Economic Growth (Regulatory Functions) Order 2017

Debate between Lord Mendelsohn and Lord Foster of Bath

Tuesday 28th February 2017 Grand Committee

[Lord Mendelsohn]

My Lords, as I was saying before I was so rudely interrupted—I thank the noble Lord, Lord Foster, for that wonderful line—I will conclude with these points. I noted the sceptical faces from the other side on the point about whether businesses will do this. It was not addressed. In Committee in the other place, the Minister said:

“Businesses told us that they were unlikely to mount judicial reviews except in extreme circumstances. As we all know, judicial reviews are very costly”.—[Official Report, Commons, Deregulation Bill Committee, 20/3/14; col. 526.]


They are not that costly compared with regulatory impacts. The cost of lawyers may be quite significant, but compared with the benefits that can be gained from regulatory changes it is certainly a calculation worth making. If you give someone an instrument to do something, you have a duty to shareholders to do it if you have an operable option. Anyone involved in business will know that.

The impact assessment says:

“This duty will provide a framework for regulators explicitly to factor growth into their decision-making where they have not previously felt able to do so, enabling businesses to hold regulators accountable for their actions”.


The guidance provides far too many opportunities for the sorts of challenges and arguments that undermine the regulators’ principal role and functions. The way the guidance is written has no regard for any particular growth theory, target, goal or effective paradigm. It provides a lot of opportunity for options and arguments to be laid against it and against decisions on the basis of growth.

Again, the Government should not be surprised about this. Even its own report on the consultation said that,

“the business community sought clarity on how regulators can be held to account if they failed to comply with the Growth Duty, or to follow the guidance”.

I do not think the answer will be, “Look in the annual report and take a view”. This is a very important issue. Fundamentally, the core aspects, which this does not address or help, provide legal capacity on the one side and on the other do not give a real sense about the principal duties that regulators have in existing law without the growth duty and whether they will be able to fulfil them.

In conclusion, while we share the Government’s view on a variety of the objectives and goals and even on the journey they wish to take, we were sceptical when the main legislation passed. All these statutory instruments do is lay bare the lack of evidence, thinking and design of these policies, and how, through the unfortunate circumstance of unintended consequences, they are likely to cause more harm than good. I would be very grateful if the Minister responded to all, some, or even a few of my questions.

[Lord Foster of Bath (LD)]

My Lords, I am delighted to follow the noble Lord, Lord Mendelsohn. Like him and no doubt everyone else in the Room, I too am in favour of motherhood and apple pie. I am in favour of the removal of unnecessary red tape, bureaucracy and the gold-plating we have seen on too many EU directives. Like the Minister, I accept entirely that some regulations serve a vital purpose. The much-maligned health and safety regulations provide a very good case in point. If we are to take steps such as the ones proposed here, it is vital that we are aware of precisely what the targets are, what they are expected to achieve and what evidence we will gather to see whether they have been achieved, and that we ensure there is proper policing of any new directives, regulations or whatever is put in place.

I spent a relatively brief time in government. For a short period I was a junior Minister in the Department for Communities and Local Government. As a Minister in a Government who had introduced in 2010 the various proposals to encourage, as it says in our documentation,

“a cultural shift in Government Departments towards more proportionate and smarter regulation”,

I nevertheless came up against the difficulties that could be created by the one-in, one-out and later one-in, two-out policies. As a result of that experience, and subsequently as the Government Deputy Chief Whip serving on Oliver Letwin’s committee that dealt with these issues, I learned a number of lessons.

There are six lessons, and I will briefly share them and use this as an opportunity to probe the Minister about the proposal before us today. The first lesson related to energy performance certificates. Regulations were brought in requiring commercial buildings in certain circumstances—depending on their size, whether there was public access, and so on—to display an energy performance certificate visibly in the premises. The idea was that putting the energy performance certificate up would lead the owner of the building to try to improve energy performance, thereby saving overall cost to both the occupiers of the building and the nation as a whole. I was very much in favour of the certificates.

However, the lesson I learned was that often, those certificates never appeared in commercial buildings. Indeed, I would go so far as to say that they did not appear in a number of government buildings. The question I therefore ask is: what policing mechanisms will apply to the measures and what procedures will be put in place to ensure that we can assess whether they are successful—a point raised earlier by the noble Lord, Lord Mendelsohn—so we can learn from them in future? We have learned nothing from energy performance certificates because they were not properly introduced, policed or evaluated.

The second lesson I learned was from the introduction of zero-carbon homes, something I felt strongly about as a Minister. That fell under all sorts of difficulties, particularly from Conservative colleagues within the coalition, because they said that we had to ensure that we abide by the “one regulation in, one regulation out” rule, commensurate financial implications, and so on. It got into real difficulty because of the way the target was assessed. It was argued that the regulation’s requiring improved energy efficiency of domestic premises would impose an increased cost on the builders of those premises, so it had to be counted as a “one in” for which we had to find a “one out”. In truth, the most sensible way to look at it would have been to say that the improvement of the building’s energy performance when built would lead to a long-term saving for the resident occupants of the property and the nation as a whole but, whereas with energy performance certificates for commercial building, it was okay for the occupants to benefit, when it came to domestic property, it was not.

If we have targets, we must be careful that we do not hit the target but miss the point. I worry that in some of the regulations before us, particularly given the list of regulatory bodies, we may be missing the point.

The third lesson, which I am prepared to acknowledge is not relevant to the documents before us but I want to get on the record, is that these things are not always straightforward common sense. They are often political. I share with noble Lords my experience on Oliver Letwin’s committee when I proposed a measure that would have reduced the cost of business—not requiring certain things to be advertised in local newspapers. This was prevented on the purely political grounds that we did not want to upset local newspapers in the run-up to the 2015 general election.

I also learned that we have to apply common sense. On the basis of common sense, I will not go through the long list of regulatory bodies to which the noble Lord, Lord Mendelsohn, referred. I will just pick one at random and ask the Minister, to whom I have given a little advance notice, about the Northern Lighthouse Board. I wonder what the Minister sees as its ability to perform an economic growth responsibility. The Northern Lighthouse Board is there to serve Scotland and the Isle of Man, and to deliver a reliable, efficient and cost-effective aids-to-navigation service for the benefit and safety of all mariners. I genuinely have difficulty seeing how it will be able to fulfil its requirement.

That leads to my fifth and penultimate point: these things should be based on sound consultation. We have before us a very long list of regulatory bodies that will be brought in under these regulations. Yet, as the noble Lord, Lord Mendelsohn, has pointed out, and as it says in paragraph 8.2, there were 49 respondents, and 38 responses were received on the question of scope from a broad cross-section of stakeholders, including regulators, businesses and representative bodies. It is clear that only a small number of regulators responded to the consultation, as paragraph 8.3 hints at. It says that there were five objections to the inclusion of particular regulators within scope; the noble Lord, Lord Mendelsohn, dealt with the rest of the list.

Digital Economy Bill

Debate between Lord Mendelsohn and Lord Foster of Bath

1st reading (Hansard): House of Lords & Committee: 1st sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Tuesday 31st January 2017 Lords Chamber

[Lord Foster of Bath (LD)]

My Lords, as my noble friend Lord Fox has said, I will very briefly address one element of the report, though I support the principle and all other aspects of the proposed list of things to be covered in that report. However, I draw the House’s attention to subsections (2)(g) and (h). Paragraph (g) talks about the take-up of superfast broadband as a proportion of connected premises and (h) about the measures taken by various bodies to improve that take-up.

I fully share the Government’s desire to create a digital Britain, with all the benefits that it can bring, including the online delivery of our public services. However, all the discussions I have had about broadband since joining the House have predominantly been about its speed and making it available. We know the figures—they are fairly clear: about 89% of households can currently access high-speed broadband, but we also know that only 31% of households have actually taken up the offer and 22% remain entirely offline. Furthermore, last year’s Ofcom study revealed that some 10% of households make it clear that they have no intention whatever of getting on to the internet at any speed. We also know that it is those with limited means—perhaps older and less well-off people—who make up the bulk of the 30% of the population who currently have either very limited or no access to the internet.

Bearing those figures in mind, and while I welcome all the energy, enthusiasm, debate and deliberation going on in the House—and by the Government, Ofcom and others—to improve the availability of high-speed broadband, at the same time as addressing the supply side we need to do far more work to address the demand side as well. If we are to reap the full benefits of digital Britain—to bridge the digital divide and reduce the unit cost of the installation of high-speed broadband—we need a concentrated and co-ordinated demand-side management programme. I have argued before that such a programme would address issues such as: skills training, which we will come on to later in the Bill; marketing the benefits of broadband; addressing the cost barriers—we have already had a brief debate on that with the amendment of my noble friend Lady Janke in relation to social tariffs; and of course developing quality, technology and content.

I readily acknowledge, as I have in the past, that there is good work going on in this regard by BT itself, the BBC, Barclays and many others. Local councils deserve a great deal of credit for the work they are doing, and the Do It Digital campaign is trying to help businesses get online. The Government have played their part with changes to the IT curriculum and aspired improvements, at least, to digital skills.

However, given that the take-up rate is so low, far more needs to be done, from the skills agenda to having a digital TV switchover-style campaign, advertising the benefits of getting online. It needs co-ordination. I believe that BDUK would be best placed to do that—its business voucher scheme was a good demand-driver—and the Minister might comment on where we are with the next iteration of that in his response. I toyed with tabling an amendment adding to the purposes of BDUK to cover responsibility for that but, for the time being, so that we have an opportunity to hear the Minister’s reaction and find out a bit more about what the Government plan in demand-management measures, I thought it more sensible to leave it included as one of the issues to be reported under the excellent proposal of my noble friend.

[Lord Mendelsohn]

My Lords, I express our support for the amendment so ably produced by the noble Lord, Lord Fox. It is entirely consistent with Amendment 21, to which we shall come in the next group, and it provides a useful window on performance. In considering what the full report should look at, I just suggest that it would be useful if it considered upload speeds, outages and user experience. We talk far too often about what speeds are delivered to the home and not enough about the user experience; it would be very useful to include that in such a report.

Corporate Governance

Debate between Lord Mendelsohn and Lord Foster of Bath

Tuesday 29th November 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Mendelsohn (Lab)]

My Lords, we welcome the Green Paper on corporate governance. I do not think there is anyone who does not recognise the mood of the country given that, since the financial crisis, we have faced growing disparities and unfairness that are neither justifiable nor economically efficient. We also have to recognise that we have long delayed any serious action to deal with chronic issues such as short-termism, weak R&D investment, the lack of large UK businesses acquiring overseas and the problems with productivity. This is a vital debate and the Green Paper should be welcomed as an opportunity to start the long required process of change, not end it. However, this Green Paper will have as much impact on changing the issues at hand as a stick would have in changing the course of a river: it is the exercise of power without purpose and policy development designed for press releases, not practical impact.

Business and business people are also crying out for change, be they investment managers, entrepreneurs, investors or corporate leaders. However, this measure does little but protect the status quo. To set the debate in terms of shareholders’ influence on executive pay is too limited, not least when a huge underlying problem in our country concerns the investment industry. Its pay, performance and methods of charging are, in and of themselves, part of the problem. It is also instructive that BlackRock, for example, is now being criticised by its own shareholders and investors for voting against positive environmental policies despite claiming to adhere to them. Shareholders are arguably less of a problem than the boards which fail to address the normally compliant shareholders’ voting patterns when they vote against executive pay.

To extend the public company governance requirements to private companies is rubbernecking on media coverage and not a serious analysis even of the event that it purports to address. Its obvious weakness will be starkly laid out in the attempts to draft legislation, if it ever gets that far. As for the watering down of the commitment to place workers on boards, that is an illustration of the limited thinking about the effectiveness of governance on public companies. Advisory panels and non-executive advocates—this is thin stuff. No wonder we have ended up with a debate on publishing pay ratios to do with remuneration—a suggestion so limited that it does not deserve the controversy that it has generated.

The chronic problem is that the current arrangements for corporate governance enshrined in the corporate code is the problem. All you have to do is read the few paragraphs on relations with shareholders, which does not even muster a page, to understand the nature of the problem. This Green Paper is not enough. We have to admit that the road started by Cadbury has gone too far in the wrong direction and needs to be addressed.

The balance between shareholders, workers and customers has drifted too far away from the interests of the country, and nothing but a complete overhaul and review of the combined code will deal with it. The 2009 Walker review was, and should have been seen as, the drink in the last chance saloon. The glass is now empty. Will the Minister accept that the Green Paper should accept the debate on all aspects, including the code itself? Does the Minister also agree that the code itself should not be seen as the gold standard to set against private companies, and that to extend it to all private companies will require its own evaluation, given the very different nature of what a private company can be?

Executive remuneration is out of control—a point recognised in the Minister’s Statement. Will he please tell us whether this Green Paper will rein back some of the completely unjustified leaps in executive pay? Does he agree that pay itself is an example of the weakness of a second-rate code being mixed with transparency? The principal reason is that what is known as the “ratchet effect” has occurred. Remuneration consultants present a company with data comparing their executives’ pay—now that it is fully published—with others. They ask: “Does the company want to be seen as a company in the top quartiles—the top performers and payers; those who are most attractive?”. Of course, every director will want to appear in the top one or two quartiles of pay, but for every director who is inserted in the top half, another must fall to the bottom—a fact that will soon be drawn to their attention by remuneration consultants. So the ratchet clicks over and creates a natural inflationary effect, with no relationship to pay, performance or anything to do with the company. This has become a chronic problem. I urge every Member of this House to look at the reports of company accounts of companies that declare that they are in the upper quartiles. That tells you the story of unrelenting pay advances with no justification.

Remuneration consultants have done an appalling job and a great disservice to the UK economy. They represent a prophylactic for weak and lazy boards. As the noble Lord, Lord Myners, the former Trade Minister said,

“They allow the remuneration committee to say ‘this is what the consultants say, so we should do it’”.

Non-execs frequently complain that the report they have seen has been redrafted to the advantage of the executives by the executives with the remuneration advisers. Will the Minister recognise the problem with remuneration consultants and confirm that their role will be the subject of a review, whether in this Green Paper or at any other time?

It is not as if we do not have enough challenges ahead. Yes, the Government should be credited for starting a debate, but it does no credit to set it off in a manner that just feeds media headlines and is poor policy. It will inevitably lead to thin and limited proposals like this and, rather like the non-appearance of the Small Business Commissioner tackling late payments, will be delayed as the Government do not listen to the sensible suggestions, which I am sure will come from all sides of the House, that will make this work.

This Green Paper is a new type of dangerous dogs debate. We should be wary of the bark being worse than the bite.

[Lord Foster of Bath (LD)]

My Lords, we on these Benches acknowledge that we have many excellent businesses with high standards of corporate governance. However, following the appalling cases of BHS and Sports Direct, it was hardly surprising that the Investment Association and many others said that big business needed to rebuild trust. When the public see that executive pay has grown much faster than employee pay, with FTSE 100 CEOs earning 128 times more than average pay, they too want reform.

This Statement and the accompanying Green Paper offer some proposals that will help rebuild trust, and we offer a cautious welcome to them. They include strengthening shareholder voting rights and requiring larger, privately owned businesses to meet higher corporate governance and reporting standards. I single out for special mention the welcome proposal for large companies to have a dedicated non-executive director on the board to give small suppliers a voice, improve prompt payment and challenge supply-chain bullying. This measure is vital to help our SMEs and start-ups.

However, we also have disappointments. When the Prime Minister said,

“we’re going to have not just consumers represented on company boards, but workers as well”,

it was widely believed that she meant that elected employees would be on boards, emulating the practice in many countries and in many of our own successful start-up businesses, but now we learn that she has bowed to industry pressure. So I want to ask the Minister a very clear question. Will the proposed representatives of employees who serve on boards in the future be elected by the workforce or just be allocated the job from among existing board members? After all, the public have a right to choose their representatives in Parliament, so should employees not have the right to choose their board representatives? Better still, why do the Government not do what more than 60% of the public want, which is to put workers on boards?

Why is there nothing in this Statement or the Green Paper about increasing board diversity? Only three weeks ago, the Business Minister, Margot James, said:

“It is not right that boardrooms in 2016 can still be predominantly male and exclusively white”.

What plans do the Government have to ensure a diversity of voices on boards?

Although we welcome the Government’s intention to consult on improving the transparency of executive pay, we acknowledge that they are right to accept that a simple ratio of CEO pay to median salary could produce misleading results. Does the Minister agree that, as part of avoiding that problem, there would be considerable merit in ensuring that companies report on the total remuneration of both executives and employees? Is it not important that companies that provide, for example, enhanced childcare facilities or in-work training for employees, have that acknowledged and thereby, it is hoped, encourage others to do the same?

Reference is made in the Statement to the role of shareholder influence on executive pay. Does the Minister agree that there would be a real impact on this from a massive expansion of employee share ownership—not the disastrous George Osborne model, where shares are traded for basic employment rights, but with shares forming part of everyday remuneration for all workers, not just those at the top—giving everyone a stake in the company and a vote on how to run it?

Similarly, why are there not proposals to encourage more companies to mutualise? Some of the best examples of British companies—John Lewis being the obvious one—are run on alternative business models such as the mutual. Does the Minister agree that there is great merit in having a diversity of types of companies, rather than simply relying on listed and private company models?

The vast majority of businesses in this country act responsibly, but if we want to restore faith in business we should go even further. We should put workers on the boards, as happens in other countries, improve share ownership schemes and ensure that support made available to workers, such as training and skill development, is highlighted, alongside information on pay, as part of any reporting system.

Nissan: Sunderland

Debate between Lord Mendelsohn and Lord Foster of Bath

Monday 31st October 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Mendelsohn (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement made in the Commons.

The announcement on 27 October by Nissan Motor Company that it will produce the next Qashqai and will add production of the next X-Trail model at its Sunderland UK plant is to be welcomed. This increase in its investment in Sunderland will not just secure and sustain the jobs of more than 7,000 workers at the plant but be welcome news to workers holding the 28,000 British automotive supply chain jobs and the tens of thousands of jobs in the local economy that are dependent on the thriving plant there. It is, of course, a great tribute to the extraordinary workforce there, and we are very pleased to associate ourselves with the comments about their great achievements.

It is also entirely appropriate to pay tribute to Nissan’s commitment to the UK and its fantastic record since the plant opened in 1986. It is, I believe, not just the UK’s largest car plant but the largest plant ever in the UK. To date, Nissan has invested more than £3.7 billion in Sunderland. It stands as a globally competitive powerhouse of manufacturing and is proof that the UK can and should excel in manufacturing.

In his statement, the Nissan chairman and CEO made two important points, which are the reason for the Minister’s Statement and the Secretary of State’s foray into the media and on to the news programmes over the weekend. He said that:

“The support and assurances of the UK Government enabled us to decide”;

and, secondly, that he welcomed the Prime Minister’s,

“commitment to the automotive industry in Britain and to the development of an overall industrial strategy”.

I ask the Minister to provide the House with more detail around a few important issues, such as the nature of the assurances, the Government’s openness with dealing with underpinning the economy in dealing with the consequences of Brexit and their approach to assurances for other areas of the economy.

We heard over the weekend—there were perhaps more details in the interview with Marr than in the Statement—a number of announcements in relation to the commitments given to Nissan. The first is that this deal is on offer to the whole car industry. Will the Minister confirm that all aspects of the support package will be available to the companies operating assembly plants in the UK? Does it also apply to the more than 650 automotive companies and even the 2,000-plus automotive suppliers in the UK? Have the UK Government made an estimate of the range of potential financial implications if this offer is accepted by Nissan and all the assembly plants and automotive companies?

On “The Andrew Marr Show”, the Secretary of State said that there were four things in the letter, and those were repeated in the Statement. One was that the Government will provide funding for training. The Statement suggests that this will be around £66 million a year. It would be very useful if the Minister could tell us how much Nissan currently receives from the money that has been apportioned over the past six years and whether there were any indications that more was requested or that more would be supplied.

Secondly, the Government have said that they will bring the supply chain back to the UK . The Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders estimates that 80% of components in a car can be made in the UK. Currently, the average UK content in British-built cars is 41%. The government commitment is therefore to make up this 39%—effectively doubling it—by a new, energetic campaign. This could be one of the most significant industrial undertakings of current times. However, it concerns me that the Statement indicates that this is no more than is done currently in a programme which has made a very small shift but which is running out of steam and where the year-on-year changes are reducing. I would be grateful if the Minister will provide us with any details on anything that would indicate whether this is a new, sustained effort or more of the same programme that is running out of steam.

Thirdly, the Government have given an undertaking to be at the leading edge of research and development for electric cars. Can the Minister confirm the Government’s full commitment in relation to that? Did it relate to grants, tax incentives, employment assistance or R&D spend? Was anything mentioned? The principal argument seems to be that the merging of the departments was enough. Did that really satisfy the Nissan executive or were more details provided? Were any of the details that were provided, whether by letter or verbally, the basis for any conclusions to be drawn by Nissan?

Fourthly, the Government say they will try to achieve tariff-free trade in the Brexit negotiations. Did the Minister—verbally, in a letter or in any other way, such as through officials or in any other form of communication—explain or give any steer on what would happen if the Government failed to achieve an agreement for tariff-free trade? Were any details provided? It is hard to believe that a company such as Nissan was convinced by good intentions alone or that what the Secretary of State has already said meets the test of “support and assurances” that the Nissan chairman and CEO could report to the Nissan executive. There is nothing wrong, and everything good, with providing reassurances and support, but in current circumstances, the Government need to be more open. Ensuring the UK’s economic well-being after Article 50 is lodged may well be the responsibility of the Government, but it will not be achieved only by the Government. There are many others ready and willing to help.

The Government should publish not just the letter between the Secretary of State and Nissan but also any supporting information and data they collect that are relevant to the development of the assurances and their delivery. Can the Minister undertake to do that? Can the Minister also confirm that the Government are united on their approach to negotiations with Europe? Has the Secretary of State cleared his commitment to tariff-free single market access with the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union and with the Secretary of State for International Trade?

The chairman and CEO of Nissan was explicit that the commitment to an industrial strategy was an important consideration. Could the Minister provide the details of what was provided, if anything, in addition to the statements that the Government have already made public? Does this mean that the Government are willing to provide such assurances to other parts of the economy? Car manufacturers make a valuable contribution to our economy in terms of jobs, productivity and exports, but so do many other sectors, including strategically important ones such as steel, aerospace and pharmaceuticals. Then of course there is the service sector, which accounts for most of our economy. What are the Government going to do support the rest of our economy through Brexit? Could the Minister outline any elements of the strategic architecture or even some of the measurements which will be used to devise a proper plan rather than a factory-by-factory approach?

The UK is currently a beneficiary of EU R&D funding. Will the Government guarantee to match this funding after Britain leaves the EU—including the funding that UK institutions get to lead and manage programmes across the EU, which act to cover the core costs of important UK research institutions? Will the Minister please confirm the current Government’s thinking on what and how affordable it would be to provide some sort of “support and assurances” to the banking sector if it is unable to secure passporting? The Government continue to block action against steel dumping at the EU level. Will the Secretary of State commit to giving equal treatment to other vital sectors by taking action to support our steel industry? Can the Minister give any idea whether the Government will take a different view after Brexit?

We are where we are, and we have to act to ensure the UK thrives. The Government need to provide more detail, and not less, if we are looking to launch Article 50 in five months. Surely the Minister needs to understand the reasonable expectations of having a better timetable and explanation of the government plan. Being more open about the terms agreed with Nissan would be a useful start.

[Lord Foster of Bath]

My Lords, I too thank the Minister for repeating the Statement. On these Benches, we are of course pleased that 35,000—some people argue 42,000—direct and indirect jobs have been saved because of the Nissan decision. We too join the tributes that have been made to the workforce and to Nissan for its commitment to the United Kingdom. But we remain unclear about cost, unclear about whether or not the deal extends beyond the Nissan Motor Company, unclear about the implications for sectors other than automotive and, frankly, completely in the dark about where the Government are seeking to take us. Like the noble Lord, Lord Mendelsohn, we wonder whether we have heard all there is to be told about the Nissan deal.

The Business Secretary says his negotiating demeanour—to use his word—will be to try to ensure continued access to the markets in Europe without tariffs and without bureaucratic impediments. What is the fallback position if he fails? WTO rules do not allow compensation to be paid to Nissan for imposed tariffs, so what will happen then? Alternatively, are the Government seeking partial membership—for some sectors and not others—of the single market and customs union? After all, the Prime Minister has said that membership of the customs union is not a binary affair. Does the Minister agree with the Prime Minister? Is she aware that experts simply cannot see a system where there is, for example, free movement for cars but not for bicycles? Does the Prime Minister know something that the rest of us do not?

If the Business Secretary succeeds in a tariff and bureaucracy-free solution for cars, who will then have responsibility for the manufacturing regulations? Will the UK have a say on them? That will be so important, not least for the specialist car sector and for our work, as the Minister said, on electric and driverless cars. What guarantee can the Government give Nissan in the long term if we do not have a voice in any regulatory framework? What of those other sectors, including aerospace, pharmaceuticals, the service sector and many others including the millions of small businesses? The Business Secretary has made clear that the Nissan deal is not a general deal. So is it the case simply that those who shout loudest get the best deal from the Government? If the Government cannot have a sector-specific customs union, will they stay in the customs union entirely? If so, why do we have a Secretary of State for International Trade trotting around the world proposing deals which would of course be illegal?

The Nissan saga shows all too clearly that the Government do not have a clear plan and that their idea of not having a running commentary on Brexit is, frankly, laughable. When Cabinet discussions are leaked, and when some companies and not others are given specific assurances, it causes confusion and rumour that impact on the economy and the confidence of millions of business owners, savers and investors across the country. Does the Minister agree that it would be better if the Government came to Parliament with a clear statement of their intentions for negotiations and then let Parliament have a vote on that negotiating strategy? We would like to hear the answer.