy progress of consultation and secondary legislation, and I am sure that the other place will be as supportive as we have been today.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

Nuclear Safeguards Bill

Lord Harrington of Watford Excerpts

Ping Pong: House of Commons
Tuesday 8th May 2018 Commons Chamber

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

I beg to move, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 3.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

With this it will be convenient to take the following:

Government amendment (a) in lieu of Lords amendment 3.

Lords amendments 1, 2 and 4 to 7.

[Richard Harrington]

Before I say a few words about the amendments, I want to reflect on the passage of the Bill. It has passed through this House in an orderly manner, with a great many thoughtful points made by Members on both sides of the House who are here today and by many who are not. I particularly pay tribute to the Opposition Front-Bench team, led by the hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Dr Whitehead)—I will never forget his constituency after this Bill. Although we have had our moments of disagreement, I have been encouraged by the strong consensus and have done my best to listen carefully to his amendments. I hope he would accept that I have given a lot of thought to them and that I have tried to accept those that I can. Lord Henley and I have made considerable efforts to listen to concerns in the other place as well, as has been seen in the amendments we have made to the Bill.

Outside the legislation, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State committed to making regular progress updates to Parliament. The first report was published on 27 March and the next will follow next month. We also provided draft regulations to support the House’s deliberations on the Bill, and I confirm today that I am placing in the Library the Department’s analysis on the application of Standing Order No. 83O, in respect of any motion relating to a Lords amendment, for Commons consideration of Lords amendments stage.

The Government opposed amendment 3 on Report in the House of Lords. I have listened carefully to the views of Members, including the Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for Southampton, Test. The amendment would require that in a situation where particular agreements relating to nuclear safeguards are not in place, the Government would have to request that the UK’s withdrawal from Euratom be suspended until they are.

[John Howell (Henley) (Con)]

The Minister may be aware that in the last few hours, I have had a conversation with the head of Culham Centre for Fusion Energy, who says that the Government are moving in the right direction on this, and have already agreed to pay for an association and are moving in the right direction on that. If the Minister is going to oppose the amendment, he has my full support and that of the head of Culham.

[Richard Harrington]

I thank my hon. Friend for that comment, which I believe reflects the progress that we have made. He works very hard for Culham; it is an extremely impressive place and I am sure that everyone on both sides of the House supports what they do.

[Sir Robert Syms (Poole) (Con)]

May I be the first to congratulate the Minister on the co-operation agreement that we have signed with the United States of America? This is a very good sign. There was some concern in Committee about the progress that we had made, and I believe that the Minister is doing his utmost to make sure that we have a fit-for-purpose regime in future.

[Richard Harrington]

I thank my hon. Friend. I would like to say that it was because of the personal influence that I have with President Trump, but no one in this House, and particularly you, Madam Deputy Speaker, would hear that. However, it shows that we have made a lot of progress and things are going according to plan. I am grateful to the United States for that assistance it has given us, as well as that of the other countries we are dealing with and the International Atomic Energy Agency, whose initials some of us repeatedly had difficulty pronouncing—I will come to the IAEA in a moment.

As currently formulated, amendment 3 will not work. Subsection (3)(c) currently contains a broad reference to international agreements made by Euratom to which the UK is a party. First, the UK is not a party to Euratom’s nuclear co-operation agreements; Euratom concludes them on behalf of member states, and Euratom, rather than the member states, is a party to those agreements. Secondly, subsection 3(c) covers a number of international agreements that are not in fact required to ensure the continuity of nuclear trade after withdrawal from Euratom. For these reasons, the other agreements that are covered by Lords amendment 3 should be restricted to the priority nuclear co-operation agreements with Australia, Canada, Japan and the US. Although I cannot agree to Lords amendment 3 in its present form, I am tabling an amendment in lieu, which I believe will address parliamentarians’ concerns. I particularly hope that it will address the issues raised by the shadow Front-Bench team and Members on both sides of the House.

[John Woodcock (Barrow and Furness) (Ind)]

With respect, the Minister is doing what every single Minister will always do when faced with Opposition amendments—that is, nit-pick over the precise wording. If he is going to table his own amendment, will it clearly state that the UK will not withdraw from Euratom until the required agreements are in place so that we have a similar, commensurate level of security?

[Richard Harrington]

I have always listened carefully to what the hon. Gentleman says. He knows a lot about nuclear and deserves attention particularly on this Bill and every other nuclear subject that comes up. He accuses me of nit-picking—politely, as always—and then nit-picks about the language in my amendment, which I do hope he has read and which I will explain more about now. We do nit-pick in Parliament, though, because everyone is trying their best to get it right, and I accept that language can mean everything. I am sure that “nit-picking” is a parliamentary word, Madam Deputy Speaker. If it is not, I still fully accept it from him.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alex Sobel (Leeds North West) (Lab/Co-op)]

The Minister has talked about the implementation period and our ongoing relations with Euratom. What discussions has he had with the European Commission to determine whether our membership of Euratom will continue during the transition period?

[Richard Harrington]

My officials have had a lot of discussions with the EU on Euratom, as the hon. Gentleman might imagine, and I am very satisfied with the stage we have reached. If he will excuse me, I will try to cover that in the rest of my contribution.

[Stephen Kerr (Stirling) (Con)]

During the Select Committee hearings on this matter, David Wagstaff, the head of the Euratom exit negotiations at the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, indicated that progress in establishing new nuclear co-operation agreements with the USA, Canada, Japan and Australia was well advanced and that these would be completed in time for our departure. Did he mean next March or the end of the implementation period?

[Richard Harrington]

I can assure my hon. Friend that he meant March 2019. In answer also to the hon. Member for Leeds North West (Alex Sobel), I would like to assure the House that the UK and the EU have reached agreement on the terms of an implementation period that will run from 30 March 2019 until the end of 2020. The existing Euratom treaty arrangements will continue during this period and businesses will be able to continue to trade on the same terms as now. As part of this, the UK and the EU agreed that for the duration of the implementation period the EU’s international agreements will continue to apply to the UK. This will include Euratom’s existing nuclear co-operation agreements with the USA, Canada, Australia and Japan.

[Sir Robert Syms]

I presume that the objective is to sign agreements with all the countries mentioned before March 2019, but there is also a process of ratification. Is it the Government’s objective to get those ratified before the leaving date, or will some of them be ratified during the transition period?

[Richard Harrington]

The best example I can give is the ratification of the agreement with the US—and this will also explain the difference between signing and ratification. Now that it has been signed, it needs to be approved in accordance with the relevant constitutional requirements of the UK and the US, just as will be the case with the other bilateral agreements, but we have built into our timetable sufficient time to allow for the necessary processes in both the UK Parliament—it will come before Parliament this year—and the US Congress, which has a slightly different arrangement involving several days of congressional business. I am very confident, however, that the process will be completed. In both cases, it is unprecedented for this to be anything other than a formality. Both countries will then exchange notes to bring the agreement into force when required, which we fully expect to be at the end of the implementation period, but we have built plenty of time into the process.

[John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)]

This all sounds like very good progress. Is it true that the other four agreements the Minister says are necessary will be similarly available and ready by March 2019?

[Richard Harrington]

I have every confidence that those agreements will be ready, signed and ratified. I have no reason to believe anything other than that.

If the relevant agreements or arrangements are not in place 28 days before exit day, the amendment in lieu would impose a requirement on the Secretary of State to make a request to the European Council to continue to be covered by the corresponding Euratom agreements—the trilateral agreements between the IAEA, Euratom and the UK and the bilateral agreements between the countries I have mentioned. That request would cover only those areas for which the UK had not signed a relevant agreement or made arrangements for the corresponding Euratom agreement to continue to apply to the UK after exit. I think that answers the questions about process.

I have not mentioned the IAEA itself. We have made very good progress in negotiating with the IAEA, having held several productive rounds of discussions, and it has shared with us the draft voluntary offer agreement and additional protocol. Negotiations on these documents have made good progress, and we expect to conclude a final draft in time for them to be put to the June meeting of the board of governors. The UK has a very strong relationship with the IAEA and continues to support it across a range of nuclear non-proliferation issues—something I was able to reinforce in my meeting last week with the director general, Mr Amano.

Lords amendments 1, 2 and 7 were Government amendments placing the definition of “civil activities” in the Bill. The Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee recommended that a definition of “civil activities” be placed in the Bill, so far as is possible, supplemented by a power to develop, where necessary, its meaning in regulations. The definition we inserted takes into account the continuing work on the draft regulations that will underpin the Bill, on which we are intending to consult in July. Although the Committee accepted that it might still be necessary to supplement this definition with a power to embellish its meaning in regulations, I have not found that to be necessary, so the amendments remove the existing power to specify in regulations activities that are or are not to be treated as “civil activities” and replace it with a definition in the Bill without creating another power. They therefore reduce the number of powers created by the Bill.

The sunset clause discussed by the Opposition Front-Bench team places a time limit—colloquially known as a “sunset”—on the use of the power in clause 2. Hon. Members may recall that clause 2 contains the power to amend three pieces of legislation in consequence of a relevant safeguards agreement—an agreement relating to nuclear safeguards to which the UK and the agency are parties. That legislation makes detailed references to specific provisions of international safeguards agreements. Those references, including references to specific articles, are likely to change as a result of any amendment of, or change in, the agreements. We therefore believe that the power in the Bill is necessary to make the changes in the relevant legislation to update the references when the new agreements are in place. The Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee recommended preventing the use of the power after a period of two years had expired. The amendment addresses the principle of the Committee’s recommendation, but provides for a “sunset” period of five years to ensure that the provision can function effectively in all scenarios, including that of an implementation period with the EU.

Lords amendments 5 and 6 deal with statutory reporting. As I have said, I took very seriously the cross-party requests from parliamentarians for regular detailed updates about nuclear safeguards arrangements in this country. The amendments, as amended by the Opposition, would place a statutory duty on the Secretary of State to provide quarterly reports on nuclear safeguards, covering both domestic and international matters, for the first year after the Bill receives Royal Assent.

[Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)]

This is a general point, but I should like the Minister to be mindful of it. I do not pretend to understand the morass of amendments and timings, but the nuclear site at Dounreay, in my constituency, is being decommissioned, and, thanks to the involvement of Euratom and other agencies in the past, we have achieved a standard of excellence that is second to none in the world. I am anxious to ensure that the skills that we have there are developed and exported to other countries, and to ensure that, whatever Her Majesty’s Government puts in place of Euratom—whatever systems are introduced, and whatever clauses are included in the various bits of legislation—the importance of that is remembered and the quality is retained where it should be for the future, because otherwise we will lose an opportunity.

[Richard Harrington]

I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman: Dounreay has one of the finest reputations. I have not yet had the pleasure and honour of visiting it—although if I were able to visit it, I should be pleased to do so—but I have visited Sellafield, and have discussed matters extensively with all the nuclear decommissioning authorities there. Dounreay is thought of very highly, and I assure the hon. Gentleman that nothing will be done to denude it of its reputation or lower the current non-proliferation standard. I was delighted to hear that the skills to which he has referred are being exported all over the world. The last thing that this or, I hope, any Government would want to do is bring about a reduction from the gold standard that is led by his constituency. [Interruption.] I am sorry if I am nit-picking again. The hon. Member for Barrow and Furness is very alert to nit-picking, and I shall try not to do so.

I hope Members will agree that the Government have proceeded with the Bill on a consensual basis. As I have said, we have made several important concessions in both Houses. Although we have not been able to agree to Lords amendment 3, I have listened to the arguments advanced today, and I believe that the compromise amendment goes a long way to achieving what the Opposition want. It preserves the key features of their amendment by requiring the Government to write to the EU seeking support if certain agreements or alternative arrangements are not in place. I therefore hope that Members will join me in agreeing to amendments that provide important reassurance for Members of both Houses.

[Dr Alan Whitehead (Southampton, Test) (Lab)]

This is, I trust, the last occasion on which we will deal with the Bill in the House of Commons. I thank the Minister for the careful, courteous and inclusive way in which he has handled it, which I have found very helpful. We all want the Bill to be enacted, and I think that our discussions about how it should proceed have benefited from the way in which he has conducted himself and presented his side of the argument.

Draft Enterprise Act 2002 (Share Of Supply Test) (Amendment) Order 2018

Lord Harrington of Watford Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd May 2018 General Committees

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

I beg to move,

That the Committee has considered the draft Enterprise Act 2002 (Share of Supply Test) (Amendment) Order 2018.

It is tradition in such Committees to say that it is a pleasure to serve under the Chair, but in your case, Mr Austin, I mean it. Before we start proceedings, I hope you will allow me to abuse my position by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for South Basildon and East Thurrock (Stephen Metcalfe), who had his first granddaughter this morning, Daisy Hawes. She deserves to be in Hansard at the age of a few hours.

The order will extend the Government’s powers to intervene in mergers that might give rise to national security implications. The powers to make this secondary legislation are found in the Enterprise Act 2002, which received Royal Assent in November of that year with cross-party support, following scrutiny in this House and the other place.

The draft instrument will amend the share of supply test to allow the scrutiny of more mergers, but only in three areas of the economy: military and dual-use technologies, and two large parts of the advanced technology sector, encompassing computing hardware and quantum technologies. Prior to taking on this statutory instrument, my knowledge of quantum technologies was somewhat sparse. I am sure some Opposition Members are doctors in quantum physics, but I am not. However, I know that it is very important to the national security of our country. I have spoken to quite a few hon. Members involved in national security on both sides of the House to ensure that they are briefed on this matter.

Generally, the Government’s policy, which Members may disagree with, is to try not to interfere unless we have to. The UK economy is open to the world. We have a framework of laws and policies on protecting national security that we feel have to be continually reviewed and updated. The vast majority of investment in the UK economy raises no national security concerns at all, but there is a risk that having ownership or control of critical businesses or infrastructure provides opportunities to undertake espionage or sabotage, or to exert inappropriate leverage on certain proprietary technologies. The Enterprise Act is the key legal means for the Government to examine mergers for the purposes of national security and other specified public interest criteria.

Last year, we set out a two-stage approach, beginning with action through today’s instrument and continuing with a proposed related instrument amending the turnover test. The Department published its consultation last year. There were 27 responses, and feedback was also obtained through meetings with seven organisations. Respondents recognised the technological, economic and national security challenges that the Government had described, and provided constructive feedback on the detail being incorporated into the reforms.

I will use the next few minutes—I promise it will be just a few—to explain the amendments being made. Today’s order and the proposed order amending the turnover threshold involve businesses active in three areas of the economy. The first is military and dual-use technologies, including such items as arms and military and paramilitary equipment. Those items are just for military use, but dual-use technology has both military and civilian uses.

The national security interests related to those technologies are fairly obvious. In the wrong hands, such items pose a clear and immediate risk to the UK, our people and society. In addition, the acquisition of items that provide the UK with its military advantage can raise legitimate and significant national security concerns. The instrument ensures that businesses involved in the development or production of goods that form well-known, established parts of the UK export control regime will be in scope.

Secondly, the instrument seeks to address the risk created through advances in computing hardware, which now mean that there are ubiquitous goods with the potential to be directed remotely, should a hostile actor obtain access or control. Thirdly, the instrument brings quantum technology within scope. The huge technological potential offered by this area presents national security challenges.

We are making these changes because we are concerned about scenarios where a business with no existing share of supply in the UK buys a business in one of these three areas of the economy. Such a merger would not result in an increase in the share of supply in the UK and therefore the current share of supply test set out in the Enterprise Act would not be met. However, with the changes made by this instrument, the Government would be able to intervene if the target business in the merger had a share of supply of at least 25% before the merger—that is the critical point. The acquiring party need not have any share of the supply of the same goods or services for the test to be met. Those changes will only apply to those areas of the economy I have set out.

Under the second proposed statutory instrument, the negative statutory instrument, the Government will be able to intervene in a merger if a target firm or business being taken over has a UK turnover of more than £1 million. The current £70 million threshold in the Enterprise Act has proven not to be at the right level. The scope of the revised threshold will exclude micro-businesses, ensuring that the Government take as proportionate and focused an approach as possible in delivering our policy intentions. Those changes will apply only to the same three areas of the economy covered by today’s order. We have published an impact assessment—for those hon. Members who have not received it, it is in the corner of the room—to provide guidance and greater clarity to businesses and investors.

The Government will continue to assess risk in other sectors, including emerging technologies. If there is evidence to suggest that the Government should take action in further areas of the economy, we will bring forward further legislation. In the longer term, the Government will bring forward primary legislation to make more substantive changes to how we scrutinise the national security implications of foreign investments. A White Paper will follow in due course. I look forward to hearing what hon. Members have to say about the proposed changes.

--- Later in debate ---

[Richard Harrington]

I thank the shadow Minister for his comments, which I will do my best not to answer—I mean to answer—as best I can. I hope that is made clear in Hansard. I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Windsor for his comment and for his support for the statutory instrument.

The questions certainly went beyond the statutory instrument itself. I will not detain the Committee for too long, but I will answer the question of why it has taken so long. I agree that is has; the paper was in 2015, and we are now three years on from that. From what I have read of the papers, this measure is very delicate and involved a lot of extensive consultation, and I do not just mean a consultation where stakeholders would just email in a comment; it was very complex and, of course, there are genuine views, both ways. The Government wanted to be careful that the measure was proportionate and would not exclude legitimate mergers and takeovers, but would instead provide the necessary level. It has taken longer than I would have liked—I perfectly agree with that—but I do believe that it has been done properly.

On GKN, it is fair to say that national security—with or without this turnover threshold—was the ground upon which this was reviewed. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy had a quasi-judicial role in taking advice on the national security aspects. I cannot tell the hon. Member for Sefton Central what that advice was, because I do not know, as it was given in a quasi-judicial capacity. However, I know that my right hon. Friend invoked the clause whereby he got the national security advice, I assume from the security services and others deeply involved in this sector, and took the decision based on that advice. All this statutory instrument does is simply to change the threshold at which that advice would have kicked in, but I would imagine that if the deal was very much smaller and caught within this measure, the advice would have been the same.

I think that what the hon. Gentleman is really alluding to with his comments—he is taking a very legitimate position, although I do not agree with it—is that the Government should have a direct power, and not just through the Competition and Markets Authority, which I will come on to in a minute. He referred to it as an “economic benefit test”, whereby the Government could get directly involved in investigating or stopping a merger on grounds other than competition, which is the power that the CMA has, and in a way that goes beyond the direct powers that the Government have now. We have discussed one of those powers today, which is about national security; another is about control of the media, as in the Sky case, which is obviously not relevant here.

That really is a political view. The Enterprise Act, which governs this area, deliberately picks out national security and media plurality—I think the other factor is financial stability—and does not include powers other than those for Government intervention. Much of what the Opposition have said on GKN, on the urgent question the day before yesterday and in the House of Lords yesterday has been based on a whole new power to get involved on the basis of economic benefit—a power that Governments used to have many years ago, and which in the end really became political grounds to get involved.

The Competition and Markets Authority can only look at the competition side and it covers the interests, which are quite wide, of consumers and suppliers. The good thing about the CMA, as opposed to governmental involvement, is that its process is a public one, so anyone can take part in the considerations of the Asda-Sainsbury’s merger. To give it credit, the CMA is a world leader and has a lot of credibility. In the case of Philip Green and other cases referred to by the hon. Member for Sefton Central, other organs of the state were involved. In the case of Green and BHS, the Pensions Regulator was able to take action.

The hon. Gentleman is right that economic benefit alone is not something that the Government have direct power over, and I really believe in limiting the power of Ministers in this kind of thing, because it is best dealt with by an arm’s length authority. I believe that the Government’s policy is absolutely right on that. I am sorry not to be able to satisfy him on that subject, but I think he would have expected that to be my answer.

I thank the Committee for considering the order and for its valuable contribution to this important debate. I have tried to answer the questions as best I could. I hope that we can move forward with these reforms and I commend the order to the Committee.

Question put and agreed to.

Oral Answers to Questions

Lord Harrington of Watford Excerpts

Tuesday 1st May 2018 Commons Chamber

[Marsha De Cordova (Battersea) (Lab)]

8. What steps his Department is taking to support employees of Jaguar Land Rover facing job losses.

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

This is a concerning time for workers at the JLR factory and in the wider supply chain, particularly the 1,000 or so temporary workers involved, but I can assure the House that I speak to the company regularly; in fact, I met JLR’s managing director Jeremy Hicks on 17 April, the day after the announcement. The Government, including my Department and the Department for Work and Pensions, are ready to support those affected, and it is important to recognise that, despite this announcement, the UK automotive industry remains a great success story, in particular JLR.

[Marsha De Cordova]

Following the announcement of these 1,000 job losses at JLR, the Government were urged to work with the unions and assist the workforces in whatever way necessary. What meetings has the Minister had with the unions about these job losses?

[Richard Harrington]

I have not met with the unions specifically on these job losses, because they have not asked for a meeting. [Interruption.] The hon. Lady asks why, but I would be delighted to meet them. I hope Members on both sides of the House realise that my door is always open to trade unions—the steel industry in particular would accept that—and I am pleased to meet anyone the hon. Lady suggests, with her, to discuss the automotive industry.

[Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)]

Get plugged in.

[Richard Harrington]

As usual, my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield (Michael Fabricant) makes a good point—although, unusually, on this occasion he did not mention the John Lewis Partnership. Our Faraday battery challenge, which he indirectly refers to, will ensure that this country is at the forefront of battery technology, and JLR and other companies are firmly behind it.

[Mr Speaker]

The hon. Member for Lichfield (Michael Fabricant) applied a self-denying ordinance, which is not a common feature of our proceedings, but colleagues will have noticed that there is a lot of chuntering from a sedentary position from the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr Sheerman) about castles and the importance of being plugged in. He should fear not; we have not forgotten him, and nor will we.

[John Spellar (Warley) (Lab)]

23. Does the Minister accept that under both Governments, his and ours, the renaissance of the British motor industry has been outstanding and that JLR has been a big part of that, to the benefit of the country and particularly of the west midlands? However, the car market is being heavily hit by the Government’s ill-thought-out and ill-prepared war on diesel. Will his Department have urgent talks with the Department for Transport so that we can get our policy for the motor industry and the car market back on track?

[Richard Harrington]

I have a lot of respect for the hon. Gentleman, but in this case he is ignoring the fact that my Department and the Department for Transport speak regularly with all the car manufacturers about the evolution from diesel and the internal combustion engine to what will be a brilliant industry for Jaguar Land Rover and all the other companies, involving the eventual production, by 2040, of pollution-free cars.

[Jeremy Quin (Horsham) (Con)]

The Minister is right to say that, taken as a whole, the auto sector is a great employment success story. Does he agree that that continues to be evidenced by ongoing investment?

[Richard Harrington]

My hon. Friend makes a good point. All the recent decisions on new contracts by manufacturers in Europe have gone to British firms. This is most recently typified by the announcement by Toyota, near Derby, of its investment in a new model, and I am confident that this will continue. The automobile industry is doing very well. It is investing hundreds of millions of pounds in new products to be produced in UK factories.

[Mr Adrian Bailey (West Bromwich West) (Lab/Co-op)]

Last year, the Treasury announced a £400 million public-private sector fund to develop charging infrastructure for plug-in cars. This is vital for the development and growth of that market. To date, however, no one has even been appointed to manage that fund. Will the Minister tell me when the fund will be operational?

[Richard Harrington]

I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the money is already spent. It is our intention to launch a request for proposals to secure a fund manager this summer. Further details will be included in the Department for Transport’s forthcoming zero-emissions road transport strategy.

[Rebecca Long Bailey (Salford and Eccles) (Lab)]

Following figures showing that car registrations plunged in March by 15.7% compared with 2017, Jaguar Land Rover announced that 1,000 jobs would be cut at Solihull and that it was temporarily reducing production at Halewood. Sadly, reports suggest that the Solihull workers were told this news at a mass meeting that lasted only 10 minutes, with no opportunity to ask questions. We have heard some hints from Members today, but will the Minister tell us whether he has made any assessment of the causes and the potential knock-on effect on jobs in the supply chain? What steps is he taking to support workers and to reverse this worrying trend in the whole automotive sector?

[Richard Harrington]

The hon. Lady will know that JLR has been clear that this restructuring is part of the cyclical nature of automobile production. It is very confident about this country; it is employing a lot of apprentices and skilled people and training up its workforce to take part in the next phase of automobile expansion.

[Rebecca Long Bailey]

I am not sure that that has actually answered my question. Automotive is not the only sector in crisis. This year alone in retail, Toys R Us has collapsed, Maplin has gone into administration, New Look has announced job losses, Carpetright is planning a company voluntary arrangement and retail profit warnings across the UK have hit a seven-year high. The chief executive officer of The Entertainer has stated:

“The Government just haven’t got it. They need to take some responsibility for the high street’s decline.”

Can the Minister explain why Government action in this sector—from woeful action on business rates and income stagnation and under-investment in retail innovation—has been so lacklustre, and what urgent action he is taking to help a sector that is currently in crisis?

[Richard Harrington]

The hon. Lady will be aware that the same thing is happening in the retail sector all over the world. I would be very pleased—on another occasion—to find out whether there are any exceptions. The Government have taken action. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy—who is the Minister for retail, among many other things—launched the Retail Sector Council recently. A lot of thought is going into this, to change retail into a modern, leisure-driven shopping choice.

[Sir Henry Bellingham (North West Norfolk) (Con)]

9. What estimate he has made of the number of skilled jobs that will be needed to maintain the offshore wind sector by 2030.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs Pauline Latham (Mid Derbyshire) (Con)]

10. What assessment he has made of the effectiveness of the creative industries sector deal.

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

I congratulate you, Mr Speaker, on your ruling that facial chuntering is not in fact a form of chuntering. I am sure that hon. Members on both sides of the House will be delighted to take that into account in future.

As for the creative industries sector deal, Sir Peter Bazalgette’s review forecast that the creative industry deal will increase exports, sustain growth, boost jobs and narrow the productivity gap between the south-east and the rest of the UK. The deal launched only on 28 March, so it is in its early stages, but I will be carefully monitoring it and working with the industry to ensure that the deal delivers the expected benefits.

[Mrs Latham]

How can the creative industry sector deal benefit local economies and communities across the country, particularly in Mid Derbyshire?

[Richard Harrington]

My hon. Friend is always talking about Mid Derbyshire and how the University of Derby supports the creative industries sector. She has told me about Mr Paul Cummins, a very creative chap who was responsible for the Tower of London poppies, which went all over the world. The creative industries sector has a £2.5 million regional development fund, managed through a strategic action plan, which is exactly what my hon. Friend is talking about. Her local enterprise partnership is involved, and the university is working with businesses in the area, including small and medium-sized enterprises in the creative and digital industries, to aid local job creation in areas such as Cromford Mills in her constituency.

[Ian C. Lucas (Wrexham) (Lab)]

I commend to the Minister the excellent article by one of our finest musicians, Howard Goodall, who is not from Wrexham but is very welcome to visit, recounting the difficulty he had in performing his work in the United States. Does the Minister agree that the creative industries plan will be fatally undermined if we do not have an agreement with the EU to allow the free movement of musicians and other creative artists?

[Richard Harrington]

I am sure that Howard Goodall will be delighted to visit Wrexham after he has been to Watford. I am sure the point about being able to work and live in the European Union will be taken into consideration in the negotiations ahead, and I would not like the European Union, after we leave, to be deprived of a man with such talent.

--- Later in debate ---

[John Grogan (Keighley) (Lab)]

16. What steps he is taking to encourage the growth of employee-owned companies.

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

I should declare that I worked for the John Lewis Partnership for three years, from 1979 to 1982, and was therefore a beneficial owner of part of the company. That is not the only model to encourage employees, of course; share ownership is developing more widely as part of generally non-employee-owned companies. I look forward to the private sector making the business case for this model through the Employee Ownership Association, which is the representative body for employee-owned businesses.

[John Grogan]

Does the Minister agree that, taken as a sector, the UK’s 300 employee-owned businesses have higher than average productivity? Will he follow the example of the Scottish and Welsh Governments and more actively promote the sector, particularly to small and medium-sized businesses that are looking for a succession plan?

[Richard Harrington]

That is very interesting. I will look with care at what is happening in Scotland and Wales. We are generally in favour of employee-owned companies and companies with employees who have a share in them.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs Sharon Hodgson (Washington and Sunderland West) (Lab)]

25. What steps he is taking to support the automotive sector to move from diesel to cleaner fuels.

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

We are investing nearly £1.5 billion between April 2015 and March 2021 to grow the market for ultra-low emission vehicles. That is one of the most comprehensive programmes of support globally.

[Mrs Hodgson]

Two weeks ago, Nissan in my constituency announced job losses, which were more than likely owing to a decline in diesel sales and the switch in production to newer, cleaner models. Therefore, notwithstanding what the Minister said, can he give us some details on what he is doing to support the automotive sector in moving from diesel to cleaner fuels?

[Richard Harrington]

The hon. Lady will know that Nissan is one of the biggest investors in cleaner technology, and through the industrial strategy challenge fund we are supporting the next generation generally. In her constituency, the production of the new Nissan Leaf, which is the most popular electric car in the world, began in Sunderland last year with batteries actually made there.

[Mrs Hodgson]

Well, I know that!

--- Later in debate ---

[Gill Furniss (Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough) (Lab)]

I welcome this morning’s news that the EU has secured a further 30-day exemption from the US’s steel tariffs. However, that merely prolongs the uncertainty facing the sector. What steps is the Secretary of State currently taking to secure a full UK exemption when the temporary one ends on 1 June, and when will his Department respond to the steel sector deal, a proposal crucial to the long-term sustainability of the sector?

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

I can reassure the hon. Lady that there have been full negotiations between us, the Americans and the European Union from the day that this started, and I have briefed her regularly. I have a call on Thursday morning with the chief executive officers of all the steel companies, which she is very welcome to join. I assure her and everyone else in this House that every effort is being made to help the steel industry.

[Nigel Huddleston (Mid Worcestershire) (Con)]

T2. What plans does his Department have to keep Britain a global leader in artificial intelligence?

Industrial Strategy

Lord Harrington of Watford Excerpts

Wednesday 18th April 2018 Commons Chamber

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

We have had a really excellent debate today, as I think all right hon. and hon. Member would agree. One of the most important challenges facing this or any Government is seeing that the industrial sector—basically our economy—can develop in partnership with the Government.

In my brief career as an A-level economics student in the late ’70s, I visited a regional Neddy in Newcastle. We also went to London—it was the first time I had been to London, although not the last—to see how they worked. It seemed to me, at that time, to be civil servants and Ministers deciding which companies to pick. That is not what we are doing. This is a groundbreaking partnership involving the Government and industry working together. In my time at the Department, I have seen it involve hundreds of companies in a real way.

[Norman Lamb]

The Minister will be aware of the small business research initiative and the report, commissioned by the Government and prepared by David Connell, that was published last November. It is a really good report, but there has been no Government response. Will he or the Secretary of State be willing to meet me, in my role as Chair of the Science and Technology Committee, to discuss the report?

[Richard Harrington]

Both my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I would be delighted to meet the right hon. Gentleman to discuss that important matter.

As I was saying, I have seen many companies involved in this industrial strategy. It is much more than the same few companies that are used to lobbying the Government from the centre. That is one of the great achievements. The shadow Secretary of State and shadow Minister made partisan speeches—the former rather more than the latter, I might say—and I could spend a long time rebutting them, but time does not allow. I must, however, respond to a few of their points. The shadow Secretary of State said there was no guidance for sector deals. It is all in the White Paper—there are six of them—and I am very happy to send her a copy. In fact, she can choose from one of the many languages that it is printed in. I will send her one of each.

The shadow Secretary of State said there was not enough research and development and that this was all hot air, but actually it lays a pathway for the biggest increase for 40 years. There is an extra £7 billion of research and development funding to 2022. After the 2.4% target, we are aiming for 3% and to be world class. She also mentioned, as did several of her colleagues, the issue of steel. We have had regular meetings with the managements of all the steel companies. I have visited two steel companies in the last week. Moreover, everyone in the Government, from the Prime Minister down, has been involved with the situation regarding President Trump and the United States. As for the sector deals, we are regularly talking about them with unions and companies alike. So this is not, as the hon. Lady said, gathering dust. It is very important to us. As for the local industrial strategy, it is really beginning to develop, and not just in three areas; it is being tested across places with different economies to see how it works.

We heard many other contributions. My hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Trudy Harrison) represents a constituency that she is always fighting for, because she understands, as do her constituents, the need for skills and new technology and the need to drive down costs, which is key to the whole industrial strategy. I look forward to visiting her constituency tomorrow and on Friday.

I have a lot of respect for the hon. Member for West Bromwich West (Mr Bailey). We have worked together in various capacities. We might have been on opposite sides of the table, but we have not always been in opposition to each other. He mentioned Jaguar Land Rover, as did the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Jack Dromey), and the recent announcement not to renew the contracts of 1,000 temporary staff at Solihull. I spoke to the managing director of Jaguar Land Rover on Monday, and he made it clear that that decision has been taken to safeguard the competitiveness of the plants in the European market. The automotive industry is a very good example of how the industrial strategy works, and I know it has an extremely bright future.

[Mr Gavin Shuker (Luton South) (Lab/Co-op)]

Will the Minister give way?

[Richard Harrington]

I hope the hon. Gentleman will excuse me, but I do not have time to give way.

My hon. Friend the Member for Cleethorpes (Martin Vickers) mentioned a town deal for Grimsby and Cleethorpes, and I heard him speak very eloquently about it. There has been a meeting, and it is an absolute priority for us.

My hon. Friend the Member for Fylde (Mark Menzies) mentioned an aerospace growth partnership. This shows, as he knows, the benefits of a strategy that involves business and the Government working together. That is an intelligent way to channel money from business and from the Government together, which really summarises what the whole industrial strategy is about.

[Alex Cunningham]

Will the Minister give way?

[Richard Harrington]

I am very sorry, but there is not time to give way.

Following an Adjournment debate held by my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent South (Jack Brereton), I have met representatives of the ceramics industry and we are making progress—thanks to his efforts and those of other Members of Parliament, as well as the efforts of Laura Cohen and Kevin Oakes. We understand the ceramics business and we hope to be able to progress matters with them.

I thought at first that my hon. Friend the Member for Boston and Skegness (Matt Warman) was living in the 1840s, but the only person I know who does that is the Leader of the Opposition and he is not in the Chamber this afternoon. My hon. Friend showed us very eloquently that the lessons of the 1840s and the Government’s responsibility to harness developing technology go absolutely to the centre of the industrial strategy.

My hon. Friend the Member for Chippenham (Michelle Donelan) talked about the skills gap in Wiltshire—another important aspect of the industrial strategy—and mentioned a retraining scheme, which is about people and places. My hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Vicky Ford) mentioned many sectors in Chelmsford. She showed that she had really read the industrial strategy and seen what it means in her constituency, and she is continuing to support it.

My hon. Friend the Member for Redditch (Rachel Maclean) said that Birmingham is better than Manchester. I cannot comment on that, although I would say that neither of them is as good as Watford, but you would expect me to say that, Mr Speaker. Seriously, she continues to argue for a town deal for Redditch, and I am very happy to meet her to discuss the idea of a free port.

My hon. Friend the Member for Stirling (Stephen Kerr) is absolutely right to say that the University of Stirling is a jewel. Our universities are jewels, but the industrial strategy is helping them to work together with business and the commercial world, as I saw only two weeks ago when I helped to launch a new science hub at the University of Hertfordshire.

[Alex Cunningham]

Will the Minister give way?

[Richard Harrington]

As hon. Members will know, I usually do my absolute best to take interventions, but I cannot do so on this occasion.

The attitudes we have demonstrated are based on fact, not fantasy. This industrial strategy is absolutely real, as well as imaginative, rounded and ambitious. We have had such attitudes for centuries—this goes back to the point about 1841—but this is the way in which the relationship between the Government and business will evolve. Those attitudes are a source of strength, just as our world-leading universities, businesses and workers are a source of strength. I believe that such attitudes are unique to the United Kingdom and, in combination, they are an asset that no other country can match in the same way.

The industrial strategy builds on our existing strengths and addresses any weaknesses. There is a wealth of potential in this country, and it is our duty to see it realised. It is my contention, and that of the Government, that our industrial strategy, which is available in as many languages as people want, will help this potential to be realised and will build an economy that is—I think this is the expression, which you may have heard before, Mr Speaker—fit for the future. I am very proud of it, and it is my job, and that of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, to see it delivered in the weeks, months and years to come.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered the Industrial Strategy.

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker.

Energy Policy

Lord Harrington of Watford Excerpts

Monday 16th April 2018 Written Statements

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

I hereby give notice of the Department of Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy’s intention to seek an advance from the contingencies fund in the amount of £4,626,000 for FY 2018-19 to provide financial cover to the Office for Nuclear Regulation (ONR).

This cash advance is sought to enable the ONR to undertake project activities planned for FY 2018-19 (i.e. from April 2018 onwards) to ensure the UK can have a domestic nuclear safeguards regime that meets international nuclear safeguards standards in place from day one of exit.

ONR has already made progress towards delivering this regime with financial support provided from the previous contingencies fund advance, notice of which was given on 2 February, and which covered the period up to the end of March 2018.

The Government’s commitment to establish a new domestic safeguards regime was announced on September 2017 and forms a vital part of this Department’s EU exit preparations for the UK’s nuclear industry.

Parliamentary approval for additional resources of £4,626,000 for this new service will be sought in a supplementary estimate for the Department of Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy. Pending that approval, urgent expenditure estimated at £4,626,000 will be met via repayable cash advances from the contingencies fund.

The cash advance will be repaid upon receiving Royal Assent on the Nuclear Safeguards Bill and the Supply and Appropriation Bill.

[HCWS617]

Energy Policy

Lord Harrington of Watford Excerpts

Monday 26th March 2018 Written Statements

[The Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Greg Clark)]

In a written ministerial statement of 11 January, the Government set out their two-fold strategy for Euratom exit. This strategy included a commitment to put in place all the necessary measures to ensure that the UK can operate as an independent and responsible nuclear state upon the UK’s withdrawal from Euratom, at which point the UK will be legally responsible for its own nuclear safeguards regime.

These measures include the negotiation of bilateral safeguards agreements with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). These new agreements—a voluntary offer agreement and an additional protocol—will replace the current, trilateral, safeguards agreements between the UK, the IAEA and Euratom.

We have made good progress in these negotiations. Both the UK and IAEA are clear that the new agreements should follow the same principles and scope as the current trilateral agreements. We will continue to offer a comprehensive facilities list to the IAEA, enabling them to designate and inspect their chosen sites for the purposes of international verification.

In order to ensure continuity for the nuclear sector, on 22 March the Government notified the IAEA that the UK will be taking legal responsibility for its own nuclear safeguards regime in the long term and started the process of seeking formal IAEA agreement to a new voluntary offer agreement and accompanying additional protocol for the UK. We expect these agreements to undergo UK ratification later this year. The agreements will only come into force once existing agreements no longer apply.

We will continue to seek a close association with Euratom, including the possibility of future co-operation on nuclear non-proliferation and safeguards, and any potential role for Euratom in supporting the establishment of the UK’s own domestic safeguards regime.

The written ministerial statement of 11 January included a commitment to report back every three months about overall progress on Euratom to keep Parliament updated. I am pleased to confirm that the first such update has today been provided to Parliament. The paper is being placed in the Libraries of both Houses. The next update on progress is scheduled for June 2018.

[HCWS586]