Industrial Strategy

Debate between Lord Mendelsohn and Lord Fox

Monday 27th November 2017 Lords Chamber

[Lord Mendelsohn (Lab)]

My Lords, I draw attention to my interests as listed in the register.

I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement and I give a warm welcome to much of the industrial strategy White Paper, the warmest welcome being for its existence. There is much in it to be applauded and many important aspects. It is, like the Green Paper, quite a compendium of what we are familiar with and what we have already heard, but there are some very useful illustrations of collaboration across government, business, trade unions and science. The test is whether, joined together, it has the capacity to make a powerful difference.

The White Paper encompasses the old, the current and the new. The old—that is, what is already established—has been addressed through the sector deals. What is most welcome is that much, although not all, of what has been drifting now has a process to come to a conclusion. The present is in the grand challenges, but we also have to address the more chronic problems of regional imbalances, low wage growth, service sector imbalances and weakness in skills, as well as competition, markets and finance. The ONS statistics published last week show a stinging decline in capital stock, which shows that businesses are relying on cheap labour rather than investing in system upgrades to improve efficiency.

I had noticed that the Green Paper was 132 pages long, whereas the White Paper weighs in at 254. It is so much larger that it has already started to be part of the growth story of the industrial strategy. However, given that the font size is up by around 25%, with more pictures, tables and illustrations than the Green Paper, that is in and of itself a good way to start evaluating whether it is more productive.

Reading the previous Government’s press release launching the effort to help to reposition the UK’s independent capability in the post-Brexit world, the word “productivity” did not even get a mention. However, it got a mention from one trade body, which said that it hoped that the strategy could help with productivity in its sector.

Today, the White Paper is all about productivity. This is different from the post-Brexit world and, I think, weaker for it; nevertheless, it is essential that we address it. Performance over the last decade has been the worst for any decade since the 19th century. In fact, since the predecessor document on the productivity plan was launched in 2015, we have seen the worst quarter performance recorded in the last 200 years. So this may not equip us over the horizon that we originally looked at but, as the OBR report illustrated, this is a pressing target now.

There are now five drivers of productivity and four grand challenges—nine items, not 10. By my reckoning, the last 10 pillars could probably fall into the first five and the challenges have been elevated to grand challenges. To my mind, these are more matters of presentation, so I would like to ask some questions on three major areas which I think are fundamental.

The first concerns institutions. The report announces the establishment of the industrial strategy council. This is to be welcomed and it comes in a section which has my favourite phrase of the entire report. It says that the strategy,

“needs to combine agility with patience”,

and that the industrial strategy council will be there to help consistency and adaptability. However, we will be concerned if it becomes the same as the OBR. Will the Minister confirm that its make-up will demonstrate independence and what that might be? What independent powers will it have? Will it be able to talk to departments outside the Treasury? Will it have to take the political assumptions of Ministers and departments for its measurements? Will it publish independently of ministerial and departmental input, especially the Budget? Will it be accountable to Parliament, and will its head have to go through a confirmation process? Without those assurances, it may not have the necessary long-term cross-party support that this sort of strategy needs in order to succeed.

The White Paper adds some extra institutions and has a welcome review of SME productivity, but it does not address institutions such as NESTA which look like they are in need of a refresh, or even the newly established Small Business Commissioner, who, if he could unlock the problem of late payments, would create the recycling and velocity of cash that makes a measurable and meaningful difference to output per worker.

We do not address the weaknesses of our venture capital sector, which is much more reliant—despite our tax arrangements for VC through the SEIS and the British Business Bank—on the European Investment Fund than we are prepared to face up to. So is there a wider review of all the agencies and current arrangements, and will they too be considered over time within the context of the industrial strategy report?

Secondly, there is the crucial question of funding. The White Paper indicates that we are going to try to do more with less. I am a great fan of efficiency but surely additional investment is required. Why is Germany streets ahead of us in preparation for the so-called fourth Industrial Revolution? It is because it has a €40 billion agency. Why did a small country such as Israel steal a march on us in the volume of VC tech and cybersecurity investment? It was because it established a well-funded agency called Yozma and dedicated 8% of all government IT departments’ expenditure to it.

So will the Minister please tell us how much new—not previously announced—money there is in here or in the sector deals? Of the money that has already been announced, such as the Industrial Strategy Challenge Fund and all other announcements, how much is left unallocated?

I have always given great credit to the Government for increasing R&D spend, although much now has to go to make up for the loss that we face from Brexit. I welcomed the first place that R&D received in the Green Paper but I am not sure that it is there with the same force now. There is much to welcome but we are still aiming to be behind the OECD average and well behind all the pace-setter nations, even when we hit 2.4%. Can the Minister assure us that this is not the end of the science story in the UK’s industrial strategy?

Finally, the report remains weak on identifiable, quantifiable and operable ambition and targets. DARPA, which is cited in the report, is clear about its mission and objectives. It is essentially and critically to ensure that the US military maintains overwhelming technological superiority over any rival. The clarity of the mission makes it clear how its challenges and structure can be overcome. The industrial strategy challenge fund needs to be similarly clear. Can the Minister provide us with what he considers to be the most concrete objectives, targets and outcomes we can measure it against; and what specific goals any of the measures are set to achieve?

I would have preferred a stronger call to action. It is said that you have to set goals that are almost out of reach. If you set a goal that is attainable without too much work or thought, you are stuck with something below your true talent and potential. Discipline is the bridge between goals and accomplishment. Without that, as good as this White Paper is, it can never truly be great.

[Lord Fox (LD)]

My Lords, I draw attention to the interests registered in my name. Like the noble Lord who has just spoken, I am pleased that the words “industrial strategy” are coming from the Government’s lips. In the life-cycle of an industrial strategy, we are perhaps at the most optimistic bit before cynicism and despair begin to set in. I shall try not to hasten us down that curve but there are some points that we should perhaps bring out today. It behoves me most of all to point out that the reference to Brexit, made as an aside in the Statement, clearly indicates the effect that the Government believe it will have on our industrial capability—and it is not positive.

This should be set into the context of the OBR’s recent forecast which downgraded GDP by £45 billion by 2021. That is around £700 per person. We would have valued a sense of urgency in the report but there has not been any. It has been a long time in the making. The Minister pointed out that we have been through a long consultation and a long Green Paper, which was almost a year in the cooking. I acknowledge that we need a long-term strategy but, because it is a long-term strategy, that does not mean it needs such a long-term gestation.

For us, the most important part in this—it has received few column inches despite the font size and photographs, as pointed out earlier—is the implementation side. Without implementation, this is just another brochure; another tour of the industrial landscape. It is right that it falls to a Cabinet committee, chaired by the PM, to drive this issue forward. I would welcome the Minister’s comments on how often the committee meets, how much energy we can expect from it and how often Parliament will receive a progress report from it.

Like the previous speaker, we also welcome the establishment of the industrial strategy council—or we think we do because there is so little detail it is almost impossible to know what it is, what it is for, how it will be resourced, how it will be staffed and to whom it will be answerable. Like the previous speaker, we would welcome answers to those questions.

Then we come to the grand challenge. There are noble Lords on many Benches who think this is a rehash of picking winners. I know the Statement went out of its way to decry that view but, however one looks at it, there is an element of picking sectors that we think are needed and can be successful, and investing in them. One can call that something else or picking winners. I urge the Minister to ensure that we are not cutting out funding into the wider exploration and seeking of knowledge because, without investment in that kind of research, graphene would never have been discovered. We still need to seek out the unknown unknowns in order to advance our science and keep us moving forward.

Perhaps I may add another warning on DARPA. This is not a DARPA process for one important reason—there is not the money that DARPA has to throw at these challenges. There is not the huge industrial military complex that sits behind it, which has itself enormous US Government funding for these initiatives. We should be careful when we bandy the word DARPA around.

That said, overall the topics that have been chosen for the challenge are broadly welcome. I note the inclusion of clean growth, which was hardly mentioned in the Green Paper and not at all in the consultation. It was mentioned extensively in the Lib Dem response to the consultation so I shall claim that as a Lib Dem win. However, the Government’s record casts doubt on their commitment to clean growth. They have scrapped subsidies for solar and offshore wind and cut funding for carbon capture and storage—even though we know that kind of support works—and, further, they have sold off the Green Investment Bank. This announcement is either a damascene conversion or just more paper.

I have just one question on the life sciences strategy. The Government commit the NHS to its role in the life sciences strategy: what extra resources will be given to the NHS in order for it to take up the research role it has been set?

The Government want to increase research and development spending to 2.4% of GDP by 2027. That of course is only the average, as has been pointed out, and a more ambitious target would be more sensible. However, there is not very much new money. If you do the maths, you will find that it is about £0.4 billion on top of what has already been announced. Certainly that is what has been said in the other place. The £2.5 billion investment fund to be created by the British Business Bank was not costed in the Red Book, raising questions of where the money will come from. Perhaps the Minister can enlighten us. These commitments are inadequate compared to what is being lost—the £2 billion provided by the European Investment Fund for start-ups and the €3.6 from Horizon 2020, which will disappear after that time.

Catapults are important and I am pleased they have been mentioned. I have two points. The paper mentions that there are poorly performing catapults. Can the Minister enlighten us as to how many are performing well and how many are not? Secondly, I note that the highly-regarded CEO of Innovate has just stepped down. Perhaps we can hear what that is about.

We on these Benches have said before that we will need the right people to implement this strategy. There has to be a joined-up national skills strategy.

International Investment

Debate between Lord Mendelsohn and Lord Fox

Tuesday 17th October 2017 Lords Chamber

[Lord Mendelsohn (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement in this House. I also thank him for his personal interest in these matters, not just in relation to Bombardier but for his deep involvement in shaping the Green Paper, which is shown through its pages.

I turn to the last part of the Statement, which is the very welcome news that Bombardier and Airbus have determined to create a joint venture to look at developing the C Series aircraft. The pairing of these two cutting-edge product lines is a very exciting prospect for the future of aerospace manufacturing and the excellent industry that we have here. We are hugely encouraged by such a step and what it means for the UK. I would be grateful to the Minister for some further information on what assurances or indications the Government have gained from both companies as to the likely investment or potential for jobs growth in this country as a result of such an excellent step. I reaffirm the broad consensus of the House, as demonstrated during the course of the last Statement, that we strongly support the Government’s actions in defending Bombardier’s position against a completely unjustified and unwarranted attack by Boeing, and a process which we are not convinced is as straightforward and clear as it could be. We urge the Government to do whatever they can and we support their continued efforts to try to ensure a swift and speedy resolution of these matters.

We warmly welcome the excellent and timely Green Paper National Security and Investment and Infrastructure Review. We are pleased that the Government have chosen to look at how we can update our structures to deal more effectively with changing times. As a general observation, this creates further changes to our merger regime, some of which the Minister has already mentioned, such as matters involving the Takeover Panel and the FCA and further reviews of corporate governance. Even some of the insolvency reforms have a bearing on how we look at this regime. I make a plea for a more holistic process in how we review these issues of industrial strategy. Especially as we face Brexit, it would be useful if the Government could come up with a more joined-up approach to how these different parts can achieve the outcomes that we want, rather than having conflicting and competing claims or unwelcome consequences.

In relation to the principles from which we approach this review, it is important to state—as the review itself does—that we have to ensure that the UK remains open for investment and participation. We still want to be a major global player in all these areas. Sometimes the indication that we are involved in a review creates a chill. We should be clear that, while it is entirely legitimate to protect the country’s interests, we will not create a large investment review. This also applies to how we address issues such as the clawback of funds and how those funds might be used for early development or other things for companies which might not be eligible. That provision would itself raise a series of questions. One has to assess things delicately and put them in sensible terms. The intention is clearly right, but we would not want it to have unwelcome consequences.

We are pleased with the short-term and long-term approach to ensuring that we have an adaptable and operational system. The review stresses our foreign direct investment position, which this House has discussed many times. We are mildly sceptical about the nature of some of this investment. The charts in the paper identify the level. If we subtract the gold transactions which take place in the UK as goods received—which effectively net each other out—I am not sure the position would be so flattering. Our FDI position is not as good as is suggested and we should be conscious that we have a long way to go in encouraging the right sort of job-creating investment. The review should be seen in that context, rather than giving the feeling that we are in a much stronger position than we are.

Will the Minister provide some thoughts on the following issues? First, what are our national security requirements? Are these strategic or are they direct security concerns? What balance will be in place on issues such as security of supply versus strategic control, as well as our own capacity to ensure that we have certain technologies? We welcome the important short-term measure of lower thresholds, which does plug gaps. On long-term measures, the review is right to look at mechanisms such as call-ins and notifications. However, these raise questions themselves, the first of which is the nature of acquisitions and security concerns as companies develop in the modern world. This is not always about the takeover of a company. As we have seen from the way in which companies acquire access to technology and other things, this can frequently be done through partnerships, joint ventures and other things which do not involve a complete and direct transfer of equity. Sometimes control changes due to debt, so we need to consider all these measures. I would be very grateful for the Minister’s observations on those points.

In relation to the nature of these companies, we have looked at lower tests on dual use in the military sector and those involved in the design of computer chips and quantum technology. Certainly, our security concerns can be identified in other high-tech sectors, including life sciences and even food technology, as well as other areas of science and research. I would be very grateful to be told how the Government decided which sectors to select.

In the context of the voluntary and mandatory reforms, what was the thinking behind the notion that you can divide those sectors into voluntary and mandatory? Certainly, the guidance the Minister talked about would be enhanced by giving a much clearer view on that.

Finally—I do not wish to sound too mischievous, but I will ask this question anyway—does our reviewing the matter at this stage suggest that we may well take a different view over the long term, as these companies already fell within the threshold, or that we might be open to taking a different view on what took place in relation to ARM or even Hinkley Point?

[Lord Fox (LD)]

My Lords, I draw your Lordships’ attention to the interests registered in my name. I, too, thank the Minister for repeating the Statement in this House. He is of course right to declare that the UK economy should be open. All of us on these Benches earnestly hope that that is the way the Government continue to play it and that we do not start to close down and become a little England.

The Minister also rightly highlighted the need for changes in appropriate safeguards. The world is changing very quickly, national security needs are changing and the Government are right to keep those under review, so this is a timely process.

The noble Lord, Lord Mendelsohn, asked for a holistic approach to the whole issue of mergers and acquisitions. En passant, I add pensions to that list, which he did not include, because increasingly pensions and the rights of pensioners are becoming a driver within the mergers and acquisitions section.

On the Statement, there is a powerful case for strengthening the public interest in takeovers, as, indeed our leader Vince Cable has argued regularly, most recently, I think, on the AstraZeneca case. However, while lowering the threshold is a welcome step, the Government’s proposals are narrow and do not add a great deal to the overall public interest element, which should be covered in a more holistic approach. In recent months we have seen several of the UK’s high-tech companies snapped up by foreign competitors. This has been exacerbated by the fall in the value of the pound. That is a regrettable outcome. Therefore, today’s inclusion of computer chips in the list of new technologies singled out is somewhat interesting given that it follows the much publicised acquisition of ARM, arguably the world’s best chip designer. That, again, was driven by the weakness of the pound. Perhaps the Minister agrees that there is an element of closing the stable door here. We wish that some of the measures we are discussing were in place at that time.

The addition of quantum technology raises the question: why only that? Again, the noble Lord, Lord Mendelsohn, opened up a list of other technologies. I had biosciences and some aspects of IT and encryption on my list. It seems to me a rather narrow list when you consider the potential threats to a range of technologies. In some technologies, the threats have not been thought of yet but they exist. In our view the scope should be widened to defend not just the science base from a security point of view but also the overall knowledge base of this country. Knowledge can leak out from this country through a variety of means, of which mergers and acquisitions is but one. Joint research projects are another. In many cases you often have competing aims where inward development exercises try to draw foreign investors into research projects where the IP driver in this country would be to exclude some of those investors. In many cases, therefore, we are creating a situation that is leaking out valuable information —whether it is for security interests or economically valuable—through actions that the Government or local government are driving. Perhaps this is something that the Minister could look at. At the heart of this is the narrow look at security needs. These Benches would widen that to cover more economic interests of this country, and we hope the Government will take that on board.

Turning to Bombardier, I am sure the whole House welcomes the announcement of this deal, which should protect the future of the plane-maker. Clearly, only a few days ago, we were discussing a very bleak future for the 4,000-plus workers and all of those indirectly involved in the economic area that it has created in Belfast, so this is good news. I said at the time that even though this is not a case that would, in the end, be won by Boeing, time was the issue that would kill off and affect Bombardier. This is a very effective way of trying to bridge that time and of negating that problem. We should all congratulate everybody who has been involved in expediting this so swiftly and effectively. I am sure there are “i”s to be dotted and “t”s to be crossed, and I hope the Minister will give assistance to all those who require it to make sure that happens. In that regard, will the Minister tell us what anti-trust hoops he expects this deal to have to jump through?

We would also welcome some clarity from the Minister on what assurances have been forthcoming, both on investment and on the public statement made by the CEO, Tom Enders, on the notion that operations will be more efficient. What will be the job implications in both Belfast and perhaps in Broughton? What assurances have been given, and how will he be able to uphold them? In many ways, the US Administration and Boeing might feel that they have got off the hook somewhat by this, but there are still huge tariffs outstanding on this aircraft. The actions of the US remain a salutary warning to this country that its relationship with the Trump Administration is, at best, strained and poses something of a black cloud.

In conclusion, today’s announcement on takeovers and mergers sets out steps in the right direction. We welcome greater breadth in scrutiny and the requirement for notification. I am sure that, as the consultation process goes through, the Government will look at the technologies, and at which elements of which technologies we should be concerned about. I hope they will also take on board the public interest aspect in mergers and acquisitions.

Bombardier

Debate between Lord Mendelsohn and Lord Fox

Tuesday 10th October 2017 Lords Chamber

[Lord Mendelsohn (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement made by the Secretary of State in the other place. It sets out the case very well indeed. I am sure the whole House welcomes the Government’s commitment to resolve this trade dispute between Boeing and Bombardier as swiftly as possible.

Indeed, this dispute is of great concern to the 4,200 Bombardier employees in Northern Ireland, their families and the communities in East Belfast, Newtownabbey, Dunmurry and Newtownards. For so many jobs at one of Northern Ireland’s largest employers to be placed at risk is a matter of real concern, as are the wider potential economic impact and, in the case of Northern Ireland, the potential political repercussions. Bombardier represents 8% of Northern Ireland’s GDP and 40% of its manufacturing base and supports 20,000 more jobs in the wider supply chain across the country. There is a great deal at risk. Bombardier acquired the Shorts facility in 1989. The Shorts heritage goes back over 100 years and the Belfast base was established in 1948. It is a centre of excellence and many other leading businesses in the aviation and defence sectors owe their excellent performance and existence to the Shorts—now Bombardier—facility.

The aviation sector is important to our country and it has great potential. We have Airbus facilities, a Boeing facility in Sheffield and the Bombardier facility. Aviation expertise, world-leading engineers and an experienced and seasoned workforce create the potential for this sector to be a real opportunity for us. This dispute and recent news regarding BAE and Monarch do not represent the collapse of the aviation industry but do not bode well for those of us who want to see it thrive in the years ahead. Does the Minister agree that a sector deal, with a particular focus on supply-chain issues and infrastructure requirements, would be helpful in this context?

I want to make it very clear that we on these Benches unreservedly take the view that Bombardier is being challenged on a case that has no merits and that the US Department of Commerce’s initial determinations are flawed and without justifiable foundation. It is clearly specious to suggest that there is harm or potential harm to Boeing in a sector where it does not have a competitor product; nor can there be any doubt that the UK’s vigorous adherence to state aid rules means that any support provided to the Bombardier facility does not contravene trade rules.

We hope that the key actors in this see sense and either withdraw the complaint or abandon the US Government’s flawed process, and that this is resolved as quickly as possible to ensure that any harm is minimised. But hope is not enough and we need to be steadfast in our action. We offer the Government our support and help and we recognise that there has been some considerable effort: 24 interactions with the US Government, including two with the President, as well as 12 with Boeing and 10 with other key actors, including the EU. But we have concerns about the effectiveness of the approach and would like some assessment from the Government of whether they feel that anyone is listening or even that the process itself is fair. We acknowledge the role of Canada, as well as the help of the trade unions, but we would be grateful if the Minister could also tell us how much support, and to what level, the Government are seeking from the European institutions. Have the Government asked the EU to consider taking steps in relation to its trade with the US?

We recognise that Boeing is a very welcome inward investor to the UK and we have a significant and long-standing relationship. We would like it to increase the size, scale and scope of its Sheffield facility, and to see it flourish. But the conduct we have seen from it is not what we would expect of a supplier. We would be grateful if we could understand from the Minister what further interactions we have had with Boeing and when the most recent ones were.

In relation to the US Government, have the Government taken a view on whether or not this process has been used because of the weakness of the merits of the case? It is noticeable that unlike most disputes in the aviation sector, which take place at the WTO, this one is a US government approach. Surely the US Commerce Secretary’s recent comments in support of the action and the determination of the tariffs suggest that this process may have been used for a reason. In discussions with the US Government, have Ministers seen any evidence of US government encouragement of Boeing? Can the Minister tell us, in the case of such disputes, on how many occasions, either by number or percentage, has the final decision overturned a provisional decision? Can the Government suggest what their plan would be if the final decision confirmed the provisional declaration? What would be the strategy in the United States? Have the Government sought the advice of expert US trade lawyers or advisers?

Does the Minister agree with me that actually, the fundamental problem here is one of market structure? Boeing has such a large market share that it prices on the basis of monopolistic control, actively supported by eye-watering subsidies from the US Government— a rather familiar tale of locking everyone out to favour the dominant incumbent. This country has benefited from a more open market, with Airbus, Boeing and Bombardier having meaningful facilities here, and this US-led action demonstrates not only its determination in defending its interests but how quickly it can sometimes apply protectionism. It raises questions about its commitment to a new, fair and reasonable trade deal. Finally, can the Minister confirm that this point has been forcefully made to the US Government during the discussions?

[Lord Fox (LD)]

My Lords, I draw your Lordships’ attention to my declared interests. I thank the Minister for repeating the comprehensive Statement, which I think has support right across the House. There is a danger that this is a bellwether moment for Bombardier, Northern Ireland’s industry and, perhaps, Britain’s future trading relationships. It is an important example and possibly a glimpse of what life outside the European Union might look like.

As the Statement rightly says, this unilateral and disproportionate response by the US Department of Commerce is over a variety of plane that Boeing itself does not manufacture. Does the Minister agree that this is perhaps a more symbolic gesture, with an eye on other manufacturers in other places—a warning shot, perhaps—with Bombardier as the innocent victim of a larger global power play in plane manufacturing? It also demonstrates in style how the US is going to administer multilateral organisations. It sets out in stark contrast what life could be like after Brexit as we adopt WTO rules, just as the Trump Administration step up their attack on that institution, not least through the vetoing of appointments to the WTO’s appellate body, denying it the ability to deal with such trade disputes.

Canada has long demonstrated through its actions that it views Bombardier as a strategic Canadian resource. In Northern Ireland, as the noble Lord, Lord Mendelsohn, stated, it has a very important economic as well as symbolic position within the community. I will not repeat what he has just said, except to reaffirm that its loss would be a savage blow to the drive for economic development that is absolutely essential to support the Good Friday agreement and everything that has gone before. But it is also strategic to the UK aerospace industry. We have to remember that wings are a very important part of what we do in this country, and that is what Bombardier does, so there is a very strong need to defend that technology as well.

Of course, the US action is at an early stage. In due course, as it progresses through the courts and winds its way towards the WTO, I dare say—largely because it has no merit—that Bombardier may have success in overturning the ruling. But these things take years—years and years. What kind of shape would this business be in after going through this process? No company Bombardier’s size could withstand a process of that length. Can the Minister tell us the status of the Delta sales? Are they on hold or do they go ahead as normal until the appeals process is complete? The Minister set out the co-operation that is coming from Canada but we should remember that the parent company is Canadian and if it starts to seek to preserve the overall concern, where will it cut first—in Canada or in Northern Ireland? It is very important that the Government seek assurances from Bombardier that it will continue to support the Belfast operation.

Finally on this point, we can expect the Chinese to heat up their bid for Bombardier. What line do Her Majesty’s Government have into that process? What advance warning are they likely to get in the event that a bid from the Chinese or someone else comes along?

I welcome the seriousness with which the Government are taking this; it is imperative that that seriousness continue. I am sure the Government will take the time to explain to Boeing the caustic effect it is having on what has been a burgeoning relationship in this country. I am sure the Government are reminding it about the Apache and Chinook helicopters and Poseidon aircraft that are currently on order from the MoD. Will the Minister say what contingency plans are being put in place to ring-fence the skills we have in Belfast in the event that they start to leech out? We are glad to hear that the Minister is working tirelessly, but what exactly is he now doing? We have heard that he talked to a wide variety of opposite partners in Canada and the US, but what levers does he have to pull? Can the Minister assure us that while we are cosying up, trying to negotiate a trade deal with the US, we will not ease back or soften our approach to the defence of Bombardier? The Minister has a long list of people he has talked to, so far to no effect. What is the next step?

Industrial Strategy Consultation

Debate between Lord Mendelsohn and Lord Fox

Monday 23rd January 2017 Lords Chamber

[Lord Mendelsohn (Lab)]

My Lords, I welcome the launch of the Government’s Green Paper on industrial strategy. There is much to go through and be positive about and much to scrutinise. I hope there will be other opportunities to have meaningful debates on this matter. There are considerable questions about the Green Paper, which I hope the Minister can answer. It is clear that there is much for us to do to maintain our economic position. Whether or not it has novel ideas is no test of a good industrial policy. There is much to be gained by doing more of what was being done—just doing it better. Much of this has a familiar feel. Seven of the 10 pillars of the industrial strategy were key parts of the Government’s productivity plan, Fixing the Foundations—the words “cut and paste” crossed my mind.

However, on this side of the House we are glad that some of the approach—particularly the sector plan—does represent a new way to support the development of our economy. We are keen to observe the development of this strategy: how the Government will deal with the obvious issues around picking winners and national champions, and how this approach will evolve. We are pleased that the Government are looking to support the automotive industry. A sector deal would undoubtedly be useful here. The Government have been very coy about the view that they did much to encourage the most recent announcement of investment by Nissan—the so-called secret deal. However, I am sure the Minister can confirm that there was, in fact, no deal and that the investment announced was planned for a timescale that would not be adversely affected by our relationship with Europe. Will the Minister confirm that the message from Nissan reminded the Government that, in common with other Japanese companies, it would review its position in keeping with the Japanese Government’s 15-page letter? Given the current plan for exit from Europe, and its inconsistency with their desired approach, a sector deal is the only way to ensure a viable car industry in the medium to long term.

I am also pleased to see that the pharma industry and the life science industry get a special mention. Can the Minister confirm that the Government will defend the UK base against US industry’s ambitions in any potential trade deal with the United States?

The Green Paper was accompanied by the re-announcement of existing commitments of resources. The funds for science and research are very important and, as I understand it, recover our position since the cuts started to set in in 2010. None the less, the focus on supporting science, technology and innovation is to be strongly supported. Additionally, the support for technical education is welcome, and the work of the noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury, in promoting this crucial requirement for our economy should be acknowledged.

As with many areas of this plan, there is a case for scepticism about any further education proposals that do not address the severe capacity issues in the sector. Can the Minister provide a clearer idea of how the development of this strategy will be able to call on new resources, what the expected timetable is for outlining further elements of the industrial strategy, and how it will dovetail with the budget process?

The Green Paper suffers from two of the perennial problems we always face with government business policy announcements. There is a terrible lack of objectives, and there is no clear road map or sense of desired outcomes. Instead, a series of good and reasonable measures, worthy as they are, do not make a plan that is likely to have real impact or be effective and efficient. Can the Minister tell us whether any concrete objectives or goals that can reasonably be measured will be set in this process?

Secondly—the Statement just did this again—the Green Paper glosses over a huge imbalance in the economy. Our huge reliance on the service sector is not meaningfully addressed in this industrial strategy; nor is the acute problem of the size of our manufacturing industry and its disproportionate decline. While any industrial strategy must look to the long term, our immediate future relies on how well our services can perform. I would be grateful if the Minister could outline how the service sector is expected to be part of, or to be assisted by, the industrial strategy. This is especially important in areas where, in support of the industrial strategy, we are looking at reinforcing our research and innovation, such as in robotics and artificial intelligence, and many others that are likely to have a major impact on employment requirements in the services sector.

There are, of course, some areas in which we had been expecting something new and different in the industrial strategy. We had hoped for greater ambition on broadband and mobile capacity, signalling a change to the currently pedestrian goals in the Digital Economy Bill. We had also expected slightly more about how we see effective markets and competition, and the culture of business. Crucially, are there any plans to create tougher oversight of foreign investment in the United Kingdom? Does the Minister agree with the sentiment that,

“A proper industrial strategy wouldn’t automatically stop the sale of British firms to foreign ones, but it should be capable of stepping in to defend a sector that is as important as pharmaceuticals is to Britain”?


I am sure he does: those were, of course, the words of the Prime Minister previously. Can the Minister account for their omission from the Green Paper?

There is much to welcome in starting a conversation about an industrial strategy, and there are some positive ideas here. But this is not yet a plan, and on this side of the House we hope that, over time, one will emerge. This is a first step. Martin Luther King said:

“Faith is taking the first step even when you don’t see the whole staircase”.


The Government would do well to remember the old adage that setting goals is the first step in turning the invisible into the visible. An effective industrial strategy will need that.

[Lord Fox (LD)]

My Lords, the Prime Minister’s decision to adopt a new active role for Government in industry is welcomed on these Benches. The Green Paper’s 10 pillars have most of the right words, and they identify many of the areas of concern that have been voiced in many debates over the past few years. I trust that we will have an opportunity to debate some of those aspects in more detail. I shall focus on just two of those elements—skills and cultivating world-leading sectors. I remind your Lordships of my published interests.

First, the Green Paper is right to identify skills as a central issue to future prosperity and productivity for the country, and a cash boost for technical and STEM education is, of course, welcome. However, it should be put into the context of a 7.5% reduction in schools’ per-pupil funding by 2020 and the cash-freezing of the adult skills budget until 2020—a £30 million real-terms cut next year. Thus, £170 million for new institutes of technology is all very fine but irrelevant given some of the wider cuts affecting all our young people. Therefore, can the Minister please tell us whether the Government plan to reverse their cuts to the education budgets for four to 19 year-olds? Also on skills, the Government continue to ignore the benefit and value that we gain from workers and scientists from the European Union working in this country. They continue to treat these people and their families as a bargaining chip. Could the Minister at least acknowledge the personal anguish being caused to these people, many of whom are already contributing greatly to the success of the industrial sectors that he seeks to bolster?

Secondly, the Green Paper’s support for the coalition’s sector strategy is very welcome. Here I disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Mendelsohn, in that a bit of cut and paste is actually a good thing as these strategies have to span more than one Parliament to be successful and take root. Therefore, they depend on a long-term approach. It is good news that the Government are continuing to run those strategies through. However, the idea that any Government can have a reasonable strategy for British industry while recklessly withdrawing from the single market is not credible.

Last week, the Prime Minister confirmed her intention to exit the single market, yet, extraordinarily, the Green Paper fails to refer to either the single market or the customs union, although a few euphemisms such as “turbulent times” creep in. The Government’s idea seems to be to negotiate individual sectoral agreements for “frictionless trade”—their term. Not every sector can benefit from this, or we would still be in the single market, and not every sector can expect the negotiations to succeed. Therefore, as these negotiations start, the Government will have to decide which sectors will be top of their list for trade deals. Conversely, some will be at the bottom. The Prime Minister has said that the industrial strategy is not about picking winners, but the Brexit negotiations will inevitably pick losers. Can the Minister please tell the House which sectors will win and which will lose?