British Steel

Debate between Rebecca Long Bailey and Greg Clark

Wednesday 24th July 2019 Commons Chamber

[Greg Clark]

I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s generous words. He has been assiduous not just in being a member of the support group, but by working in Skinningrove with the customers of British Steel to convey the assurances that are necessary. Buyers will have questions about this extensive and complex set of assets, so it is important—and will continue to be important, especially during the weeks ahead in August—that everyone is available and active in providing the answers to those questions.

Through the industrial strategy, the Government have established programmes to support improvement in energy efficiency, which is very important; to decarbonise industrial clusters, of which steelmaking is a prime example; and to invest in research and development. Through the industrial strategy, we have the biggest increase in R&D in the history of this country. I am making these points to prospective purchasers so that they can see that the environment is a positive one.

It would be wrong for me to comment on the individual bids, as that is legally and strictly a matter for the official receiver, but I have made myself available in this country and overseas to answer questions. I think that I have had more than 25 meetings with bidders, and it has been encouraging—to use the words of the official receiver—that serious bids have been made, but the work must continue to land them and to secure the future.

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

I do hope that this is not my last exchange with the Secretary of State, but just in case it is, I want to stress my thanks for the amazing Mini Cooper toy that he presented me with last week and to say that he should not worry because there will always be a parking space in my heart for him. We might differ in our approach to many of the structural flaws that our economy faces, but we actually have more in common on most issues than many people would realise, not least on industrial strategy. I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Redcar (Anna Turley) for securing this important update on British Steel.

The Secretary of State shares my opinion that British Steel must be kept as one entity, not splintered off to different buyers who do not have the long-term success of the company at heart. However, there have been reports this week that the Chinese Jingye Group, which was interested in the company as a whole, has pulled out. It was also reported that the deadline for bids has been moved a number of times. Indeed, an email sent from the official receiver is reported to have stated that no deadline has been set to conclude a sale process. Can the Secretary of State confirm how many prospective buyers remain, how many are interested in acquiring the entire the company and what deadlines for the sale have been set? Will he also confirm, as my hon. Friend mentioned earlier, that he will only give his support to bids that support the long-term interests of the company, the workforce, the local community and the steel industry as a whole?

The Secretary of State must recognise that, as Labour has repeatedly stated, action must be taken on electricity prices, business rates, driving investment and, of course, securing a good Brexit deal, because no deal could mean no steel. Will he therefore assure the House that he will be taking steps to ensure that the new Prime Minister urgently takes action on these issues and understands the real importance of the steel industry?

[Greg Clark]

I am very grateful to the hon. Lady for the generosity of her remarks. I have enjoyed my exchanges and meetings with her. I hope the parking space in her heart has a charging point for the electric Mini—that would be very important.

The hon. Lady invites me to comment on the bids and some of the press speculation as to who is bidding and who is not. First, this is a matter for the official receiver, and secondly, I would not want to prejudice any of the bids by commenting. The discussions, in many cases, take place under confidential terms, and it would be wrong to do anything that might disadvantage that. There is often, in situations like this, speculation in the press, and much of it is misplaced. What I can say—the official receiver has said this publicly—is that several bids have been made and he is looking for bids that consider the whole of the operation. I welcome that, as the hon. Lady does.

On long-term commitments, we do have a long-term commitment to manufacturing, and to steel in particular. I mentioned some of the funds that are available in the industrial strategy. Of course, because they would accompany substantial investments, which I hope will be in place, they require a long-term commitment from any prospective buyer.

The hon. Lady is right to raise the question of energy prices and electricity prices. This is not a new phenomenon, and it is not unique to any particular Government. In fact, the biggest increase in industrial electricity prices took place under the previous Government. In the past five years, we have contributed nearly £300 million to energy-intensive industries as a rebate towards those costs. Through the industrial energy efficiency fund that is available in the industrial strategy, we want to reduce further the costs of energy. It is very important that we should do that.

The hon. Lady asks questions about the incoming Prime Minister. I spoke to both candidates during the leadership contest to impress on them what she and I agree is the crucial role of this industry. I know that she, the Under-Secretary—my hon. Friend the Member for Pendle (Andrew Stephenson)—and other hon. Members have communicated not just with the current Prime Minister but with her potential successors to reinforce the resolution across all parts of the House that this is at the top of the new Prime Minister’s agenda.

Net Zero Emissions Target

Debate between Rebecca Long Bailey and Greg Clark

Wednesday 12th June 2019 Commons Chamber

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

I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of his statement. I echo his thanks, not least to the Committee on Climate Change, and to my right hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband), my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds West (Rachel Reeves) and the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Alex Chalk). I, too, would like to welcome the right hon. Member for Devizes (Claire Perry) back to her place.

I begin by welcoming the statement. The Chancellor of the Exchequer was just wrong, in my view, recently to exaggerate the costs of achieving net zero, and it is good to see the Government listening instead to the experts at the Committee on Climate Change. The Labour party committed to a target of net zero emissions before 2050 at its 2018 conference, and it is welcome to see the Government move in a similar direction.

Now that the Government are prepared to legislate their duty, it is now imperative that they urgently take the strategic decisions necessary. Sadly, at last week’s Prime Minister's questions, the Minister for the Cabinet Office, referring to the UK’s carbon budgets, said:

“We are not off track”—[Official Report, 5 June 2019; Vol. 661, c. 136]—

in meeting those targets at all. It is, however, a matter of fact, confirmed by the Committee on Climate Change and official BEIS statistics, that the UK is off track to meet its fourth and fifth carbon budgets. It would be helpful if the Secretary of State took this opportunity to correct the record, and to tell the House—if the Government are off track to meet their existing carbon budgets—what immediate strategic decisions he will make to ensure that the public can have confidence in the Government’s ability to meet even more stringent targets. That confidence can certainly be restored, but the Secretary of State must recognise that urgent commitments to investment and new legislation will be needed

Today’s statement is a welcome first step, but the Secretary of State has already recognised the scale of the task that lies ahead. Since 2015, when the Conservative Government secured a majority, they have systematically dismantled the policy frameworks that were designed to tackle climate change. They have effectively banned onshore wind, reduced almost all support for solar power, scrapped the zero carbon homes standard, sold off the UK Green Investment Bank, removed support for tidal power, and relentlessly pushed fracking—fracking, of all things! Moreover, there has been a 98% fall in home insulation measures since 2010.

At this point the Secretary of State will mention offshore wind, so let us be clear about that. The Government have committed themselves to bringing 30 GW of offshore wind on stream by 2030—well done!—but that is significantly less than the 50 GW that the Labour party has pledged, and dramatically less than the 75 GW that the Committee on Climate Change says we could need by 2050. Greenpeace has described the slow pace at which the Government have made contracts for difference available as “bewildering”, and analysis by Green Alliance has found that the Government are pushing the sector into a boom-and-bust cycle.

I could go on—these policy decisions have put the UK back by years—but, as climate change is still reversible, so is the Government’s track record. I am trusting the Secretary of State today to promise the House that, as one of his lasting legacies, he will turn that record around. I welcome his collegiate tone, because there are many—not least the Committee on Climate Change, the Labour party, other Members of Parliament, numerous industry groups, and energy and climate organisations—who have the ground-breaking ideas that are necessary. The Secretary of State need only reach out to those who are desperate to help him.

Achieving net zero before 2050 is necessary and affordable, and there is no need to rely on international offsets, which—let us be honest—does look like cheating. At this point, may I ask the Secretary of State whether aviation and shipping are excluded from the net zero targets, and if so, why? To achieve net zero, however, we will need huge levels of investment. We will need co-ordinated planning and new laws, and, as with any emergency, we will need significant Government intervention. I do not believe that that is ideological, or even party-political; it is just common sense, and that is why it is at the heart of Labour’s plans for ushering in a green industrial revolution.

I welcome today’s announcement, but I must ask the Secretary of State of State when he will start to act in accordance with it.

[Greg Clark]

I thank the hon. Lady for her welcome. It contained some caveats, but it was there nevertheless, and I am grateful for it.

I think that the hon. Lady should take this opportunity to reinforce the joint determination—which is noted around the world—of parties in this House of Commons to commit themselves to leading the world. We have delivered on that. I do not know whether the hon. Lady has seen this week’s report from the International Energy Agency, but it is something of which she, and all of us, should be proud. The IEA—the world’s foremost body in commenting dispassionately on energy matters—says in its report:

“The United Kingdom has led the way in the transition to a low-carbon economy by taking ambitious climate action at international and national levels.”

That is its headline conclusion. As I said in my statement, it has also commented that the Government’s efforts—and I think we can include the efforts of successive Governments—are

“an inspiration for many countries who seek to design effective decarbonisation frameworks.”

This is a moment at which, for all the fractiousness of current debates, I think the House can be proud of the decisions that have been made.

The hon. Lady asked about carbon budgets, which were established by the Climate Change Act. As she will know, for the two carbon budgets that have been met—most recently in 2017—we have achieved surpluses of 1.2% in the first and 4.7% in the second, and we are on track for a surplus of 3.6% in the current one, which will end in 2022. As for the carbon budgets that follow, which run until 2032, at this stage—and we are talking about 15 years or more from now—we are already 90% of the way there.

An important feature of the report from the Committee on Climate Change is its recognition of the astonishing returns from investment in innovation. When the right hon. Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband) and I were debating the Climate Change Bill across the Dispatch Boxes—the right hon. Gentleman will remember this—the Opposition came close to defeating the then Government on the question of imposing an emissions performance standard on new coal-fired power stations: we were defeated by just a few votes. The need for such a performance standard is now cast into history, because we have no new coal-fired power stations and we are closing the existing ones. Such is the pace of change. So I am absolutely confident that we will meet the ambition that we have set today.

The hon. Lady mentioned solar power. The Committee on Climate Change has commended the action we have taken through the feed-in tariffs. They were always intended to kick-start the solar industry. The scheme cost £1.2 billion a year, and £30 billion has been spent on supporting the industry. It has been successful, as intended, in bringing prices down. Just as in every other advanced economy, as intended from the outset, it has now closed, but has been replaced by an export guarantee that allows those supplying surplus energy in the market to be paid for it.

Proposals of that kind have been endorsed by commentators around the world. In choosing to make this big increase in research and development, we can be confident that we can maintain and fulfil our ambition not only for the environment, but for the job creation in every part of the country that comes with a consistent and determined act of leadership. I am grateful for the support of the Opposition in that regard.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Rebecca Long Bailey and Greg Clark

Tuesday 11th June 2019 Commons Chamber

[Greg Clark]

It is important that we have a realistic move to the new fleet that we need. The targets were adopted in consultation with the industry. A lot of the capital investment needs to take place over a substantial period of time, and I would not want a situation in which we lost jobs and opportunities by setting a target that was not deliverable and feasible for manufacturers.

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

Might I begin by expressing my support for the efforts of my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds West (Rachel Reeves) in bringing forward her Bill today to legislate for net zero emissions by 2050? To achieve that, supporting our automotive industry will be vital, but Ford had warned that leaving the EU would add hundreds of millions to its costs, and after the vote, it said that it was considering closing plants. This warning has come to pass. Ford is now saying that another 6,000 jobs could be at risk in the event of no deal, which is particularly concerning now that it looks likely that the next PM will actively pursue it. What direct support has the Secretary of State offered Ford to reverse its decision, and has he considered the impact of a no deal on manufacturing when deciding who to back as the next Prime Minister?

[Greg Clark]

We have led the world and the cross-party consensus across the House on our move to net zero. The hon. Lady will know that just this week, the International Energy Agency described the Government’s efforts as

“an inspiration for many countries who seek to design effective decarbonisation frameworks.”

When it comes to Ford and the automotive sector, she is right that companies in the sector have been crystal clear that we need to leave the European Union with a deal that allows us to continue to trade without frictions so that we are able to grasp the opportunities that we will have in the future. All my efforts are directed at securing that deal.

[Rebecca Long Bailey]

I actually asked about what support had been offered to Ford. Last night I spoke to a Bridgend councillor, who said

“We don’t need taskforces, commissions or working groups, we desperately need investment in Bridgend now.”

Sadly, it is not looking like any of the candidates for PM will support our car industry going forward. One thinks he knows more about car manufacturing than the boss of Jaguar Land Rover. Another said that there will be a stronger manufacturing base if we leave. Another denies that Nissan’s decision to pull the X-Trail was about Brexit, despite the company highlighting uncertainty; and the one who is allegedly the most reasonable has said that he is prepared to leave without a deal if there is a straight choice. Is it not the truth that whoever takes over as PM will drive manufacturing into the ground with their reckless approach to Brexit and that the Secretary of State’s legacy will sadly be decimated industries across our country?

[Greg Clark]

If the hon. Lady talks to people in the sector, she will know that the work we do with all companies in the sector is well respected and well regarded, whether that is the Faraday challenge or the support for individual companies such as we have seen in recent years. That support is available to Ford just as it is to any company working in the sector. As part of the work we are doing with the Welsh Government, we will attract a new investor to make use of those facilities and keep jobs for the future.

In terms of the relationship with the European Union, most, if not all, automotive suppliers want to see us reach a deal. That is my view, and I hope it is the hon. Lady’s view. In fairness, they have also said that the deal negotiated by the Prime Minister should have been approved. It is therefore of regret to me that that advice was not followed.

British Steel

Debate between Rebecca Long Bailey and Greg Clark

Wednesday 22nd May 2019 Commons Chamber

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

I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of his statement.

This is indeed very worrying news for the workers, their families and the communities who rely on British Steel directly in Scunthorpe, Skinningrove and Teesside and all the way through the supply chain. At least 25,000 people will have been worried sick this morning, wondering whether they will have a job this time next week.

As the Secretary of State knows, however, the sector is critical to our manufacturing base and is strategically important for Government procurement from rail all the way through to defence. It is therefore imperative, given that the Government now have some control via the official receiver, that this business is stabilised and confidence is given to customers, workers and businesses right across the supply chain. The message from the Government today must be that British Steel is one of the linchpins of our industrial strategy and to that end they will move heaven and earth to ensure business as usual continues.

It is reported that the owner, Greybull Capital, was asking the Government for a loan of £30 million. The shadow Minister for steel, my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough (Gill Furniss), asked for more information yesterday, but we were given none. Can the Secretary of State confirm today what the asks of British Steel were in the negotiations? Were they just the reported £30 million or was that part of a wider package of measures to support steel production?

I welcome the publication of the accounting officer’s assessment, but can the Secretary of State confirm Greybull Capital’s reasoning in asking for a loan, while reportedly being unwilling to put money on the table and simultaneously investing over £40 million in a French steelworks last week?

The Secretary of State has said in his press statement today that he will

“pursue remorselessly every possible step to secure the future of the valuable operations in sites at Scunthorpe, Skinningrove and on Teesside”,

and I welcome that. I also welcome the indemnity he has referred to, but can he outline exactly what other possible steps he will be pursuing in the coming days? Do they include bringing British Steel into public ownership as Unite the union and the Labour party have called for? Do they include discussions with other interested stakeholders to examine options for saving the company, including with Network Rail, which procures 95% of its rails from the Scunthorpe site? It is clear that we simply cannot countenance warm words and no real action as was the case with the SSI steelworks almost four years ago.

The truth of the matter is that the cost of British Steel collapsing is far greater than any short-term outlay the Government must make now. The Institute for Public Policy Research has estimated that British Steel’s collapse could lead to £2.8 billion in lost wages, £1.1 billion in lost revenue and extra benefit payments and that it could reduce household spending by £1.2 billion over 10 years. This is a significant economic disturbance, if the Secretary of State would like to dust off his state aid handbook.

We know Network Rail sources 95% of its rails from Scunthorpe. Last year, Network Rail signed a £200 million contract with the company. The loss of this supply could have serious consequences for Network Rail’s cost base and the quality of the steel used to maintain and upgrade the British rail network. Notwithstanding the great commitment by Network Rail to British Steel, however, we also know the Government’s wider public procurement of UK steel has been disappointing, with only 43% of steel used in Government projects traced to firms based in the UK, according to UK Steel analysis. So will the Secretary of State confirm today what steps he is taking to positively procure British steel for more of our key infrastructure projects?

Finally, there is no doubt that the UK steel industry is in a difficult place. Uncertainty about future trade with the EU and the dangling prospect of no deal are having a severe impact. Domestic issues like uncompetitive electricity prices, business rates and lack of support for steel in the so-called industrial strategy are also undermining the sector’s ability to compete, but UK steel has a proud history in the UK and there is no reason why this cannot continue. The ball is in the Government’s court: they can take action now to save British Steel and support the wider industry, or they can accept that their legacy will, yet again, be industrial decline. We in the Opposition know which side of history we want to be on, and I hope the Secretary of State wants the same thing.

[Greg Clark]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for the spirit in which she approached her response to the statement, recognising that there is a total common purpose across both sides of the House to provide the confidence for new investors to be able to take on these assets, and we all, wherever we sit in this Chamber, want this to be a change of ownership rather than something that puts a stop to steel production.

The hon. Lady was right to refer to SSI, and she will recall—as will her colleague the hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Andy McDonald)—the situation with Corus in 2010. One thing we know about steel assets is that they are not like other kinds of facilities; once they close, it is very difficult for them to come back into life. So it seems to me that we have a special responsibility to make every effort to ensure there is no interruption whatsoever in production. That is my purpose, and I see it reflected in what the hon. Lady said.

I agree with the hon. Lady about the strategic importance of steel. It presents a strategic opportunity as well, because this country and the world will always need steel and British steel is among the best in the world, so we should be looking to supply it. I think my commitment was demonstrated in the move I made to provide £120 million to make sure that the liability under the ETS was addressed. Crucially, if we had not removed that liability, it would have hung over the assets, preventing any new partner from taking them on.

The hon. Lady also asked about the reports of the £30 million facility. The assessment of the accounting officer gives more information on that. In fact, that £30 million was not for a permanent refinancing of British Steel; it was a contribution to an administration only. The assessment was that the contribution from all parties would not be enough to withstand the cost requirements during that administration. She will see clearly set out the assessment of the proposals that were given. I have been exhaustive in pursuing the possibilities with British Steel over many weeks. If she is in government, she will find that she is obliged to follow the ministerial code, under which we are not allowed to make a decision that would be illegal, immensely frustrating though it is. I would have much preferred to have given the opportunity of this loan rather than go down the route that has been taken, but that is the requirement and there is no possibility of setting that aside.

On the motivation of Greybull in investing its cash in other facilities in France, one of the requirements in the case of any company failure is that the official receiver conducts an investigation into the reasons for the failure and the lessons to be drawn from it. I very much look forward to seeing the official receiver’s report. I dare say that the Chair of the Select Committee will also want to inquire closely, on behalf of her colleagues, into this as well.

On the question of new possibilities, I understand that there are buyers who have already made contact. The hon. Lady is right to say that important stakeholders such as Network Rail, which has been very supportive in recent weeks and has pledged to continue to be supportive, will work together. That is why I have invited everyone with an interest in this, including colleagues on both sides of the House, to work together so that we can make a demonstrable and clear case that the cross-party and cross-House of Commons consensus that reflects the importance of the steel sector is available to any new investor.

Finally, I agree with the hon. Lady’s assessment, relating to the report she mentioned, that the consequences are important not only for the workforce and those in the supply chain, vital though they are; they are also important for whole communities and indeed for the country. This furthers my resolve, which I know she shares, to do everything we can in the days and weeks ahead to ensure that there is continuity in these operations.

British Steel: EU Emissions Trading Compliance

Debate between Rebecca Long Bailey and Greg Clark

Wednesday 1st May 2019 Commons Chamber

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

A number of industry voices have welcomed this announcement. As Unite the union has commented today, British Steel workers and those in the supply chain will be breathing a sigh of relief at this loan. However, it is regrettable that the Government’s handling of the Brexit negotiations has brought us to this point. The Government have been warned about the uncertainty over the EU ETS for over two years, and the Prime Minister’s threats of a no-deal Brexit for over two years have caused significant uncertainty for the steel sector. UK Steel, the body representing the sector, warned in January that a no-deal Brexit was nothing short of a disaster for the sector, but despite the warnings, the Prime Minister ploughed on and the risks to the viability of our manufacturing sector have been plain to see.

This has had an impact on British industry, as it continues to fight off uncertainty. That is why it is imperative that we continue in this House to work across parties for a solution that will reach a consensus; I know that the Secretary of State is committed to that. But he must also note that this is part of a long track record of this Government standing by as our manufacturing faces increasing pressures, both domestically and internationally.

When Donald Trump imposed a 25% tariff on our steel, the Government’s response was lukewarm at best, and the Prime Minister’s refusal to fight for the sector was telling. The Government’s Trade Bill is set to make the sector even more vulnerable to steel dumping. The Government have been woefully silent on the steel sector deal proposals from industry and unions about the issues that are stifling competition, such as electricity prices: UK industries pay up to 50% more than their European counterparts. Furthermore, the Trade Remedies Authority has been described by the Manufacturing Trade Remedies Alliance as possibly the weakest in the world.

Will the Secretary of State provide some clarity for the steel sector today by describing the measures that his Government will take to ensure that the UK’s low carbon infrastructure, such as offshore wind turbines, and other projects, such as the Royal Navy’s new fleet solid support ships, are built using UK steel? Will he confirm what action he is taking on publishing a steel sector deal and incentivising both public and private investment in the sector? Will he also confirm what action he is taking on business rates and energy costs right across the sector?

This is welcome news, but as I have said it is not enough on its own to provide the certainty and assurances that workers and businesses right across the steel sector need. I know that the Secretary of State shares my belief that steel is one of the jewels in the crown of British manufacturing, and I hope he can assure the House today that this is just the first step in a long list of policies dedicated to supporting the sector going forward.

[Greg Clark]

I thank the hon. Lady for her welcome for the steps that we have taken. She is absolutely right that if a Brexit deal had been agreed, this would not have been necessary: the deal that has been proposed and voted on three times in this House would have made this statement unnecessary. I gently point out to her that the company itself, British Steel, wrote to constituency Members in December last year, when the agreement had been reached in the European Council, saying in terms:

“We believe the deal that has been tabled and agreed with the EU is within the best interest of UK business”

—British Steel—

“and we urge you to think about voting in favour of the deal.”

Unfortunately, there was not a majority in the House for the deal, and part of the problem was that Opposition Members did not vote for it. I welcome the constructive discussions that the hon. Lady and I have been having to now come to an agreement, but had Opposition Members voted according to the advice of the company, this would not have been necessary.

I also take issue with what the hon. Lady said about standing by. I do not think anyone could describe this initiative as “standing by”—quite the reverse: it is an agile response to an unwelcome situation, and I would have thought that she would commend it. She was not in the House at the time, but I remember well when the steel making on Teesside was substantially closed down, mothballed, during the last Labour Government, without such a response to do what we could to keep it in operation.

On energy prices and suchlike, I should say that under the last Labour Government steel production and employment in steelmaking in this country fell by 50%.

[Rebecca Long Bailey]

We don’t need a history lesson!

[Greg Clark]

Well, history is important in this because one of the reasons why our electricity prices have been high compared with others is that in the last five years of the previous Labour Government, industrial electricity prices rose by 64%. What we have done since then is provide £291 million in compensation for energy-intensive sectors, to correct some of the inflation that took place during that time.

As the hon. Lady knows and has acknowledged, my firm view is that in a world where manufacturing in this country and its opportunities around the world are undergoing a revival, there is absolutely no reason whatever why British Steel should not make a major contribution to that, right across the country. I am keen that we should conclude a sector deal with the steel sector. There have been important discussions. All sector deals require co-investment from the Government and the companies. No one is keener than I am to conclude one: as I hope is evident from my statement today, I am prepared to act in support of a sector that is important—not just for the economy, but for the towns across the country in whose lives it plays such a prominent role.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Rebecca Long Bailey and Greg Clark

Tuesday 19th March 2019 Commons Chamber

[Greg Clark]

My right hon. Friend is correct that our reputation for science and innovation, and the standing of our universities, are among the best in the world. At a time when every country around the world is investing in the technologies of the future, we need to emphasise the abilities and talents we have. Through the industrial strategy, we have the biggest increase in public and private sector spending and innovation that we have ever had in this country. It is already making a difference, but we have more to do.

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

Our automotive sector is facing significant challenges. To quote the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders,

“There is a perfect storm of a hostile global trading environment, the imminent threat of significant tariffs on cars exported to the US, rising costs, technological revolution and the already damaging impact of Brexit on the UK industry”.

This perfect storm has already claimed some victims: Honda in Swindon, the loss of the production of the X-Trail and Infiniti models in Sunderland, and the loss of thousands of jobs at Jaguar Land Rover and Ford. The sector needs immediate and substantial support. Does the Secretary of State think the Government are doing enough?

[Greg Clark]

I am glad the hon. Lady recognises the importance and effectiveness of our automotive sector. She is absolutely right that the acceleration of the shift to new technologies is affecting the sector in every country around the world. Through our industrial strategy, agreed with the automotive sector through the sector deal, and the Faraday challenge, we are advancing our position in battery technology. That makes sure that, when the new generation of batteries are produced, they are produced in Britain, guaranteeing our future.

[Rebecca Long Bailey]

Those are warm words from the Secretary of State, but actions speak louder. On Brexit, his Government have threatened a catastrophic no deal and run down the clock. On rising costs, the Government have allowed costs such as industrial electricity prices and business rates to disadvantage UK manufacturers. On electrification, the Government have allowed us to fall behind. The planned charging infrastructure investment fund is still not in operation 16 months after it was announced, and subsidies for electric vehicles have been cut. Is not the truth that this Government are failing to provide the automotive sector with the support it needs to weather this perfect storm?

[Greg Clark]

We are the leading country in Europe when it comes to the production of electric vehicles, and as the hon. Lady is well aware, we have, through the industrial strategy, advanced our leadership position. However, if she listens to the leaders of the automotive sector, they say one thing time and again very clearly: we need to conclude a deal with the European Union. They have endorsed comprehensively the deal the Prime Minister has negotiated. If the hon. Lady is concerned for the future of this important sector, she would compromise and recognise the importance of bringing to an end this uncertainty and passing the deal.

Leaving the EU: Protection for Workers

Debate between Rebecca Long Bailey and Greg Clark

Wednesday 6th March 2019 Commons Chamber

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

Let me, too, put on record my sadness at the death of Lord Bhattacharyya and my deep appreciation for his devotion to British industry and politics.

I must start by thanking the Secretary of State for his engagement with me over recent weeks, and indeed with trade unions and my parliamentary colleagues whom he mentioned: my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby (Melanie Onn), my right hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint); and my hon. Friends the Members for Bassetlaw (John Mann) and for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Gareth Snell). They have championed unrelentingly the protection of British workers as we leave the EU and continue to help us move the position across the House to one that we are all content with.

However, as the Secretary of State knows from our discussions in recent days, sadly the proposals, as drafted, do not yet provide a full guarantee or assurance for UK workers. I hope that this spirit of collegiality will continue and that we will work together quickly to address my concerns and provide the changes and assurances that I seek. As he knows, the TUC has stated today:

“In the face of a government determined to reduce rights, these measures would in no meaningful way compensate for the loss of the protections that currently exist”.

The assessment of less favourability will be decided by parliamentary majority and not by the objective standards of the UK courts. The provisions can easily be revoked by a hostile Government, and even without being revoked, they can be rendered fairly meaningless in practice. Indeed, as drafted, the content of the proposed statement of compatibility and irregular parliamentary assessment of less favourability are not capable of legal challenge by any UK worker. Of course, the process outlined in the draft clauses could be subject to a judicial review, but simply issuing a statement and laying a motion are hardly rocket science. What will not be possible, however, is a challenge to the contents of a statement of compatibility or an approved parliamentary motion to accept a Government assessment.

I think the Secretary of State implied in his statement that we should not automatically accept favourable rights solely because the UK Parliament has already set higher standards of employment rights. On that point, let me be clear: no one—certainly none of the colleagues I have spoken to—is seeking anything other than that UK workers should be entitled to no less favourable rights at work than their EU comparators, not that we should accept unfavourable ones. That point is simple to draft and it could be made perfectly clear, and I am happy to work with the Secretary of State on that point.

Of course, Parliament is always welcome to give more, but history is littered with examples of the UK bitterly resisting EU directives on workplace rights. A Conservative Government sued the EU Commission over the working time directive, claiming that there was no legislative base for the directive since working time had nothing to do with health and safety at work. Luckily for workers in the UK and the rest of the EU, that Government lost.

On the promise not to water down existing rights and protections, even if a Bill is found to be incompatible, there are at present no powers to stop the Government proceeding. In addition, the promise does not apply to secondary legislation, potentially allowing existing EU-derived rights to be watered down with ease. The bulk of UK legislation to implement EU law is actually done by way of secondary legislation—for example, working time regulations, TUPE, and health and safety regulations, to name but a few.

On the process relating to adopting future improvements in EU legislation, the proposals are equally in need of addressing. The only means of challenge is in Parliament, with a vote on an amendable motion, subject to the Government’s majority. Parliamentary procedure may not permit sufficient amendments to deal with all the additional changes to workers’ rights identified by MPs. In any event, resolutions of the House have recently proven to be an ineffective restraint on the Government. The Secretary of State seeks to provide comfort by stating that the Government will consult workers, Select Committees and employers’ representatives, and that sentiment is of course welcome, but, as he knows, there is no direct obligation on the Government to accept any recommendations.

On enforcement, I do welcome the commitments the Secretary of State has made to address funding deficiencies. I await further details in due course. On 1 April 2004, there were 1,483 Health and Safety Executive frontline inspectors; but by 2015 that had fallen to 972. In consequence, the statistically average workplace can now expect an inspection no more frequently than every 50 years.

I have conveyed to the Secretary of State in recent weeks the fact that for a guarantee of non-regression to be truly meaningful, it must be enforceable in the UK courts at the suit of any worker in the UK. Any dispute about whether or not the worker has less favourable rights than her EU comparator must be determined by the courts and not solely by Parliament, still less by a politically motivated Government majority in the House of Commons. Today’s proposals come nowhere near that and do not yet demonstrate that this Government take workplace rights seriously. I do hope, however, that, in this spirit of co-operation, we will work together to move towards more robust guarantees as a matter of urgency.

[Greg Clark]

I warmly welcome the tone in which the hon. Lady has approached this issue. We have different preferences on what would be ideal, and I know that both the TUC and her own Front-Bench colleagues would prefer EU directives automatically to take their place in UK law and to be enforced through the European Court of Justice, as they are now. She knows that we disagree with her on that—in our view, it would not be consistent with leaving the European Union or with the sovereignty of this Parliament—but I accept that that is her position and that she has said that, notwithstanding that, we should explore whether we can meet her perfectly reasonable observations. I am grateful for that.

What we are publishing this afternoon are draft clauses that have not yet gone into the Bill. I am open to working with all Members of the House—of course, continuing to include the hon. Lady—to see which of the observations can be accommodated, subject to the general approach we wish to take. I think that she recognises, and I hope other Members will recognise, that this is an important opportunity. If we are to pass a withdrawal agreement and implementation Bill, the chance to have on the statute book from the outset—literally within the next few weeks, I hope—some important protections for workers is one that I think we should all take.

The hon. Lady asked some specific questions, of which I shall attempt to answer as many as I can. She observed, in effect, that future Governments and Parliaments may take a different view from that which we intend. As we know, it is a fact that no Parliament can bind its successor, but it can express a clear intention, set up a test and provide mechanisms against which proper scrutiny of any proposal can be mounted, and that is what we are doing. I acknowledge her right hon. and hon. Friends’ contribution to and, in fact, origination of this idea.

The hon. Lady is concerned that the statements that are provided for could be ignored and may not be as effective as she intends. The case law clearly establishes that if a statutory consultation is provided for, it cannot be lightly swept aside. There is a requirement properly to engage with the recommendations that come from such a consultation, but I hear what she said about that process being open to workers as well as to people who might represent them. We can talk more about that.

The hon. Lady asked about the application to future changes to workers’ rights that may come outside primary legislation. Clearly, the big changes come through primary legislation, but in the spirit of what I said earlier, I am certainly open to exploring what assurances we can give on other significant pieces of legislation that might be in scope.

The hon. Lady mentioned the jurisprudence of the ECJ. It would clearly be inappropriate after Brexit for the ECJ to have a remit in the UK, but of course, as she knows as a lawyer herself, any court can have regard to the decisions of any court that it considers to be relevant in the case being considered.

The hon. Lady mentioned enforcement, on which we strongly agree. There are industries—sometimes concentrated in particular places in the country—in which what she described is correct: a calculation is made that employers who abuse the rights of their workers are unlikely to be detected and enforced against, which leads them to think that they can get away with it with impunity. The intention behind the strengthened enforcement body that I described, and our intention in terms of resourcing it, is to firmly remove that idea from the mind of any such employer. I will work closely with the hon. Lady on that.

It is appropriate to recognise in the House and draw some pride from our record of employment rights. We have a successful labour market that combines a reputation for high standards—standards that have been recognised throughout the EU as being among the best in Europe—while having what is the most important right for workers, which is the right to work. Many more people in this country are able to work as a result of the effectiveness of our labour markets. We need to preserve that while giving expression to the objectives articulated by the hon. Lady’s colleagues, to make sure that the commitment we have given to build on that strength in future is something that is not just a matter of words but has parliamentary force behind it. I am grateful for what the hon. Lady said about working together.

Honda in Swindon

Debate between Rebecca Long Bailey and Greg Clark

Tuesday 19th February 2019 Commons Chamber

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

I thank the Minister for advance sight of his statement. This morning’s news is absolutely devastating for the 3,500 workers in Swindon, their families and the wider community. It is absolutely devastating for the businesses in Honda’s supply chain and the tens of thousands of workers employed in them. It is a devastating blow to the automotive sector, to UK manufacturing in general and, indeed, to our entire economy.

A worker employed at Honda in Swindon for 24 years summarised the situation last night when he said that the Government are “completely incompetent”. I could not agree more. Honda’s decision is a damning indictment of the Government’s failure to support car manufacturing and ensure business confidence, with regard both to Brexit and to their so-called industrial strategy. Before Members on the Government Benches become too agitated, let me say that I understand that Honda’s CEO said this morning that the decision was unrelated to Brexit. However, the company’s statement specifically says that it wants to

“focus activity in regions where it expects to have high production volumes”,

especially of electric vehicles. The logical question is this: why does Honda no longer believe that the UK will have high production volumes, and why does it no longer have the confidence to invest here to make it so? As the Secretary of State has said, it will in future be exporting to the EU from Japan rather than from Britain.

The reason why the likes of Honda and Nissan began producing in the UK in the first place was that it was a good place to locate their manufacturing, so something must have changed. Could it be the Government’s botched Brexit causing chaos and uncertainty and undermining business confidence? The Secretary of State also alluded to the EU-Japan trade deal, which imposes zero tariffs at a time when we do not know what our tariffs will be. The likes of Airbus, Nissan, Ford and Jaguar Land Rover have all halted investment or slashed jobs as a direct result of that uncertainty. Nissan reversed its decision to build the X-Trail here only two weeks ago, JLR has slashed 4,500 jobs, and Ford has cut 1,000 jobs. Over the weekend, the senior vice president of Airbus said that a no-deal Brexit would be “catastrophic”, adding:

“We will have to look at future investments... There’re many other countries that dearly love aerospace.”

In fact, Honda itself warned last year that leaving the EU without a deal would cost the company tens of millions, so there can be no doubt that the Government’s reckless threats of no deal and prolonged uncertainty are having an impact on business decisions in the here and now, even if that is not in the top line of a press release. No deal must therefore be taken off the table and a firm commitment to a customs union and single market deal agreed.

Honda has also said that global trends and the move to electric vehicles were a factor in its decision. Could it be that the Government’s failure to support the transition to electric vehicles through their industrial strategy has augmented Honda’s decision? It wants to expand its electric vehicle production, which is something we all want, but we need that production to be here in the UK now, not used as a reason to close down plants in the wake of Brexit.

The UK has a world-class automotive sector and could be a world leader in electric vehicles, at the cutting edge of electric vehicle technology and research, but the Government have failed to invest to support the transition. I will give just one example. The Treasury pledged last year to support the switch to zero-emission vehicles with a £400 million fund for charging infrastructure, giving manufacturers the certainty to invest in production. Half of the money was to come from the taxpayer, with the rest matched by the private sector. However, one year on, the money that it was promised would be raised from the private sector has not been secured and no money from the fund has been invested.

The automotive sector is the jewel in our manufacturing crown. It supports highly paid, highly skilled jobs, it contributes enormously to our economy, and it has been an exemplar of the kind of industry that we need in the UK. But its future is in jeopardy, as has been shown so clearly in the decisions of recent weeks. Can the Secretary of State commit now to taking a no-deal Brexit off the table, agreeing a customs union deal and working with manufacturers and unions to support the transition in the market before it is too late? Can he offer Honda any incentives or reassurances that its investment here would be secure? After all, he did offer Nissan a sweetheart deal. Or is he happy to let yet another industry, and the communities who rely on it, fall by the wayside on the Conservatives’ watch?

[Greg Clark]

For over 30 years, Japanese companies investing in our automotive sector have been able to count on a bipartisan commitment to talking about the advantages of investing in Britain: our skills, our commitment to innovation and the efficiency of our operations. Members on both sides of the House know that I and my colleagues have worked intensively, including with trade unions, to ensure that we get investments that recognise those advantages. I hope that we can send to companies considering investment a clear determination, across both sides of the House, that we will continue to keep faith with that tradition of stability.

I think it was evident in my remarks that I share the dismay of the hon. Member for Salford and Eccles (Rebecca Long Bailey) at the decision and the consequences for the excellent workforce in Swindon and their suppliers. We will do everything we can to ensure that they have good opportunities in future.

The hon. Lady asked about Brexit. The company said that the decision was not about Brexit and clearly we must accept that. She asked about its market share. In truth, it has a small market share in Europe compared with the markets in which it said it was expanding. Those are the reasons that it has given. However, I have always been clear with the House that the motor industry, Japanese investors and particularly Honda have made it clear for many months that Brexit is an additional worry at a difficult time. They have been instrumental in shaping the deal that has been negotiated. If there is one message all of us in the House can give that they want to hear it is that the deal should be ratified.

Ford Motor Company said:

“A no-deal Brexit would be a catastrophe…It’s important that we get the agreement ratified that’s on the table at the moment.”

Aston Martin said of the deal,

“it’s obvious that… it meets the needs of all the requests we put forward as an industry and as Aston Martin”.

McLaren said that the withdrawal agreement would

“provide urgently-needed certainty and an implementation period that allows us to plan for the future”.

Toyota said:

“We welcome the announcement of a deal. It would provide business with the certainty”

that it needs. I could go on. The clear message from the automotive companies is that we should get on and ratify the deal.

The hon. Lady asked about the industrial strategy. She will know that our commitment to it, and through it to the future of mobility, has been at the heart of our policy and has been widely recognised. The £250 million investment in the Faraday challenge to make Britain the best place in the world for new battery technology has resulted in the national battery manufacturing centre being established in the west midlands. We already have the biggest-selling electric vehicle in Europe—indeed, one in five electric vehicles in Europe is made in Britain. The fact that Honda’s R&D facility will continue to be in the UK and that companies such as Ford are moving their R&D to the UK underlines the strategy. The London Electric Vehicle Company is making taxis powered by electricity, not just for London but for export around the world. Aston Martin has invested £50 million in its new electric engine facility in Wales. Cummings is investing £210 million in its R&D in the automotive sector.

The hon. Lady asked about the charging network: £200 million is being invested in new, fast-charging networks for electric vehicles. Our reputation for automotive innovation and exports is strong and growing. That is one of the reasons why it is particularly frustrating that Honda has made this decision, when other companies are recognising the fruits of those investments and investing in Britain.

The announcement comes at a time of disruption and change in the industry. Veterans of the industry say that this is the biggest period of change in most of their careers. That reinforces how right we are to invest in the future and in promoting Britain as a place to develop the next generation of vehicles. I hope that in the weeks, months and years ahead, the whole House will support us in promoting those advantages, not just for Honda, but for other companies that can invest in this country.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Rebecca Long Bailey and Greg Clark

Tuesday 12th February 2019 Commons Chamber

[Greg Clark]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her question. It was one of the first sector deals. We were very determined to act on the report of Sir Peter Bazalgette, which celebrated the potential for new jobs to be created. It is going extremely well. Investments are being made in virtual reality, creating new opportunities for small businesses to benefit from the technology that larger ones have.

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

Since the start of the year, the Financial Times, The Observer, The Times, POLITICO and The Spectator, as well as many specialist publications, have described the looming energy crisis facing the UK following the collapse of plans to develop three nuclear power stations at Wylfa, Moorside and Oldbury, but back in November 2018, the Secretary of State announced that the energy trilemma—the challenge of providing energy that is green, cheap and secure—was coming to an end. Is he still of this view?

[Greg Clark]

Yes.

[Rebecca Long Bailey]

That was straight and very to the point. The Secretary of State may have pointed to the falling cost of renewable energy, but he cannot disown his Government’s policies, unfortunately, which are plunging that industry from crisis to crisis. New deployment of solar has fallen 90% since 2016. New onshore wind deployment has fallen 80%, so that certainly does not sound like the end of the energy trilemma. With people getting nervous about how we are going to keep the lights on, will he describe in detail where exactly he expects the UK to source low-carbon electricity from by the end of the 2020s?

Nissan in Sunderland

Debate between Rebecca Long Bailey and Greg Clark

Monday 4th February 2019 Commons Chamber

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

Yesterday’s announcement by Nissan that it has reversed its decision to build the X-Trail at its Sunderland plant and move it to Japan instead is a bitter blow to the north-east, the automotive sector and Britain’s industrial strategy. Of course, Brexit was not the only reason for that, but it was pretty prominent in Nissan’s decision. To quote its initial statement,

“the continued uncertainty around the UK’s future relationship with the EU is not helping companies like ours to plan for the future.”

The Secretary of State’s opposition to a no-deal Brexit is, of course, well known, but still the Government juggernaut chaos hurtles on. Even he must be suitably frightened today by the uncertainty being created by his Government’s negotiating strategy.

This week, Nissan has reversed commitments to invest in the UK. Last week, we saw that car production is down 9% to its lowest level in five years, and fresh investment in the sector halved in 2018, according to the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders.

When Nissan made the commitment to produce the X-Trail and Qashqai models in Sunderland, the Government provided certain assurances, as the Secretary of State has outlined. After the Government’s refusals to publish the letter, even in response to freedom of information requests, today we have finally seen a copy. The letter acknowledged the

“uncertainties as the UK prepares to leave the EU”,

and in particular the

“fear that potential future trade arrangements could affect the business case for…investments”,

and it promised that Nissan would not be “adversely affected”.

Although the letter made no firm commitment to a customs union or single market deal, there was a pretty strong assurance that manufacturers would still be able to trade without barriers. However, Nissan clearly does not have any confidence in those assurances today. Can the Secretary of State confirm why those assurances no longer stand and what has changed in the Government’s approach since those commitments were made? Is it now Government policy to accept that there will be significant trade barriers as we leave the EU and potentially a no-deal situation? If not, can the Secretary of State rule out the possibility of no deal?

The letter went on to offer support of about £80 million towards Nissan’s investments at its Sunderland site, in return for the expansion of SUV production. The Secretary of State noted that £61 million was eventually applied for. Can he confirm whether any of the conditions surrounding that £61 million were written into any formal agreement? Can he also confirm whether Nissan will still receive the £61 million, despite the move? He intimated that it may have to reapply for certain forms of grant funding. What assessment has he made of the impact of yesterday’s decision on the wider supply chain, particularly those companies that might already have decided to start investment?

The Government’s letter to Nissan also said:

“It will be a critical priority of our negotiations to support UK car manufacturers, and ensure their ability to export to and from the EU is not adversely affected by the UK’s future relationship with the EU.”

Yet it is important to note that Nissan’s announcement came days after a free trade agreement was signed between the EU and Japan whereby tariffs on Japanese car exports to the EU will begin to taper towards zero over the next 10 years. What assurances can the Secretary of State give today to British automotive sector companies that there will be no tariffs on British-made vehicles entering the EU?

Similarly, in relation to cars exported to non-EU countries where the EU currently enjoys preferential trading terms, the International Trade Secretary has suggested that we can simply replicate those terms and Tipp-Ex out “EU” and replace it with “UK” on the front page of nearly 40 free trade agreements. How is he getting on with that? What assurances can the Business Secretary provide that Britain will continue to enjoy those trading terms?

Furthermore, what assessment has the Secretary of State made of the real risks of a temporary, Brexit-induced slowdown in British manufacturing? Has he examined any temporary support measures he could offer, such as examples in the German industrial sectors following the financial crash?

Finally, it is clear that we have reached a tipping point. I know that the Secretary of State agrees with me that a real industrial strategy is designed to give businesses the confidence to invest for the long term, but his Government’s handling of Brexit is undermining our industrial strategy. Businesses are no longer speaking out simply to highlight the future dangers of a badly handled Brexit; they are now losing confidence in the Government and taking real action to protect their businesses. Without real assurances from the Secretary of State and a firm commitment to take no deal off the table, it is hard not to think that managed decline is indeed the Government’s plan.

[Greg Clark]

If the hon. Lady had spent time talking to employers in the automotive sector, she would have come to a different set of conclusions. First, she should welcome the fact that Nissan has committed to Sunderland. After the referendum, before any negotiations had taken place and even before article 50 was triggered, the plant was in jeopardy, and the workforce, the unions and the Government worked closely and hard together to secure its future. At the time, her former colleague, the then hon. Member for Hartlepool and Chair of the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee, hailed it as

“a welcome example of targeted Government commitment to a successful company in a strategically vital sector”.—[Official Report, 31 October 2016; Vol. 616, c. 684.]

That commitment continues.

The hon. Lady asks whether the financial support that Nissan applied for continues, and I hope that I was clear in my statement that the support is available to the sector and has been for many years. Nissan will be invited to resubmit an application in the light of its changed investment.

The hon. Lady’s second point is that we need to conclude our Brexit negotiations, but what she spectacularly ignores is that Nissan and the UK automotive industry back the deal that the Prime Minister has negotiated. The deal achieves what they need: no disorderly Brexit on 29 March, a transition period and a commitment to no tariffs, no quotas and no rules of origin checks at the border.

The Japan Automobile Manufacturers Association has welcomed both the withdrawal agreement and the political declaration, and it has called for this House and the European Parliament to ratify the agreement swiftly. If the hon. Lady wants to rule out no deal—if that is her concern and her motivation—she should back the calls from the industry to ratify the agreement.

The continued uncertainty I referred to in my statement, as the hon. Lady will acknowledge, is a reflection, in part at least, on the Opposition’s failure to come to a decision and back the deal. During all Nissan’s 30 years in the UK, it has been able to count on constructive support from all parties, yet Labour Front Benchers have evaded having a policy on this vital issue for our country, hiding behind six tests that are a fake and a sham designed expressly to avoid a deal, and they know it. They claim to represent the workers of this country, but the livelihoods of millions of workers are being jeopardised by the machinations of the people occupying the Labour Front Bench.

In a call from Japan yesterday, a senior Nissan executive told me, “Please pass on the view to your Opposition that they need to meet in a way that forms a deal.” I think all of us in this House should act on that.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Rebecca Long Bailey and Greg Clark

Tuesday 8th January 2019 Commons Chamber

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

I wish you and the Secretary of State a happy new year, Mr Speaker, but the sad fact is that the good work plan does little to change the lives of precarious limb (b) workers, who will still not be entitled to statutory sick pay, maternity pay or the right to claim unfair dismissal. For those on a zero-hours contract, all the requests in the world will not legally oblige their employer to provide more stable employment. I have asked this question time and again to no avail: can the Secretary of State confirm what happens when an employer refuses a request for more stable working hours?

[Greg Clark]

It is very clear that we are not making it mandatory for people not to have a zero-hours contract. Such contracts are available to employers, but employees will have the right to request. Reasonable employers have offered more stable contracts to employees, but the Taylor report is very clear that the flexibility that zero-hours contracts offer is valued by many of the people who use them.

[Rebecca Long Bailey]

I am glad the Secretary of State has clarified that the right to request a more stable contract is, in fact, a meaningless proposal on paper. What is worse is that the Government also rejected recommendations from their own director of labour market enforcement to increase fines for companies that breach the minimum wage and for that money to be used to increase enforcement resource. The Government also rejected his recommendation that public procurement contracts should compel compliance with labour market regulations. With reports that the average employer can expect an investigation once in every 500 years, does the Secretary of State really think he is being serious about enforcing workers’ rights?

[Greg Clark]

I am working closely with Sir David Metcalf, the director of labour market enforcement. On his particular recommendation about increasing penalties, we just have increased the penalties and it is reasonable to look at their effectiveness. I have made the commitment to the House that, of course, we will increase them if that proves necessary, but one of the other reforms that we are making is to boost the enforcement of workers’ rights by bringing together the different enforcement bodies so that such employers—the minority that do play fast and loose with the rights to which employees are entitled—should expect justice to be brought about. This will be part of the package that we have tabled.

Good Work Plan

Debate between Rebecca Long Bailey and Greg Clark

Monday 17th December 2018 Commons Chamber

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

I thank the Secretary of State for giving me advance sight of his statement, but behind his declaration on high employment lies a dark truth. Nearly 4 million people are in insecure work, with 1.1 million working in the gig economy. At a time of low wages, stagnating productivity and endemic financial insecurity across the UK, I had hoped for something big today. I was hoping for proposals that would not only make our workforce feel secure but ensure that their human capital was genuinely valued as the linchpin of Britain’s industrial strategy. Proposals for a labour inspectorate, the abolition of the Swedish derogation and ensuring that workers keep their tips were among Labour’s policies to transform our labour market, so I am pleased that, after a hard-fought campaign by Labour Members and our trade unions, these points have finally made an appearance in the Government’s good work plan. However, as the TUC stated today, despite these small victories, the remaining

“reforms as a whole won’t shift the balance of power in the gig economy.”

Let me deal with just a few of the proposals.

First, the good work plan states at the outset:

“The Prime Minister has committed that we will not only maintain workers’ rights as the UK leaves the EU, but enhance them”,

but even that opening paragraph is a little—shall we say?—constructive with reality. The Government’s withdrawal agreement fails to live up to this commitment on workers’ rights, and the Institute for Public Policy Research has stated that

“the non-regression clause will not maintain current protections in full, enforcement procedures would be ineffective and if the EU were to raise standards, there would be no requirement for the UK to follow suit”.

Can the Secretary of State confirm today that if standards on workers’ rights increase within the EU, UK standards will follow suit?

Secondly, it appears that the critical point on employment status is equally ambiguous. People on the margins need to know whether they are employees, workers or neither. Do they qualify for unfair dismissal and redundancy or not? The Government are committing to legislating to improve the clarity of the tests, but there is no detail. Can the Secretary of State confirm the legal principles on which each status is likely to rest?

Thirdly, the Government will allow workers on zero-hours contracts to request a more predictable and stable contract. That all sounds rather lovely, but the Secretary of State must know that an ability to request stable hours exists now. What does not exist is an obligation on the employer to meet such a request. The Government’s paper is silent on that point. Will the Secretary of State confirm that the proposed draft legislation will address that deficiency? If it fails to do so, zero-hours contract workers will—as the TUC so poetically put it today—have

“no more leverage than Oliver Twist”.

The fourth critical issue is enforcement, on which there is again very little detail in the Government’s plan. This is not simply a question of shuffling the deck. The Government need to ensure that the enforcement agency has power and resources. In the light of the already swingeing cuts to bodies such as the Health and Safety Executive, can the Secretary of State confirm what financial commitments are being made to ensure that this proposal is financially supported?

Finally, on the proposal for increased penalties following successful employment tribunal claims, I am not against the principle but I fear that this is just window dressing. The TUC has stated that the current system for enforcing employment tribunal awards is not fit for purpose, with 35% of successful claimants not receiving any compensation. Can the Secretary of State tell us how increasing fines will address this? Will he also tell us what additional action he is taking to address the efficacy of tribunal award enforcement? The horrific tales of insecure workers swirl around us like passages from a Charles Dickens novel, from delivery drivers being forced to urinate in bottles to zero-hours staff giving birth in workplace toilets. The Government’s proposals were an opportunity to improve the lives of those workers, but sadly they fall dramatically short, and those workers face a Dickensian future unless the Government take serious action to protect and enforce the intrinsic value of their human capital within our economy.

[Greg Clark]

I would have thought that the hon. Lady might have congratulated Matthew Taylor, who worked for her party in the past. Along with his panel, he has devoted himself to producing a report that most people conclude is a substantial one. He has made a series of far-reaching recommendations, which we are enacting today. The central basis of his report is to reflect on the fact that we should build on success. He refers to the UK’s successful record in creating jobs, including flexible jobs, that open up work to people with different needs. That is an important step forward that I would have thought the hon. Lady welcomed. When it comes to the condition of employees and workers in this country, Matthew Taylor noted that, far from the Dickensian caricature that she fell into the trap of describing, the average take-home pay for someone in full-time employment in this country, if tax levels and tax credits are taken into account, is higher than in the rest of the G7. We also have higher employment than at any time in our history and lower unemployment than at any time in 40 years, and the hon. Lady should have welcomed that.

The hon. Lady mentioned zero-hours contracts, but what she did not mention—[Interruption.] She mentioned the gig economy, by which I think she was referring to zero-hours contracts. At the moment, 2.4% of workers have flexible zero-hours contracts, and the number is falling. It has fallen from more than 900,000 a year ago. The key thing is that two thirds of those workers do not want an increase in hours. Nearly 20% of them are in full-time education. Matthew Taylor therefore concluded correctly that to ban zero-hours contracts, as the hon. Lady would, would do a disservice to, and go against the interests of, the people who benefit from them.

As for the scale of our response, the last set of measures to change and reform employment rights to this extent came over 20 years ago in the Employment Rights Act 1996 and not, coincidentally, under the previous Labour Administration, reflecting the fact that it is always Conservatives in government who put in protections for workers. The Labour party can criticise, but it did not take the opportunity to make the reforms that the hon. Lady mentioned. The hon. Lady also mentioned the alignment of the test for employment and for taxation. Matthew Taylor was clear in his report that it is a complex matter that will take some time to bring into effect and that we should consult carefully on it, and the Select Committees have endorsed that recommendation. We have said that we are committed to ending the disparity and to bringing the difference to a conclusion, and she should welcome that.

Finally, the hon. Lady mentioned the European Union, referring to the fact that we will be able to set our own employment policies once we leave the European Union. The Prime Minister has been clear that not only will we not reduce the protections that workers enjoy, but we will increase them, and today shows that. We are laying legislation this very day that goes far beyond the rights that are currently available in the European Union. The hon. Lady should have confidence in the ability of this House and this country to lead the world in employment rights, and I am proud that our Government are doing it.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Rebecca Long Bailey and Greg Clark

Tuesday 20th November 2018 Commons Chamber

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

Brexit cannot result in a race to the bottom for workers’ rights and protections but, sadly, the EU withdrawal agreement does not guarantee that it will not. Thompsons Solicitors says that the non-regression clause will be “ineffective” and the Institute for Public Policy Research states that it is

“not sufficient to maintain current protections”.

Individuals will not even be able to bring about proceedings, and if the EU raises standards, the UK is permitted simply to fall behind. When the Secretary of State called stakeholders after agreeing the deal last week, were trade unions on that call? Will he confirm exactly how he intends to maintain current standards and enforceability and to prevent Britain from falling behind the EU’s standards?

[Greg Clark]

I note that the hon. Lady dismissed the withdrawal agreement on the airwaves before she had even read it, so it does not surprise me that her question is so misplaced. As for the trade unions, I met Frances O’Grady, the general secretary of the TUC, to discuss the provisions of the agreement in person. When it comes to our record of protecting employees’ rights, the hon. Lady should have more confidence in this country and in this House. We are perfectly capable. We have been leaders in protecting and promoting workplace rights for many generations. We do not need to be required to do so by the European Union; this House can do that itself.

[Rebecca Long Bailey]

The trade unions were not on that call, which is telling. However, many workers are being treated shamefully even before we leave the EU. There is a bank branch where male workers were expected to urinate in a bucket, and cleaners and security staff are on poverty wages with few rights and protections. The first case was highlighted by Unite yesterday, but the second can be found in the Government’s own Departments under the watch of this Secretary of State, who is responsible for employment rights and protections. Given that the Taylor review was published nearly 500 days ago and yet we still have no update on Government policy and that two months have passed without action since I wrote to the Secretary of State about the treatment of his own staff, how can we trust him to protect workers in the UK now, let alone stop a race to the bottom?

[Greg Clark]

We value highly the colleagues in our Department and across Government who do important work in public service, and I have made a commitment that we will always treat them well, including on pay and conditions. I am glad that the hon. Lady is looking forward with anticipation to the publication of the response to the Taylor review. It was a landmark report to which this Government committed, and I look forward to her endorsing this Government when we enact Taylor’s recommendations in the weeks ahead.

Nuclear Power: Toshiba

Debate between Rebecca Long Bailey and Greg Clark

Monday 12th November 2018 Commons Chamber

[Greg Clark]

I pay tribute to the workforce and the community that my hon. Friend represents, and indeed to her leadership and her advocacy for the case for recognising the strategic importance of that, as well as to that of her neighbouring MPs. I enjoyed spending time with her during the summer visiting Sellafield, as I have done before, and in particular looking at the opportunities in the supply chain for new nuclear, in which Cumbria has clearly a lot to offer, given not just the heritage but the actuality of the skills there.

We continue our programme of new nuclear builds; it is important that they should be developer-led. As I said, there is a pipeline of proposed new projects, but it is important in every case that the regulatory conditions are met and that each proposal offers value for money. There is a very bright future for the highly skilled workforce in my hon. Friend’s constituency, now and in the future. Through the sector deal that was agreed enthusiastically between the industry, the Government and local partners, we are investing in the future, including in those skills.

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

Toshiba’s decision to withdraw from Moorside is a blow to the UK’s energy security, its decarbonisation goals, and the economy of Cumbria. But let us be clear where the real responsibility lies. The Cumbrian chamber of commerce, and the GMB and Prospect trade unions, among others, have all laid the blame with this Government for their lack of clarity over funding and their ultimate failure to take a direct stake in Moorside—something that Labour has repeatedly committed to do.

So, first, will the Secretary of State reaffirm a promise made to the people of Copeland during last year’s by-election when they were told that voting Conservative would ensure a new nuclear plant at Moorside, and will he describe his plan for salvaging the development? Secondly, Moorside was projected to provide about 7% of the UK’s electricity. If the Secretary of State cannot commit to the future of Moorside, can he describe the contingency plans the Government have in place to guarantee the UK’s energy security?

Thirdly, the electricity produced by Moorside would be low-carbon, which is key to meeting the UK’s future carbon budgets, so if the Secretary of State cannot commit to the future of Moorside, can he describe what additional measures the Government will take to reduce the UK’s greenhouse gas emissions? Finally, what contingency plans does the Secretary of State have in place for the economic development of west Cumbria, to which Moorside would have brought a reported 6,000 jobs in the construction phase and 1,000 permanent jobs thereafter?

[Greg Clark]

I am rather surprised by the statement and questions of the hon. Member for Salford and Eccles (Rebecca Long Bailey). First, it is widely known that Toshiba has had to engage in a corporate restructuring because its major nuclear subsidiary, Westinghouse, had to enter bankruptcy proceedings. That is what has happened. When I met the board of Toshiba last week, it was clear that that was the reason it is retreating. That is the central fact and the reason it is moving out of NuGen.

The hon. Lady asked about the Government’s approach to new nuclear. The policy of this Government is clear: we are in favour of new nuclear as part of a diverse and low-carbon energy mix. We are the first Government for 25 years actually to deliver a new nuclear power station. As my hon. Friend the Member for Copeland mentioned, the sector deal we have struck with the industry has been very widely supported. For the first time, we are training a new generation of nuclear engineers through the nuclear apprenticeship programme. It is an important industry now, and it will be an important industry in the future.

One of the things I find when I talk to investors in the nuclear industry is some concern at the complete absence of a united policy on nuclear on behalf of the Labour party. We would think from hearing the hon. Member for Salford and Eccles that the Labour party was in favour of nuclear power, whereas the leader of her party, who I assume has some influence on policy, has said:

“I stand here as somebody who is passionately opposed to nuclear power and nuclear weapons in equal measure.”—[Official Report, 13 December 2011; Vol. 537, c. 699.]

The shadow Chancellor has said that he would end nuclear power

“in the first 100 days of a Labour Government”.

It is no wonder that the trade unions the hon. Lady refers to have said that her own party’s energy plans would not leave the lights on.

Our approach is to continue with the programme of nuclear new build that we have. It is subject to being developer-led and, as is strictly necessary, to the safety case being made in each example, as well as to establishing value for money. It is, after all, the taxpayers or consumers who pay the bills, and we will always have that in mind as we continue our programme.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Rebecca Long Bailey and Greg Clark

Tuesday 16th October 2018 Commons Chamber

[Greg Clark]

I think it is well known, and my right hon. Friend is aware, that we have been one of the leading forces in the world in ensuring that the rules should be changed, so that companies that currently pay little tax because of international agreements make a fair contribution. There is more to be done, but my right hon. Friend served in Cabinets in which this was put at the top of the agenda, and some progress has been made.

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

I warmly welcome the Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Rochester and Strood (Kelly Tolhurst), to her new role. I am sure she will do fantastically.

All the major business representatives, from the CBI to the chambers of commerce and the Federation of Small Businesses, have highlighted the need for business rates reform and temporary relief. The CBI says:

“The…system is stifling growth and investment”,

and the FSB says it creates a significant barrier to small business growth. Can the Secretary of State confirm today whether there will be any action on this issue in the forthcoming Budget?

[Greg Clark]

The hon. Lady knows that decisions on the Budget are for the Chancellor, but one of the measures we have taken, which I hope she would acknowledge, is a very substantial reduction in the burden of business rates on small businesses. That shows that the Government are alive to the importance of business rates for small businesses. We of course listen constantly to the organisations she mentions, but also to the Retail Sector Council.

[Rebecca Long Bailey]

I suddenly have a sense of déjà vu. At the last autumn statement, business groups warned of the devastating effect of business rates. In return, we saw only minor tinkering. Since then we have had a raft of store closures, with more than 100,000 retail jobs lost in the past three years. Many businesses cite business rates as a root cause. The Secretary of State has reportedly said that adjusting business rates would be one way to recognise the value of our high streets, yet the Chancellor said in July that there were no plans for reform. Just what is going on? Will there be action, or should we expect another year of meaningless tinkering from the Chancellor?

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Rebecca Long Bailey and Greg Clark

Tuesday 17th July 2018 Commons Chamber

[Greg Clark]

I and our colleagues in the Treasury have constant discussions with the services sector. It is important that our distinctive financial services sector not be subject to a set of rules in the future that might be very much against its interests. Everyone who knows the City needs to recognise that the flexibility and distinctiveness of our approach must continue.

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

Airbus, Jaguar Land Rover, BMW, Siemens—just a few of the businesses that have recently spoken out about the Government’s handling of Brexit. They alone provide thousands of jobs and significant investment in the UK, but the Government’s chaos is putting this in jeopardy. The Secretary of State himself was forced to rebuke the flagrant dismissal of his own Front-Bench colleagues, stating that big employers were entitled to be listened to with respect. Would he say that he has now listened to the concerns of business with respect?

[Greg Clark]

The hon. Lady is absolutely right. Those businesses did speak out. Since the publication of the White Paper, they have also recognised that the zero-friction proposal made in it merits support and they have committed to advocating for it across the rest of the EU, as I hope that she will.

[Rebecca Long Bailey]

Well, the CBI and the British Chambers of Commerce have both said they are no clearer on the Government’s negotiating position in several key areas, and last night business leaders are reported to have warned the Prime Minister that her customs legislation was not fit for purpose, but the Government pressed ahead, even accepting amendments that their own colleagues state fundamentally undermine the Chequers proposal, and wrecked it, caving in to the hard, no deal Brexiteers. When exactly will the Secretary of State’s Government start paying more than lip service to the concerns of business?

[Greg Clark]

The hon. Lady is wrong. All the organisations she mentioned have given the White Paper and the Chequers proposals a warm welcome. In the Prime Minister’s Mansion House speech, we committed to minimising frictions at the border. The proposal now is to have zero friction at the border. That is strongly in the interests of business and allows our successful supply chains to continue to prosper. We need the Opposition to recognise the national interest in having a good deal. Almost everyone in the country wants a good deal negotiated between Britain and the EU. Rather than edging for difference and trying to make political points, she should get behind this excellent suggestion for the country.

Nuclear Power

Debate between Rebecca Long Bailey and Greg Clark

Monday 4th June 2018 Commons Chamber

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

There is cross-party consensus that new nuclear will continue to play a vital role in the UK’s energy mix, and I am therefore pleased to hear that progress has been made, after some uncertainty, on the Wylfa nuclear plant. Given the well-documented failings of the Hinkley Point C deal, however, I am deeply concerned by the way in which the financing has been or will be negotiated—namely, the lack of transparency and parliamentary scrutiny thus far.

On 15 May, I wrote to the Secretary of State requesting information about the negotiations and I am yet to receive a response. Until the last few days, we have had to piece together snippets of information from the Japanese press, and titbits from energy and environmental groups. We have finally heard today that a deal will be negotiated with Hitachi, which media reports suggest will include a guaranteed strike price, loan guarantees and an equity stake in the project in exchange for direct Government investment.

I must say that this is a surprising shift from the Government’s ideological position against Government investment in new energy infrastructure, and I wonder whether the shift applies to other renewable technologies, for which support has been repeatedly cut by this Government. I suspect not. I must sound a note of caution. Without sufficient detail and transparency, the House is unable to determine the risks and benefits borne by consumers and taxpayers in the proposed deal.

Last year, the National Audit Office concluded on the Hinkley Point C deal that the Department had

“not sufficiently considered the costs and risks of its deal for consumers.”

The NAO made a series of recommendations, including mechanisms for reviewing value for money and the affordability of the deal; making it clear who is accountable for oversight and governance; ensuring that the cost and timing implications of alternatives are shown clearly; and developing a plan to realise the benefit across local economies and supply chains. Last year, I asked the Government to adopt those recommendations. So will the Secretary of State say whether he has done so and, if not, why not? However, if the Government have done so, will he publish all relevant documentation showing that each recommendation has been followed in relation to Wylfa or, indeed, confirm that they will be followed if they have not been processed yet?

Negotiations between the Government and Hitachi thus far appear to have been conducted behind closed doors. Will the Secretary of State say whether the House will be given time to scrutinise the proposed deal outline, or is this simply a done deal? If so, have any binding commitments been made or, for example, have any preliminary heads of terms or memorandums of understanding been issued? The NAO stated that

“making commitments to investors can limit flexibilities to react to a change in circumstances.”

The implications of that need to be understood and communicated clearly to decision makers. It is important to ensure that the cost and timing implications of alternative funding arrangements are shown clearly—again, that is advocated by the NAO. If such alternatives have been, or will be, examined, can the Secretary of State provide the House with details today?

I move on to safety issues. It has been widely reported in the press that Hitachi is seeking to “reduce or eliminate” its financial responsibility for accidents. Will the Secretary of State say whether that is true? If so, where will such liability lie and what safety impact assessments have or will be carried out from construction and operation through to decommissioning? Indeed, on the issue of decommissioning, will he explain who will bear that liability and how much the cost is likely to be?

Despite the good news for Wylfa, subject to the queries that I have outlined, it appears that further down the Welsh coast the news is not so good for renewables generation. Media speculation suggests an impending negative decision on the much-anticipated Swansea tidal lagoon project after years of planning and campaigning by Tidal Lagoon Power, the Welsh Government, environmental groups and MPs across the House. If that is true, it is outrageous. To assume that Swansea is somewhat redundant, given the plan for investment in Wylfa, is very short-sighted.

I understand that Tidal Lagoon Power has offered to negotiate further, but has not received a response from the Government. Under the plans, there would be a zero-carbon power plant producing energy for over 100,000 homes, creating thousands of jobs across Britain; turbines built in a wall in the sea that harness the power of the tides, so that we can turn the kettle on in the morning; world-leading infrastructure built in Britain using British steel to last more than a century; and the potential to export our expertise and products across the globe. An ambitious, decisive and forward-thinking Government would jump at a project like that, just as they have done with Wylfa. Well, perhaps not. Recently, someone joked to me that the desk of the Secretary of State was where good ideas went to die. I hope that that is not the case with the Swansea tidal lagoon, and I implore the Secretary of State one last time to stop messing about, and to sit down with the company and the Welsh Government to develop a deal urgently.

[Greg Clark]

I am disappointed that the hon. Lady did not continue in the spirit in which she opened her contribution. This is an important moment, and we are beginning a negotiation on a project that will supply energy to this country for the next 60 years, until towards the end of the century, which will create jobs and reduce our carbon emissions. She said that her party supported the proposal and that there was cross-party consensus—one could be forgiven for missing that in her tone—and it is important to establish that, because it is evident that any 60-year project will take place over the life of successive Governments. This country has given nuclear investors confidence over time that there is a strong commitment to such major infrastructure projects, so I hope that she will back the commitments that she and her party made in their manifesto last year to support new nuclear and recognise the considerable opportunities, as she put it, for nuclear power internationally and domestically.

The hon. Lady asked about the financing model. She urged me in a letter to reflect on the recommendations of the National Audit Office and the Public Accounts Committee to explore alternative financing models that can reduce the price of the electricity that is generated. That is exactly what I have set out—I have followed the recommendations of the NAO and the PAC. We are entering a negotiation—I think somewhere in her remarks there was a welcome for that—but the essence of doing so is that a deal has not been agreed. We need to explore that, and it is subject to the very tests that she set out and that the NAO and the PAC observed are required, including on value for money.

On safety, the hon. Lady should be reassured—there are many hon. Members who are familiar with the nuclear industry in this country—that the safety standards operated through our independent nuclear inspectorate are the highest in the world, and that the generic design assessment is the most exacting in the world. We always abide by the rulings and requirements of the independent regulators so that we can have full confidence in the safety of this important industry.

Finally, the hon. Lady mentioned other potential investments, including the proposal for renewable power in Swansea. She knows—we have had exchanges about it across the Dispatch Boxes—that I believe in a diversity of energy supply, but we need to make sure that value for money is offered for taxpayers and bill payers. A rigorous assessment is required and, as I have done today, I will update the House when the process is concluded.

GKN

Debate between Rebecca Long Bailey and Greg Clark

Tuesday 24th April 2018 Commons Chamber

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

I thank the Secretary of State for giving me advance sight of his statement.

There are two issues that I must raise today: the fact that the reported assurances obtained by the Government, both in the letter of 27 March and subsequently, are not sufficient to guarantee the security of the long-term prospects of the company and, indeed, the workforce; and the inadequate capacity of the takeover regime to protect companies outside the very limited grounds of national defence, media plurality and financial stability.

First, as I made clear last month, the assurances obtained by the Government in Melrose’s letter of 27 March were sadly inadequate. Apart from the first five assurances which were post-offer undertakings, what was in the letter was completely unenforceable. For example, there were no post-offer undertakings on maintaining employment or tax residency, which could easily constitute such undertakings. Indeed, the maintenance of employment is vital to our national security, and the loss of these jobs will cause the diminishment of vital skills that are integral to our defence industry.

Putting aside issues of enforceability, what of the assurances that have been reported since 27 March? The reported veto power that the Secretary of State for Defence has to stop the sale of certain businesses will not, I am afraid, solve the national security problem. Melrose reportedly has a short-term outlook which undermines the long term that is required for defence projects. That is important, and a veto on the sale of certain parts of the business by the Defence Secretary will not help significantly. Sadly, the Government’s failure to address the short-term horizons of Melrose may damage the capability of a business to deliver projects that could last for 10, 15 or 20 years.

Secondly, our takeover regime is inadequate, and the Secretary of State is acutely aware of that. If a takeover falls outside the grounds of national defence, media plurality and national stability, the Secretary of State cannot act, even though the takeover may be harmful for the business, harmful for employees, harmful to research and development, and harmful to supply chains.

Let us take the case of Unilever. Last year it was threatened with a takeover, and there was nothing that the Government could do because the takeover fell outside the three public interest exemptions. Unilever has since commented on the inadequacy of the UK takeover regime, and its recent decision to place its headquarters in the Netherlands was, as reported by the Financial Times, arguably driven by a desire to escape the poor safeguards for takeovers in the UK. Labour Members have called on the Government to broaden the public interest test. The measures that the Government have proposed so far are not good enough. We know that, in GKN’s case, they already had the power to act and did not do so. However, our takeover rules would not have prevented Unilever from being taken over had Kraft been prepared to follow through, because that had nothing to do with any of the three exemptions.

I agree with the Secretary of State that our takeover regime must be open enough to encourage foreign investment, but it must also protect against short-termism and long-term damage to our economy and national security. Arguably, too often it is short-termism that prevails. Only this week we heard reports that the hedge funds that bought GKN shares to make Melrose’s takeover possible are now targeting Melrose, shorting the company on the stock exchange.

What we needed from the Secretary of State today was not just a waving through of the deal, but action, both in obtaining concrete assurances from Melrose on the future of GKN and its workforce, and in the form of clear plans to reform and widen our takeover regime to protect British businesses. I fear that the short-term predators already smell their next victim—and it is not just Melrose; it is Britain’s industrial future.

[Greg Clark]

Right from the outset, the hon. Lady has been unable to advise us of what specific undertakings she thought it was appropriate to obtain. She needs to understand that as this is a quasi-judicial decision, the statement that she made that she would block the bid would disqualify her from making that decision, as the right hon. Member for Twickenham (Sir Vince Cable) knows to his cost.

The evidence presented to me was that this was a British company taking over another British company, that no such takeover has ever been blocked on national security grounds, and that the Ministry of Defence and the other agencies said there was no reason for intervention on those grounds. I have to tell the hon. Lady that the previous directors of GKN themselves said that there was no reason for an intervention on national security grounds. She should reflect on the commitments that the Defence Secretary and I have secured to retain the aerospace division for at least five years, to ensure that the Government have the right to approve any future sale of any defence business or asset, and to invest in research and development to at least the current level. Not once in the past four months has she engaged in a similarly forensic way to set out what she thinks would be appropriate commitments.

The hon. Lady says that the commitments are inadequate, but they have been given as legal deeds and in some cases set out to the Takeover Panel as post-offer undertakings. The truth is that she has had the opportunity to engage with this matter, but having prejudiced her position by saying from the outset that the takeover should be blocked, she has given away the ability to have influence on what the regime should be.

The hon. Lady knows perfectly well what the Government’s powers on takeovers are, because the 2002 Act was passed under a Labour Government and sets out those limited powers, which are the same as in the rest of Europe. The difference between the Government and the Opposition is that when we came into government, we reformed those powers to allow post-offer undertakings to be given, so the situation when Kraft bid for Cadbury and undertakings were reneged upon cannot happen in the current circumstances. We have taken an active approach to ensuring that all stakeholders’ interests are secured, whereas the hon. Lady preferred to float above it all and simply say no before considering the evidence. We have proceeded responsibly, and she would do the employees of and stakeholders in GKN a service if she engaged more forensically in future.

GKN: Proposed Takeover by Melrose

Debate between Rebecca Long Bailey and Greg Clark

Tuesday 27th March 2018 Commons Chamber

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

I thank the Secretary of State for today’s update. Sadly, however, the letter sent by the Government yesterday and the response by Melrose offer very little certainty and raise even more questions.

First, it was on 8 January 2018 that the board of GKN received a preliminary and unsolicited proposal from Melrose to acquire the entire share capital of GKN. Melrose put in its formal offer on 1 February. Concerns about Melrose’s plans had been raised by trade unions, Members of this House and the media for months, yet it took until 26 March for the Government to write to get some assurances from Melrose. So why did the Secretary of State wait until the last minute?

My second question concerns the enforceability of the assurances themselves. Which of the assurances and commitments given by Melrose in its letter of 27 March are actually legally enforceable and binding, because on my reading of the letter, it seems that very few are? Specifically, can the Government confirm that the commitments given under the heading “Takeover Panel enforceable undertakings” are indeed enforceable and will be enforced by the takeover panel? Can the Government also confirm that all the commitments below the paragraph headed “Long-term commitment” are totally unenforceable? What powers do the Government have to enforce any of the empty promises from page 2 onwards that are not post-offer undertakings? My discussions with the takeover panel suggest that enforceability is indeed limited to the areas referred to in Melrose’s letter under the heading “Takeover Panel enforceable undertakings”. I must also express concern regarding the “flexibility” that Melrose requests in relation to any offers it receives to sell the aerospace division prior to 2023. What will the Government do to protect this business and, indeed, the other elements of the business that are not even referred to in Melrose’s letter? Do we take their omission as a clear indication that they will not be protected?

My third question is about the substantive content of the assurances. Why did the Government not ask for or receive any post-offer undertakings on maintaining or increasing employment at GKN over a 10-year period? These can clearly constitute post-offer undertakings under takeover code. Indeed, when SoftBank took over Arm Holdings, it promised to increase the total number of UK Arm group employees to at least double the total number as at the takeover date. It is also not clear why Melrose did not include UK tax residency as a post-offer undertaking. Similarly, I would argue that many of the things that the Government asked for were weak and meaningless. For example, when the Government asked for the maintenance of a UK workforce, what did they actually mean? Is one employee in the UK enough to fulfil this condition? Similarly, on investing in the training and development of the workforce, how much, and by what time?

My fourth question concerns the Secretary of State’s powers under the Enterprise Act 2002 to block the bid on national security grounds. It would be helpful if he confirmed that Melrose has indeed waived the condition to get the approval of the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States. More importantly, the Secretary of State still has the powers to block this on grounds of UK national security, so will he confirm unequivocally today whether he will do this?

Finally, there are reports that merger arbitrage funds are planning to accept the Melrose offer, but as they are holding derivatives of GKN shares, they will not pay stamp duty on the transaction. Will the Secretary of State undertake that if Melrose does indeed proceed with this offer, the Government will investigate all share dealings to ensure that the correct stamp duty has been paid?

If the Government think that today’s weak, late and unenforceable assurances from Melrose are sufficient, then they are deeply mistaken. There is nothing to assure workers, nor to put to bed concerns about our industrial strategy and national security. As my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Jack Dromey) so eloquently stated recently, GKN is a jewel in Britain’s industrial crown that employed generation after generation. It needed a Government prepared to fight for its future, and I am afraid that the response so far has been far less than adequate.

[Greg Clark]

Everyone in this House, on both sides of the Chamber, agrees that GKN is a very important company that is crucial to vital R&D work and employs thousands of people across the country. That is why I consider it important, over and above my statutory powers—I have explained very clearly that this is without prejudice to the use of those powers—to encourage the bidder to set out much more clearly than it has done so far its intentions on many of the matters that the hon. Lady mentioned, such as research and development, being based in the UK, and a commitment to the length of tenure of this very important aerospace business. That seems to be an appropriate action at this stage in the proceedings.

Of course, this is a contrast to the sorry situation that arose—there are Members in this Chamber who will remember this—during the time in which the hon. Lady’s party was in government, when Cadbury was sold to Kraft and a plant that was expected to be kept open was closed forever. In response to that, when we came into government a regime was established that allowed legally binding undertakings to be given. I have said repeatedly in this House and to hon. Members that, given that that regime exists, I expect it to be used. I was not satisfied with the degree of commitments that had been given so far by Melrose, so I think that it was the right step, over and above my statutory powers, to set out those concerns in writing and to invite Melrose to respond to them.

The hon. Lady knows very well the statutory powers that I have. Again, they were passed when her party was in government, under the Enterprise Act 2002. The question of national security is a quasi-judicial one that will be addressed separately. It is not a subjective decision that I can take. It has to be based on a clear assessment. I make the commitment that I will take that assessment meticulously. There is a closing window for this bid, and it is right to use that window to obtain statements as to Melrose’s intentions.

The hon. Lady asked questions about the enforceability of the commitments. Melrose has said in its response that it is in discussion with the takeover panel. I regard that as the best way to lodge the commitments, so that they are enforceable with severe penalties, including contempt of court, if they are broken. The takeover panel monitors the adherence to the commitments after the event, were the bid to be successful. On security, the hon. Lady also asked about the company’s conversations with the US Administration. It is the case that the company took a decision to waive that condition.

The hon. Lady asked a question about commitment to the workforce. I have met the trade unions twice now. I specified in my letter to Melrose that I expected it to make a commitment to deal fairly with the trade unions in order to ensure that the future of the workforce is taken seriously, in lockstep with the trade unions. That is important. She also made a point about the avoidance of stamp duty. Clearly, any taxes that fall due ought to be paid.

I hope that the hon. Lady and the House—whatever their assessment of the bid—would, in recognition of the powers available, think that it is the right step to approach the bidder at this stage, before the timetable closes, in order to set out in a way that can be enforced for years to come, undertakings against which it can be held to account. That is the basis of my letter to the company.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Rebecca Long Bailey and Greg Clark

Tuesday 30th January 2018 Commons Chamber

[Greg Clark]

The hon. Lady raises an excellent question, and I want to pay tribute to the CITB, which has been working closely with its Scottish colleagues, for a magnificent response. It has been able to not only contact but offer continuity to all the apprentices—I think I am right in saying that—to give them the ability to continue their training. That was a formidable, agile response to an urgent situation, and it deserves the praise of the House.

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

In July last year, the Government were warned by the Federation of Small Businesses and the Specialist Engineering Contractors Group that Carillion was transferring risk to its subcontractors. They highlighted that Carillion’s payment period was doubled from 65 to 120 days, that Carillion made money on the back of early payment by charging fees, and that regulation 113 of the Public Contracts Regulations 2015, which relates to 30-day payment, was not being enforced. Will the Secretary of State outline what actions, if any, he took on receipt of that information?

[Greg Clark]

The lessons and the scrutiny of what went wrong in Carillion, both on the part of its directors and its scrutineers, and in the oversight that took place across the whole of the public sector in terms of contracting, need to be looked at and will be looked at, including by Select Committees of this House. Whatever actions are required from that, we will take.

[Rebecca Long Bailey]

So it is clear that no action was taken and that subcontractors were being mistreated again and again. But that is not all: the FSB and SEC Group also highlighted how retention moneys and project funds due to suppliers were not being protected from Carillion’s potential insolvency. As a result of the Government’s inaction, microbusinesses are now owed on average £98,000, small firms £141,000 and medium-sized firms £236,000, and large businesses are owed on average £15.6 million. Will the Secretary of State therefore explain to the House and all the businesses affected why the Government took no action last July and why many are on the verge of bankruptcy today?

[Greg Clark]

Retentions and project bank accounts have been the subject, in response to those and other concerns, of a consultation on specific measures, which closed very recently. That came out of the recommendations that were made. Part of the taskforce that we have established includes these representative bodies, and they know that they have my commitment to take all the necessary actions to learn the lessons and protect any future concerns against things that could be learned from this case.

Industrial Strategy

Debate between Rebecca Long Bailey and Greg Clark

Monday 27th November 2017 Commons Chamber

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

I am pleased that the White Paper seems to acknowledge many of the fundamental problems faced by our economy, and give credit to the Secretary of State for adopting one of Labour’s policies to set national missions or “challenges”, as he likes to call them. But as I delve into the finer details of the paper, the aims of which may be well intentioned, it appears to be little more than a repackaging of existing policies and commitments.

The Office for Budget Responsibility figures contained in last week’s Budget were a damning assessment of the impact of seven years of Conservative austerity, with productivity, real wages, and GDP growth and GDP per capita revised down, but debt revised up. The Conservatives’ economic credibility has been shot to pieces, with people earning less than they did in 2007 until at least 2023. We have to go back to 1820, when George IV ascended the throne, before we find a time when productivity increased less than this over a 10-year period.

Today, I was full of hope—desperately hoping that the Government would press the reset button—but they have simply restated their plans for a £31 billion national productivity investment fund. As TUC analysis shows, this only raises investment to 2.9% of GDP, whereas the average for leading OECD industrial nations is 3.5 %. Labour even called on the Chancellor to use his Budget to level up regional investment in line with London, but only one—just one—of the named transport projects in the national productivity investment fund is in the north. The development of local industrial strategies is certainly welcome, but will the Secretary of State admit that they simply could not deliver the desired effects under the Government’s current investment plans?

The strategy restates the commitment to raise total research and development investment to 2.4% of GDP. This is moving in the right direction, but it is still behind world leaders and far less ambitious than Labour’s commitment to reaching 3% of GDP by 2030. The allocation of £725 million to the industrial strategy challenge fund is again welcome, but it seems to lack any real strategy. As Sheffield Hallam University recently found, the areas already identified by the fund

“account for little more than 1 per cent of the whole economy (by employment) and 10 per cent of UK manufacturing.”

Many of the policies focus on R and D spending in only a handful of specified sectors in which the UK already has a comparative advantage. This will do nothing to help the millions who work in large, low-wage, low-productivity sectors such as retail, hospitality and care, or people who do not live in the golden triangle made up of London, Cambridge and Oxford.

Finally, this industrial strategy fails to start from the bottom up. It is all well and good talking about leading the fourth industrial revolution, but this can only happen with a highly skilled, technology-savvy workforce. After seven years of Conservative Government, only 11% of students in England take IT at GCSE, and only 30% are at schools that provide it. That is certainly not laying the foundations for an economy of the future, and the amount of money for skills outlined today does not even begin to make up for the cuts inflicted on our education system since 2010. Indeed, the money allocated for the national retraining scheme amounts to only 6.6% of the funding slashed from the adult skills budget since 2010.

This industrial strategy may well be a start, but I fear that the Government have simply produced a public relations gimmick that is thin on detail, thin on investment and thin on ideas. I truly hope the Secretary of State will listen to my concerns as well as those from business and the trade union movement over the coming months, because we have one chance to reset our economy, and if we let this slip through our fingers, the people of Britain will never forgive us.

[Greg Clark]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady. When she has the time to read the Industrial Strategy White Paper we have published today, I hope that she will reflect on the substance, content and ambition of this strategy and that she will come out in support of it.

One thing that the hon. Lady should know, and that every Member of the House knows, is that for our country to prosper, we need a sound economy. The last time the Labour party was in government, we had the biggest financial crisis since the 1930s, racking up billions and billions of pounds of extra debt for our children and grandchildren to pay. As usual, the Labour party has not learned the lesson from that, because its proposal is to borrow an extra £250 billion. In attracting the confidence of the world to invest in this country, the hon. Lady needs to make sure that the economy is sound. In the prospectus that she puts forward, there is nothing that is capable of achieving that.

In the weeks ahead, I hope the hon. Lady will discover that, around the country—from north, south, east and west, and from business organisations to trade unions to our respected scientific institutions—there has been substantial collaboration, based on the Green Paper, which has resulted in some major changes. It is a strategy for the long term—it is right that it should be the strategy for the long term—but it is being backed up by investment now. In the Budget just last week, we saw the announcement of the biggest increase in investment in research and development in this country that there has ever been. The hon. Lady should welcome that because it is being welcomed throughout the country.

With our partners right across the United Kingdom, we will implement this industrial strategy. I hope, when the hon. Lady goes out and talks to businesses and leaders across the land, that she will find that there is great support for this approach and that she will join us in seeking to implement it and to provide the certainty we need in the years ahead.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Rebecca Long Bailey and Greg Clark

Tuesday 7th November 2017 Commons Chamber

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

Last week, the Secretary of State repeatedly refused to confirm, when pressed by the Select Committee, that the energy price cap would be in place by next winter. Media reports have also suggested that the Government have already told energy investors that the draft legislation will be ditched if they feel the big six power firms are doing enough to tackle high bills. I therefore ask the Secretary of State, in the hope he will today provide a clear answer, whether the energy price cap will be in place by the winter of 2018 and, if not, whether the media reports are true that there is actually no intention of introducing price cap legislation?

[Greg Clark]

I can assure the hon. Lady that there is every intention of introducing a price cap, and there is consensus in the House around that. We have published a Bill and it is being scrutinised by the Select Committee. As soon as it has finished that scrutiny, we will look for an opportunity to introduce it to the House.

[Rebecca Long Bailey]

I am afraid that answer simply created even more ambiguity, so let us try a different topic. The Government scheme to deal with the social care back-payment announced on 1 November has been cited as “inadequate” by many care businesses and organisations, as it does not address the fact that many providers simply cannot afford to pay due to funding cuts, and some workers will not be paid what they are duly owed until 31 March 2019. Mencap has stated that many providers will be reluctant to take part in the scheme as they feel they will be

“writing their own suicide note”.

Therefore, I ask the Secretary of State: will the Government commit the necessary funding in the Budget to avert a crisis in the care sector, which could see many businesses struggle to survive, impacting on already fragile care services, and leave thousands of care staff without the wages they are owed?

[Greg Clark]

As the Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, my hon. Friend the Member for Stourbridge (Margot James), has made clear, and as I believe the hon. Lady knows, this is a difficult and complex issue. We completely accept the need for confidence among the providers of care to some of the most vulnerable people in society, while recognising the legitimate claim, which has been upheld by the courts, of those who have worked in that sector. Bringing those two things together requires precision and care, so that this is robust and does not create further uncertainty if it were found not to be legally possible to advance it. That is why the interim proposal has been made, but I am happy to keep the hon. Lady informed.

International Investment

Debate between Rebecca Long Bailey and Greg Clark

Tuesday 17th October 2017 Commons Chamber

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

The news that Bombardier and Airbus will be forming a partnership will be welcome to the thousands of Airbus and Bombardier staff who are employed in the United Kingdom, but can the Secretary of State confirm that he has received unequivocal assurances from Airbus and Bombardier about the security of UK jobs in the long term? The pairing of two cutting-edge product lines is very exciting for the future of aerospace manufacturing, but it should not be an excuse for the Government to diminish their efforts to ensure that the unfair tariffs imposed in the United States are dropped. Will the Secretary of State give more details about the further action that he proposes to take? For example, has he written to the European Commission?

Britain clearly wants to be open to investment, despite reports that the Office for National Statistics is revising its investment position downwards. However, it would be naive to allow key businesses to be at risk from people who have no interest in the long-term success of a business, its workers and its pensioners, or in the long-term interests of the British economy.

Today’s proposals are welcome, but I have some concerns. First, I am concerned about the delay in the presenting of the proposals. In the last year or so, we have seen mergers that have called into question the adequacy of our merger regime to defend vital economic interests: jobs, research and development, and the significance of the company involved to the supply chain, to name but a few. For instance, our biggest chip manufacturer, ARM, was sold to Japan’s SoftBank. ARM is one of the jewels in our crown, developing cutting-edge chip design and generating thousands of jobs, yet there was no guarantee that R and D—or investment, or jobs—would be protected in the long run. The best that our takeover regime could generate was post-offer undertakings by SoftBank for five years on some of those issues.

That is not an isolated example in the high-tech world. The UK firm Imagination Technologies was sold to Canyon Bridge just a few weeks ago, and our automobile sector has also witnessed the shortcomings of the takeover regime. PSA’s purchase of Opel and Vauxhall raised concerns about jobs and investment. Yet again, our takeover regime was unable to guarantee that those things would be protected, and this week we have heard about the risk of voluntary redundancies. My first question to the Secretary of State is this: why did it take so long, given the manifest deficiencies in the regime to which we drew his attention earlier this year?

My second concern relates to the inadequacy of the proposals. They seem to lower the threshold tests that must take place before the competition authorities and the Government can scrutinise a merger. However, those lower tests apply only to the dual-use and military sector, and to companies that are involved in the design of computer chips and quantum technology. But there are other high-technology sectors that are also in need of the same protections, including life sciences, and food, chemical and automobile manufacturing, to name but a few on a very long list of sectors and business areas that are systemically important to UK plc. These powers would have given no assurances to companies like Unilever, for example, who might try to resist a takeover and have been calling for better safeguards in the takeover regime overall.

Similarly, it is not clear how these powers would have helped in many of the cases I have mentioned where they potentially do apply. Indeed, this morning when the Secretary of State was asked whether these powers would have altered the takeover of ARM, he stated that the turnover of that firm already qualified for scrutiny so this would have made no difference.

So, finally, does the Secretary of State agree that his proposals, while welcome, on the thresholds in particular, fail to protect companies that still fall within them, and will he confirm what further action he proposes to take, because action is desperately needed?

[Greg Clark]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her response and questions. On Bombardier, I am grateful for her recognition—which I hope and think is shared across the House and certainly in Northern Ireland—that this is a very positive step forward. I have been very clear that we will continue to seek to strike out and resolve the trade dispute that has been brought by Boeing. Given what we have been doing during the weeks since the initial complaint was made, I do not think anyone could accuse the Government of being anything other than full-hearted in our attempts to resolve this, and our efforts, with our Canadian Government counterparts, to find a secure source of guarantees for Belfast have been widely welcomed this morning.

In terms of the assurances given, Bombardier and Airbus have clearly said they regard the Belfast wing operation as foundational. They expect to expand the production, which means good prospects for those jobs in Northern Ireland and the supply chain across the United Kingdom. That is extremely good news. We will continue to pursue to the point of resolution the trade dispute. The hon. Lady asked about the European Commissioner: my right hon. Friend the International Trade Secretary has discussed this personally with the European Commissioner for Trade. We will leave no stone unturned in seeking a resolution of this dispute.

On the proposals in the Green Paper on international investment, I would have thought the hon. Lady should welcome the fact that we continue to be the third-biggest destination in the world for overseas investment. One of the major strengths of our economy is that we have a reputation for dependability and openness, and it is important that we preserve that while upgrading our systems of scrutiny to make sure that the national interest is protected, particularly in the case of national security. In saying that, I note that the hon. Lady suggests that there has been some delay in so doing, but the changes we are making were changes that were not made during 13 years when the Labour party had the chance to address these matters. I hope she will respond to the consultation and welcome it.

It is right that the threshold should be dropped in order to admit small companies: everyone knows that as technology develops, smaller companies can have a critical role to play in producing products that are part of a wider system. It is right to have that degree of scrutiny. But when the hon. Lady reads the Green Paper she will see that, in addition to those initial changes, we are consulting on whether there should be a wider set of powers to require the mandatory notification of mergers in other sectors of the economy, and we make some proposals around that. It is right to consult on that, but it would not be right for every single transaction in the economy to be required to go through an administrative process when it does not pose a threat to our national interest. That is the purpose of the consultation, and I hope she will welcome it.

The hon. Lady raises the question of Unilever. One of the features of the proposed takeover of Unilever was that the company—correctly, in my view—did not feel it had the time to prepare a proper defence of itself, given the current takeover rules. Following conversations that we have had, the Takeover Panel is proposing a more substantial period in which, at the request of the target company, it will have longer to prepare that defence. That will be welcomed across the economy. This is a consultation by the Takeover Panel so we will wait for that to conclude, but I have welcomed it as a positive step forward.

Nuclear Safeguards Bill

Debate between Rebecca Long Bailey and Greg Clark

2nd reading: House of Commons
Monday 16th October 2017 Commons Chamber

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

As the Secretary of State has outlined, this Bill will provide the legal framework for establishing a domestic nuclear safeguards regime. Nuclear safeguards are essential obligations to ensure that work and materials for civil nuclear do not get transposed into work or preparations for military nuclear, and that is done under the umbrella of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. Arguably, the UK already has a perfectly good set of nuclear safeguards through its membership of Euratom, so why is the Bill needed?

The Bill is a contingency measure, as the Secretary of State has helpfully illustrated. If we are to leave Euratom, and if there is no associate membership that gives us continued nuclear safeguarding provisions, we will need to put in place a new system of safeguarding, and that needs to be to the satisfaction of the International Atomic Energy Authority. Now that takes us into rather strange territory: we have not yet left Euratom; it is not clear whether we have to leave Euratom; the House has not agreed that we should leave Euratom; and we have not put in place any parliamentary procedure for agreeing that we should leave Euratom. In effect, the Bill is based wholly on the declaration that the Prime Minister made in her letter to the EU informing it that we were going to invoke article 50—

[Greg Clark]

Is the hon. Lady saying that it is wrong for this House and this Government to prepare, in a prudent and orderly way, to maintain the excellent safeguards that we have? Is she somehow criticising that preparedness?

[Rebecca Long Bailey]

Clearly, the Secretary of State was not listening to what I was saying. If he displays some patience, he will hear a bit more about my thoughts on the Bill’s contents.

Euratom was agreed to as a body and a treaty before the EU treaty came about, and to that extent it is, arguably, separate from the actual formation and operation of the EU. That of course is the subject of fierce legal debate. It is true that its disputes mechanism does involve the European Court of Justice, and its terms include the free movement of scientists but those are specifically applied to civil nuclear activities and do not stray on to a wider canvas. Subject to legal debate, it certainly may have been possible—

--- Later in debate ---

[Rebecca Long Bailey]

I will make some progress, if I may.

The Government stated in their notes on the Queen’s Speech that the Bill to be introduced on the future of safeguarding would also

“protect UK electricity supplied by nuclear power”.

This Bill clearly does not do that, which is perhaps why that claim has been dropped from the description of the Bill. But the challenge centrally remains, and it is likely that another Bill will be necessary to protect that electricity in its entirety. Will the Minister confirm when that legislation will be introduced?

Let us assume for the time being that maintaining membership of Euratom is not possible—by far the worst case scenario. How have the Government chosen to implement their limited stab at replacing the nuclear safeguarding regime? Well, they have chosen to do so by giving the Secretary of State all the power to make the changes. The Bill contains powers for the Secretary of State, by order, to provide all the detail and fill in the dots of the legislative changes without further meaningful recourse to the Floor of the House.

Clause 1 will give the Secretary of State powers to introduce substantial amendments to the UK’s safeguarding procedures and give effect to international agreements that are yet even to begin being negotiated without any further primary legislation. Furthermore, the Secretary of State will be given the power—also by order—to amend retrospectively, and without further meaningful recourse to the Floor of the House, no fewer than three pieces of existing legislation. Not only that, but he will have the power to amend those pieces of legislation, as the Government acknowledge in their explanatory notes accompanying the Bill, based on the outcome of negotiations with the International Atomic Energy Agency that the Government accept are not complete.

We have to take on trust that the negotiation with the IAEA to which Parliament will not be a party will proceed satisfactorily, and that the Secretary of State, in his infinite wisdom, will table the necessary amendments to primary and secondary legislation that will give effect to those agreements, whatever they are. While I am on this point, will the Secretary of State confirm the progress of such agreements and negotiations, and provide details?

[Greg Clark]

I hope the hon. Lady will be reassured if she actually reads the Bill. It is clear that the power to amend the legislation that she pointed out—I hope that she can see what I am pointing out—is limited to

“consequential, supplementary or incidental provision…transitional, transitory or saving provision.”

It is not a general power. It is intended to ensure that the transposition of one set of regulations to another can be made efficiently.

[Rebecca Long Bailey]

Let me take the Secretary of State on a little journey. If he listens carefully, he might see how dangerous the scope of certain parts of the Bill might be. The explanatory notes indicate that regulations under clause 1 will be subject to the affirmative procedure only “on first use”. It would be helpful if he confirmed that that wording is actually a terrible mistake, that he does not actually mean it and that, at the very least, all legislation on the domestic safeguarding regime will be subject to the affirmative procedure.

I would never cast aspersions on the Secretary of State, but, unfortunately, his ministerial colleagues have shown that they are prepared to use their delegated powers not just to avoid parliamentary scrutiny, but arguably to legislate in open defiance of the House. In particular, I refer to the recent rise in university tuition fees. The original Act allowed any statutory instrument raising the limit to be annulled by either House. Unfortunately, the Government first prevented any vote whatever, and then refused to accept the vote of the House against the regulations. In effect, they used secondary legislation to rule by ministerial decree. They tabled the regulations the day before Christmas recess and the Opposition tabled a prayer against them on the first sitting day after that. But, despite the conventions of the House, the Government dragged their feet for months until eventually conceding the point and scheduling a debate on 18 April. Of course, the Prime Minister dissolved Parliament before that vote could be held. After the election, the new Leader of the House said that there were “no plans” to allow time for the vote that her predecessor had solemnly promised from the Dispatch Box. It was left to my hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner) to secure parliamentary time under the rules of Standing Order No. 24. In that debate, the Minister for Universities, Science, Research and Innovation tried to deny that any vote had been secured, leading Mr Speaker to intervene and tell the House:

“I had thought there was an expectation of a debate and a vote, and that the Opposition had done what was necessary”.—[Official Report, 19 July 2017; Vol. 627, c. 895-6.]

Retail Energy

Debate between Rebecca Long Bailey and Greg Clark

Thursday 12th October 2017 Commons Chamber

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

I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of his statement.

Just two years ago, the then Prime Minister criticised Labour’s energy price cap policy, saying we wanted to live in a Marxist universe. Well, we certainly are in strange political times, that’s for sure. It has taken an extraordinary amount of time to get to this stage and enormous pressure from the shadow Front-Bench team and hon. Members on both sides of the House. It is impossible, however, for the price cap to protect families this coming winter. Ofgem has indicated it would take about five months after the Bill’s Royal Assent for the regulator to enact a price cap. Owing to the Government’s dithering, the 4 million households in fuel poverty, almost 1 million of which include a disabled person, will now face another winter of cold homes or astronomical bills. Will the Secretary of State explain why it has taken so long? Labour has been consistently calling for action and clarity on the Government’s position since the election and for a price cap for several years, but even today several issues require further clarification.

First, will the Secretary of State confirm why the draft Bill, which I have just perused, does not provide any direction from him on his preferred cap parameters but instead passes the ball to Ofgem? Will it be a relative cap or an absolute cap? Will he direct Ofgem to implement a different cap if he is not content with the one it proposes following the review? Secondly, will he confirm how long he anticipates the Bill’s passage taking and whether he will take any ancillary measures to expedite the usual scrutiny process?

Thirdly, reports this morning stated that the cap would apply to 12 million households, but the Bill is not clear on the cap parameters, as I have said, and leaves much to the discretion of Ofgem. Will the Secretary of State confirm, then, why the Government have seemingly rowed back from the commitment to knock £100 off the bills of 17 million households? Surely this should be explicit in the Bill or ancillary directions to Ofgem.

Fourthly, the Secretary of State is no doubt aware that Labour would introduce an immediate emergency price cap to ensure that the average household bill remains below £1,000 a year, which would save the average big six customers £142 a year. Had the cap been in place since 2010, the average customer would have saved more than £1,000 on their bills by now. Does he anticipate, in all this ambiguity, that the final cap will go anywhere near Labour’s proposals? If not, by how much does he expect bills to be reduced, if at all?

Finally, we are discussing the need for an energy price cap in the first place only because our energy market is fundamentally broken—even the Prime Minister acknowledges that. Labour understands that the price cap is only a temporary fix and so would radically reform the market by, among other measures, creating a publicly owned, locally accountable energy supply company in every region and ensuring greater transparency and fairness in the pricing structures of the supply and wholesale energy market. Does the Secretary of State accept that a price cap, although welcome, is only a sticking plaster and that radical reform of the market is necessary?

If so, how and when does the Secretary of State propose to reform the energy market and will he direct Ofgem to do it, rather than simply calling for a review, as the draft Bill suggests? Or have we got to wait until 2020 and the outcome of such a review before we see any real action? I hope that we do see action before 2020 because the cap is only guaranteed for the next two winters. Homes and businesses up and down Britain face a bleak winter and—it seems—further ambiguity and uncertainly regarding the Government’s position on the price cap mechanism and the wider reforms our energy market desperately needs.

[Greg Clark]

If one thing would be disastrous for consumers, taxpayers and business confidence in this country, it would be the hon. Lady and her Front-Bench colleagues’ proposal for nationalised energy companies. It is not even clear how it would be paid for, but there are only three ways: taxing more, borrowing more, or expropriating assets. If that is about achieving the confidence of British business, she has a long way to go.

The hon. Lady asked about the action being taken and the required pace. I remind her that in 13 years of Labour Government not a single protection was put in place for consumers. It was the Conservative-led Government who commissioned the Competition and Markets Authority report—something that the right hon. Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband), when he had the opportunity, signally failed to do—as a result of which 4 million consumers will benefit this winter from a cap on prepayment meter tariffs, which again is something the previous Labour Government failed to do in their 13 years in office.

Since taking on this role, I have been absolutely clear, on the basis of the CMA’s assessment, that we require nothing less than the eradication of that detriment of £1.4 billion, which is why, in response to my requirements, Ofgem has announced that a further 1 million will be protected this winter, with a further 2 million to follow. I have been clear, however, that that is not comprehensive enough, and it is because I am not satisfied that we are introducing the Bill. We published it and submitted it to the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee, which I hope will give it urgent pre-legislative scrutiny so that we can reflect what I think is a broad consensus in the House that the objectives should be an energy market that works for all and, before that, protection for the consumers currently suffering the detriment identified. I hope that there will be a consensus around that so that we can proceed with the Bill.

As I said in my statement, however, it is open now to energy companies to move people off the standard variable tariffs identified as overcharging customers. Indeed, Ofgem has made it clear that it expects them to do so. They should do so now and not wait for the Bill.

Bombardier

Debate between Rebecca Long Bailey and Greg Clark

Tuesday 10th October 2017 Commons Chamber

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

I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of his statement.

Following a complaint by Boeing, on 26 September the US Department of Commerce ruled that Bombardier had benefited from state subsidies and imposed a 219% tariff, and on 6 October it found engagement in below-cost selling and imposed an additional tariff of 80%. This decision has catastrophic ramifications for Bombardier, the 4,000 staff it employs directly in Northern Ireland and the 20,000 staff employed throughout the UK in supply chains. Not only does this jeopardise the livelihoods of thousands, but the Northern Irish economy also faces a serious threat, as Bombardier represents 8% of Northern Ireland’s GDP and about 40% of manufacturing output, so the danger to jobs, the future of Bombardier and the Northern Irish economy because of these decisions in the US is very real.

Sadly, also very real has been the apparent inaction of the Government thus far. The Opposition have repeatedly sought information from them, but we have so far been disappointed by the response—so today I will try again. First, what was the specific content of, and what commitments were made during, the Prime Minister’s and other Cabinet members’ conversations with the US Administration and indeed Boeing?

Secondly, have the Government had any discussions at all with the European Commission, specifically with the Directorates-General for Trade and for Competition, about the support that it might be able to provide? Thirdly, does the Secretary of State have any plans to target all relevant US legislators to lobby the US Administration, including the Senate Committee on Finance, the House Ways and Means Committee, the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, and those with constituency interests in Bombardier and its wider supply chain?

Given the devastating impact on the Northern Irish economy and on the already fragile Northern Irish peace settlement, what attempts has the Secretary of State made to urge the Irish Government to apply greater political pressure on the Irish caucus on the Hill to highlight the fact that this is not simply a US-Canada dispute, as the Secretary of State for International Trade has sadly already suggested? Fourthly, what attempts have the Government made thus far to provide evidence to the US independent Trade Commission that Boeing did not compete for the Delta contract and does not manufacture a comparable model to the C Series that would have matched the contract specification?

Finally, does the Secretary of State accept that this whole affair demonstrates the very real security risk of military reliance on one foreign supplier? Ministry of Defence contracts with Boeing total £4.5 billion, but is it correct, as reports suggest, that the Defence Secretary is reluctant to use that leverage because of our dependency on the company? Worse still, the Northern Ireland Secretary and the International Trade Secretary have been somewhat quiet on the issue. Are they afraid of being exposed in Northern Ireland for their failure to protect jobs, or are they so keen to score a sweetheart trade deal with the US that they simply want to wash their hands of this matter? Clearly, politics is being put ahead of the welfare of workers in Northern Ireland. I eagerly await the Secretary of State’s response to my questions, but I fear that Bombardier and everyone who depends on the firm are considered by this Conservative Government to be a fair price to pay for a post-Brexit trade deal with President Trump.

[Greg Clark]

I am disappointed with the hon. Lady’s response. If anyone is putting politics ahead of the welfare of workers, the evidence was there. She asked some reasonable questions, which have reasonable answers. I said in my statement that the European Commission had been engaged. Commissioner Malmström has been consulted, as have other member states across the European Union. As for the Irish Government, Simon Coveney, the Irish Foreign Minister, has been engaged as well. On the issue of submitting evidence to the Trade Commission in the United States, that has indeed been provided, and, in response to the initial determination, further information will be provided to make it clear that there are no grounds for demonstrating detriment to Boeing, as this aircraft does not compete with Boeing. That has been addressed in clear terms.

Engagement across Government, the Province of Northern Ireland and the island of Ireland has been consistent and unrelenting right from the beginning. I will not detail all the meetings that have been held and the calls that have been made, but they will continue—no stone will be left unturned. We have had 24 calls or meetings with the US Administration, 12 with Boeing executives, and 20 with the Government of Canada. Every day during this process, we have been engaged in getting rid of this unjustified complaint. I would welcome the support of the whole House in this endeavour. I wish to put on record my gratitude to the trade unions, which have played a very constructive role. When it comes to making the case for this action being totally unjustified, I would like to think that this House is completely united not only in looking to the importance of the Bombardier presence in Belfast, but in underlining our total determination to throw out and see dismissed this unjustified action.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Rebecca Long Bailey and Greg Clark

Tuesday 12th September 2017 Commons Chamber

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

On 27 June, the Secretary of State failed to confirm to me that he would legislate for a price cap to deliver to 17 million customers the £100 saving promised by the Prime Minister if Ofgem did not propose such a cap. On 3 July, Ofgem announced its plans, which fall short of the Prime Minister’s promise, and later stated that a cap is really a matter for Government legislation. I ask again, will the Government now legislate for a price cap to deliver the Prime Minister’s promise?

[Greg Clark]

The hon. Lady is misinformed; Ofgem has not responded formally to my request, and it should act on the evidence presented to it, using its powers. The ball is in its court, and I expect Ofgem to do its job and stand up for consumers.

[Rebecca Long Bailey]

I am saddened that the Secretary of State is non-committal, because at the same time as we have rising prices, power distributors recently made an average yearly post-tax profit of 32%, paying out share dividends of £5.1 billion. For water, the situation is even worse, as over the past decade companies have made £18.8 billion in profits, paying out £18.1 billion of that as dividends, with Macquarie paying £1.6 billion in dividends alone, while Thames Water incurred £10.6 billion of debt, ran up a £260 million pensions deficit and paid no UK corporation tax. So I ask him: what are the Government’s plans to reform our broken utilities markets?

[Greg Clark]

On the specific point of retail energy markets, a two-year investigation has been carried out by the CMA, and it is now for Ofgem to respond. I hope it will respond and eradicate that deficit; that is the test that Ofgem faces. We have made it clear that we will rule nothing out if it falls short, but I do not want to remove the obligation on it to respond in that way. I hope that the hon. Lady will welcome our intention to publish a consumer Green Paper and that she will contribute to it. This will look across the board—across other utilities as well—to see whether the existing regulatory arrangements are sufficient.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Rebecca Long Bailey and Greg Clark

Tuesday 27th June 2017 Commons Chamber

[Greg Clark]

I welcome the hon. Gentleman back. What he describes as an energy price cap was launched as an energy price freeze. The problem with that was that as energy prices fell, consumers would be paying more than they needed to. That would have been disastrous for them, which is why the proposal that we have made, in response to the Competition and Markets Authority analysis, is a much more sensible approach than we got from Labour.

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

As we have heard, various media outlets have reported recently that senior Cabinet members were lobbying for the Conservative price cap manifesto commitment to be dropped. Indeed, the Secretary of State’s recent letter to Ofgem was silent on the price cap element and, when questioned last week, the Prime Minister refused to confirm unambiguously that the price cap would be upheld. Will the Secretary of State confirm for the avoidance of doubt that he will implement the promised price cap, and not just stand by it, to deliver to 17 million customers the £100 saving that his Prime Minister promised?

[Greg Clark]

I welcome the hon. Lady back. It is very good to see her back in her place. I did not hear her name chanted at Glastonbury and it is probably unparliamentary to do it here, but I warmly welcome her back. I have been very clear and the Queen’s Speech is very clear. It said, in terms:

“My government will ensure fairer markets for consumers, this will include bringing forward measures to help tackle unfair practices in the energy market to…reduce energy bills.”

[Rebecca Long Bailey]

I am afraid it is not clear. The Secretary of State’s recent letter to Ofgem simply asks it to advise him of the action it intends to take to safeguard customers on the poorest value tariffs. It was not a direction to implement a price cap. Can the Secretary of State confirm that should Ofgem not take directions to implement a price cap, or if it directs a price cap that is narrower than the Conservative manifesto commitment, he will legislate to uphold his party’s manifesto commitment and, if so, when?