Zero-hours Contracts
Debate between Chuka Umunna and Michael Fallon(11 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Mr Umunna
I will give way shortly.
Secondly, what are the Government doing to the protections for working people in the workplace? They are watering them down left, right and centre. They have increased from one to two years the length of service required before someone can enforce their right not to be treated unfairly at work and they have introduced employment tribunal fees of £1,200. The Minister for Skills and Enterprise described that as a moderate charge, but for low-income workers it is the equivalent of several weeks’ pay. The Government have also reduced the consultation period for collective redundancy. I could go on.
Thirdly, what have the Government done on zero-hours contracts? They have done little, if anything at all. Has a full consultation and call for evidence been issued? No. To date, there has been none, despite promises at the Liberal Democrat conference by the Secretary of State to do so. Has the Office for National Statistics been asked to clarify how many of these contracts might be in use, given that research suggests there are far more than in the ONS estimates?
The Minister of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (Michael Fallon)
indicated assent.
Mr Umunna
I don’t think so, because Ministers keep quoting statistics from the ONS to me, despite its having conceded that there is a real risk that they do not reflect reality.
Have the Government devoted the same energy and time to protecting people from the exploitative use of these contracts as they have to implementing the recommendations of the Prime Minister’s employment law adviser, Adrian Beecroft, for watering down people’s rights at work? No, they have not.
Growth and Infrastructure Bill
Debate between Chuka Umunna and Michael Fallon(11 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Minister of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (Michael Fallon)
I beg to move,
That this House does not insist on its amendment 25E, to which the Lords have disagreed, and agrees with the Lords in their amendments 25H rev and 25J in lieu.
On Tuesday when we considered this issue the House agreed to two amendments to the employee shareholder clause. First, we ensured that individuals would receive written particulars to explain the employment rights that are not associated with an employee shareholder job. Those particulars will also explain the rights attached to shares that are given as part of that role. Secondly, we amended the clause to ensure that individuals had the space and time to consider whether or not to accept the job.
Yesterday, the other place agreed further amendments to help ensure that individuals fully understand what those employee shareholder jobs will mean for them—both the risks and the rewards. Individuals who are offered employee shareholder roles must now receive independent advice before they can accept the job. That advice can be given only by a solicitor, a barrister, a fellow of the Institute of Legal Executives employed in a solicitor’s practice, a certified adviser in an advice centre or—I am sure Opposition Members will welcome this—a certified trade union official. A person employed by the company, such as an in-house lawyer, cannot give that advice; it must be independent. In addition, the company must pay any reasonable costs incurred in obtaining that advice, even if the individual does not take up the offer of the employee shareholder job.
The amendments also clarify the process of becoming an employee shareholder. When offered an employee shareholder role, an individual must be given the written particulars in advance of receiving independent advice. We have also made it clear that the seven calendar day consideration period starts only once the individual has received the advice.
Those amendments confirm our intention that the new employment status is wholly voluntary. I have made it clear throughout the debates on the clause in the House and in Committee, and my hon. and noble Friend Viscount Younger has made it clear in another place, that we do not want people to be coerced into the new roles. It is important that they should agree to accept an employee shareholder job only when they understand what it means for them.
To that end, we have published guidance in draft. In response to the concerns expressed by some of my noble Friends, we have strengthened the measures by saying that there should be special protection for those on jobseeker’s allowance—they cannot be mandated to take that type of employment status. We have provided a written statement of the particulars and a cooling-off period, and we have now provided access to independent legal advice.
The shadow Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, the hon. Member for Streatham (Mr Umunna), kept pressing me on Tuesday on what I meant when I said that we would reflect on the concerns expressed in the other place. The new measures are the results of such reflection. We have reflected on and met those concerns.
I pay tribute to Lord Pannick and to my noble Friends Lord King of Bridgwater and Lord Forsyth. Lord Pannick has said:
“It is impossible to see what further protections this House could usefully add.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 24 April 2013; Vol. 744, c. 1464.]
The House should support the further amendments to clause 27, so that it can form part of this important pro-growth Bill and provide companies and individuals with a new employment option.
Mr Chuka Umunna (Streatham) (Lab)
Where on earth does one start with this poor excuse of a Bill? It is worth reflecting on where it all started. The Bill was a ridiculous and badly thought-out idea cooked up for insertion in the Chancellor of the Exchequer’s conference speech. It has been so badly handled and so badly thought through that people from all political parties, employers and employees have united in almost universal opposition to it.
Lord Bilimoria, one the country’s best-known business men, who voted against the plan in the other place yesterday, described the policy not just as a dog’s breakfast, but as a mad dog’s breakfast. The noble Lord is a man to whom all hon. Members should sit up and listen. I do not know whether hon. Members have partaken of Cobra beer while treating themselves to a curry, but Lord Bilimoria is the man behind Cobra. He is certainly worth listening to. He said that:
“from a businessman’s point of view, this does not make sense. It is absolutely unnecessary to do this”.—[Official Report, House of Lords, 24 April 2013; Vol. 744, c. 1450.]
The Minister referred to the concessions—that concessions have been forced out of the Government serves only to reinforce how badly thought-out the proposal was. Whether or not JSA claimants could lose their benefit if they refuse to accept job offers carrying the employee shareholder status was an obvious question. I first asked it in November, when the Government ignored it. I repeated it, and the Government said that they could not lose their benefit. When they were mauled on the point in the other place, they effectively admitted that they could. In order to get the proposal through in the face of opposition from several former Conservative Cabinet Ministers, the Government had to come to the House last week and agree to amend the guidance for Department for Work and Pensions Jobcentre Plus advisers to state explicitly that a jobseeker cannot be mandated to apply for an employee shareholder job. They should have done that in the first instance. What a total shambles.
Another issue is the advice and guidance to potential employees, and the need to ensure that they understand what they are getting into. Of course people were going to be concerned—that was obvious. If, as is the case at the moment, the law requires that people who sign away their fundamental rights on leaving employment receive proper legal advice and guidance, then of course people were going to insist on getting similar advice on entering employment. I doubt the thought even passed through the Chancellor’s mind as he pursued his ideological fixation with watering down people’s rights at work.
Now there is a requirement for employers to pay for that advice in advance of a potential employee shareholder entering into an agreement. The point is this: these concessions are not enough and they were never going to be enough, because this entire proposal is wrong in principle. I think that most Government Members know that: it has been notable how few Government Members have stood in support of this measure.
Growth and Infrastructure Bill
Debate between Chuka Umunna and Michael Fallon
Michael Fallon
Yes, I can confirm that, and I can also assure my right hon. Friend that I was not heavy-hearted; I was simply keen to move on to the employee shareholder clause, and I was wondering how long I was going to be occupied in explaining how my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government had fulfilled his commitment last week to listen to the concerns expressed in this House and to come forward with what I suggest is a very reasonable compromise.
Let me now, finally, turn to the employee shareholder clause. It establishes a new employment status between employee and worker. The Government have always been clear that this measure is entirely voluntary, and that it is open to both individuals and companies to use it if they choose to do so. I emphasised that again in our debate a week ago. In response to concerns expressed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Hazel Grove (Andrew Stunell) and peers in the other place, last week I reassured both Houses about the wholly voluntary nature of this new status. I made a commitment that no one can be forced to apply for, or to accept, an employee shareholder job. I announced that the Government had revised and clarified the position for those claiming jobseeker’s allowance. The position now is that jobseekers cannot be compelled to apply for or accept an employee shareholder job if they do not consider it right for them.
Mr Chuka Umunna (Streatham) (Lab)
The Minister has 977 people claiming jobseeker’s allowance in his constituency, and long-term unemployment is up by 10%. Can he confirm that employers in his constituency will be able to make job offers conditional on JSA recipients accepting employee shareholder status, thus giving up most of their fundamental employment rights at the same time? That is the point of departure for many people with the Minister on the issue of whether or not this is voluntary.
Michael Fallon
It is not only voluntary, but I made it clear to the House last week that jobseekers cannot be mandated to accept a job in those particular circumstances, and I cannot make it clearer than that.
In addition, I want to reassure the House that we will not allow individuals to use this employment status for tax avoidance. The Finance Bill includes several measures, such as excluding those who already own 25% of a company and connected persons from benefiting from the capital gains tax exemption.
The will of the elected House has now been expressed twice. However, the other place has again rejected this measure. After considering the concerns expressed by noble Lords, we have laid further amendments to ensure that individuals entering into this employment status fully understand the opportunities and risks involved. I will now set them out.
First, the company must give the individual a written statement of particulars, setting out the employment rights that are not associated with this status and detailing the rights attached to the shares. That will include whether the shares being provided as part of the employee shareholder status have any voting or dividend rights, whether there are rights to have the shares bought back or redeemed, and whether an individual may freely sell the shares to anyone, or if there are restrictions. This written statement is separate from that already required under the Employment Rights Act 1996, which sets out the terms and conditions of the job, and which the employee is entitled to receive within two months of starting work with the employer.
This employee shareholder statement of particulars must be provided in writing before the potential employee shareholder starts the job. It means that an individual can only become an employee shareholder if that has taken place and if the other criteria in the clause are met. The clause ensures that potential employee shareholders understand precisely what the new employment status involves.
Mr Umunna
I am grateful to the Minister for giving way again, but I respectfully completely disagree with him. What guarantee is there that the prospective employee shareholders will even understand that statement? It will be explaining dividends, pre-emption rights and other technical and complex matters. What guarantee is there that they will understand the information in the statement, or know whether to seek further legal advice and have a proper discussion about these matters?
Michael Fallon
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising that point, and I will come on to the issue of the advice that may be available to the employee in those circumstances.
Mr Umunna
I want to return to my previous question about the provision of legal advice to people before they agree to accept employee shareholder status. The Minister said that the Government are reflecting on what advice can be given to such employees, but what is he actually going to do?
Michael Fallon
The hon. Gentleman has seen how we reflected on concerns about permitted developments, and concerns about legal advice were expressed extremely cogently last night. We have sought throughout the passage of the Bill to make absolutely sure—I stressed this as long ago as Second Reading—that nobody should be harassed or bullied into accepting this status. I have made it clear that guidance will be available and our amendments improve that by making sure that there will be a statement of written particulars. There will also be a cooling-off period of some seven days, and we are further considering how we might improve the advice available to those who are considering taking up this status.
Growth and Infrastructure Bill
Debate between Chuka Umunna and Michael Fallon
Michael Fallon
I am grateful to my hon. Friend. We have never specified the type of company that is most likely to take up this new status, but obviously younger companies at the beginning of their lives will be able to use this status at a time when they might not be able to pay their staff more than competitor companies, or those already established in the marketplace. They will therefore have an extra edge to offer to those individuals whom they wish to recruit. We have had much interest already from such companies, who see the new status as an exciting way to motivate their new work forces.
Protections for people do not end there. The Bill confirms that someone can be an employee shareholder only if they are given at least £2,000 worth of shares, and if they are not the person will not be an employee shareholder and will have all the normal employment rights that are associated with employees.
Clause 27 also stipulates that a person can be an employee shareholder only if they receive fully paid up shares. This means that the employee shareholder will not be liable for any debts should the company fold. Of course there will be circumstances where an employee shareholder leaves the business. It should be apparent from all that I have said that it is not the Government’s intention that employee shareholders are left with shares that they can sell back to the company only at prices that are unfair or where the buy-back arrangement would leave the employee shareholder at a financial disadvantage if there is no other way of disposing of the shares for value.
On Report in this House, we introduced an amendment to make a power to allow the Government to set a minimum value for the buy-back of shares if the company and employee shareholder enter into a buy-back agreement. That reserve power will be used, if it is needed, to safeguard employee shareholders in the unlikely event that employers behave unscrupulously. By including these protections we are ensuring that individuals understand the implications of employee status and are genuinely free to decide whether to accept it. No one can be pressurised, bullied or coerced into accepting this new status.
With this announcement of further explicit protection for jobseeker’s allowance claimants, I urge hon. Members to disagree with the other place and reinsert clause 27 into the Bill. The new employment status gives young companies in particular a new option that they can use to attract high-calibre individuals to help grow their business. It is important that we give companies that choice, but it is also important that we give people this opportunity to share in the growth potential of the company they work for. The clause should be part of the Bill.
Mr Chuka Umunna (Streatham) (Lab)
The Opposition agree with Lords amendment 25, which seeks to remove the part of the Bill that provides for the new status to which the Minister referred.
Let me start by making an observation. We are debating the Bill the day before many in the country will pause to observe the funeral of the late Baroness Thatcher. Coincidentally, in supporting the Lords amendment to dump the Government’s proposal, we find ourselves in the extraordinary position of being on the same side of the fence as at least four of her former Ministers: Lord Lawson, Lord Forsyth, Lord Deben and Lord King. The reason for this unusual state of affairs is simple. Notwithstanding the admittedly notable concession that the Minister has just given, this is an ill-thought-out and bad idea, and that is why there is strong cross-party opposition. Lord Forsyth put it well in the Lords when he said that the proposal
“has all the trappings of something that was thought up by someone in the bath”.—[Official Report, House of Lords, 20 March 2013; Vol. 744, c. 614.]
I have to say that I agree with Lord Forsyth on another matter, too. I cannot understand why my opposite number, the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, the right hon. Member for Twickenham (Vince Cable), who I note is not here today, is going along with this. The Business Secretary engaged in some considerable media in respect of the Beecroft proposals, and said how outrageous they would be. I am, of course, aware that the Minister perhaps has a different view. As Lord Forsyth said, at least Beecroft did not take away entitlement to redundancy payments. This is worse than Beecroft because it does.
There are a number of reasons why we support the Lords amendment. They were all mentioned in the other place and we wholeheartedly agree with them. First, this is supposed to be a “growth” Bill. No evidence whatever appears to have been adduced by the Government to show how this measure would boost growth. The attitude of businesses, at its most generous, is divided; at its worst, it is overwhelmingly opposed to the measure. In the latest published survey of 700 companies by Barclays Corporate, which was published this week, the proposal appears to find favour with just 25% of respondents. In the Government’s own consultation, only five businesses out of the 200 responses received showed any interest in taking up the scheme.
Secondly, why connect employee ownership, for which there is widespread support in all parts of the House, with giving up rights to not be unfairly dismissed, redundancy pay, flexible working and time off for training? No coherent answer has been provided by the Government during the Bill’s passage through this House or the House of Lords. In fact, as the Conservative Baroness, Lady Wheatcroft, said, their proposal simply risks giving employee ownership a bad name. After all, if businesses with employee shareholders are looking to carry out a redundancy programme, who are they likely to let go first?
Oral Answers to Questions
Debate between Chuka Umunna and Michael Fallon(11 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (Michael Fallon)
The Export Control Organisation is currently meeting its primary target of approving 70% of licence applications within 20 working days. Last year, it met its secondary target of approving 95% within 60 working days. However, I well understand the frustration of legitimate exporters. The ECO is working with the Foreign Office to improve performance still further.
Mr Chuka Umunna (Streatham) (Lab)
The EU Council is gathering as we speak. From the common agricultural policy to the absurdity of the European Parliament sitting in two places, it is clear that the EU needs reform. It is also clear—to the extent that any reform involves a significant transfer of power from Parliament to the EU—that we all agree there should be a referendum. Does the Secretary of State agree that, although reform is crucial, the immediate priority for British business is to grow our economy, and that continued membership of the EU is fundamental to that goal?
Growth and Infrastructure Bill
Debate between Chuka Umunna and Michael Fallon(11 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Michael Fallon
I certainly accept that point. What comes between the intentions and the outcome is the guidance. There is currently guidance to all staff in jobcentres, and I have already undertaken for my right hon. Friend that we will amend it. However, we will not simply amend it to put my words of tonight into it; we will consult all the various stakeholders involved on how we can make sure that it properly reflects what both he and I want to do.
Mr Umunna
I am not very comforted by the Minister’s comments, because he seems to be suggesting that there would be circumstances in which it would be unreasonable for a prospective employee to turn down a job offer if it were conditional on employee-owner status. Will he, for the benefit of Jobcentre Plus employees, make it clear that if they have a jobseeker’s allowance claimant who refuses to take a job offer because they do not wish to have employee-owner status and lose their rights, no sanctions should be levied on that prospective employee in terms of the deduction of any benefit or any other adverse consequence? Will he make that clear for the record?
Michael Fallon
I am happy to make it as clear as I can. By the way, I think that it is somewhat unlikely that the jobcentre applicant in this case will be offered a significant number of shares and then still find himself unable to take up the position. Let us be clear about how the jobcentre system works: these decisions about sanctions are taken on an individual, case-by-case basis. What I am announcing tonight is that the guidance will make it very clear as to the reasons that the employee had to have before having his benefit sanctioned.
Let me turn to the second point raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Hazel Grove, which is the only really serious issue about this new employment status. As he and my hon. Friend the Member for Burnley have said, it is a voluntary status. No one on the Government Benches wants employees to be pressurised, harassed or bullied into accepting it. We therefore want to ensure that no individual can be coerced into accepting an employee-shareholder contract. Throughout all the discussions since the policy was announced, there have been concerns that existing employees—not new employees, but existing employees—might be coerced into accepting these contracts. I have been very clear that the new status is entirely voluntary, but I wholly accept that it needs to be seen as such.
Amendment 40, tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Hazel Grove, seeks to ensure that existing employees are not coerced into the new employment status. The principle behind the amendment is right and the Government support that principle. Indeed, we think there is a stronger way of ensuring that no detriment will arise in the Bill than by relying on secondary regulation, and that is why we have tabled amendments 64 and 65.
Government amendment 64 creates a new right not to suffer detriment if an employee refuses to sign an employee-shareholder contract. This means that if an employee has been overlooked for promotion or has been disadvantaged in any other way because of that refusal, he may then be able to present a claim to an employment tribunal.
Government amendment 65 creates a new unfair dismissal right. This means that if an employee is sacked because he has refused to accept an employee-shareholder contract, this will be regarded as automatically unfair. Importantly, both these rights will apply from day one of an employee’s contract. That means that employees are protected from the first day of their service. I want to place that beyond doubt. Employees cannot be taken on and then, on day two, be forced to become employee shareholders.
Business and the Economy
Debate between Chuka Umunna and Michael Fallon(12 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Chuka Umunna (Streatham) (Lab)
Thank you, Mr Speaker. I shall try to achieve that aim.
In responding to Her Majesty’s Gracious Speech, let us first take stock of the state of our economy and British business. Following the 2008-09 financial crash, born in the banking sector, to which the Secretary of State has already referred, the economy went into recession, like many others around the world, but thanks to the action that Labour took in office, we prevented that recession from turning into a depression and got the economy growing again. In so doing, we ensured that the pain of recovery was shared fairly, so that those with the broadest shoulders bore the heaviest burden.
When the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats took office, unemployment was falling, the economy was growing and the recovery was settling in. Consequently, borrowing in the last year of the Labour Government was £20 billion lower than forecast, because our approach was working. Today, the UK economy has not grown since the Government’s spending review, unemployment has soared beyond 2.6 million and 50 businesses are going under every single day. As a result, we are now in a double-dip recession created by this Government, and what is more, they are borrowing £150 billion more than forecast to pay for their failures. And who is bearing the burden of their policies? While taking tax credits away from families who want to stay off benefit and in work, they have given a tax break of more than £40,000 to millionaires. So they are unfair and out of touch as well as incompetent.
At the ballot box a couple of weeks ago, the public made it clear what they thought of the policies of the two governing parties. This is what the Business Secretary said about that vote of no confidence a couple of days after his party’s drubbing:
“as a party we’ve got to maintain our identity, we’re going to work in the coalition but by the time we get to the election we’ll be an independent force with our own values competing independently and I think those are the elements that will form the basis of our recovery.”
For all the murmurings of discontent from the Secretary of State, for all the attempts at differentiation and threats to press the nuclear button, the simple fact is that he, the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, sitting next to him, and their Liberal Democrat colleagues have all facilitated and voted for the things that their Government are doing but which are holding back our businesses and economy. They have waved through—more often than not, enthusiastically—all those things that the public made it clear they disliked a couple of weeks ago. For the avoidance of doubt, then, the Conservative’s out-of-touch and unfair economic policies are the Liberal Democrats’ unfair and out-of-touch economic policies; and the Prime Minister and the Chancellor’s incompetence is the Liberal Democrats’ incompetence. No amount of differentiation or smoke and mirrors will change that now or by the general election.
Michael Fallon (Sevenoaks) (Con)
I thank the shadow Secretary of State for giving way so early in his speech. Does he not recall the Governor of the Bank of England describing the Government’s economic policy as a “perfectly sensible” “textbook response”? Why is the Governor wrong and he right?
Mr Umunna
In case the hon. Gentleman has not noticed, we are in a double-dip recession. That says something about his party’s policies, given that, as I have just said, it inherited an economy that was growing, unemployment that was falling and a recovery that was setting in.
Before the Queen’s Speech, there was, of course, the Budget. Let us remember what people said about it. The general secretary of the TUC said:
“We needed a Budget that looked to the future and made jobs - particularly for young people - the national priority… Instead we have got a Budget by the rich for the rich.”
The chief executive of the Forum of Private Business said:
“what small businesses and the economy need are confident strides forward now. Largely, that has not happened in this Budget.”
People were looking in the Queen’s Speech for signs that Ministers understood what people were telling them—to change course and to put in place policies that will deliver an economy that works for working people and businesses, and the building blocks upon which a new economy can be built.
Did the Queen’s Speech deliver the change that people and businesses signalled they wanted to see? There are things that we welcome, subject to the small print being worked through. I have given the Business Secretary credit for ensuring that the Government established the Independent Commission on Banking. We are playing our part, in a cross-party spirit as far as possible, to implement its recommendations, and will look at the detail when it is published. The Government, by their own admission, said that they were bequeathed one of the best competition regimes in the world by this party. The Business Secretary will need to demonstrate that the creation of the single competition and markets authority—which he has just spoken about—will improve on that legacy, not squander it.
Our 2010 manifesto included plans to create a supermarkets ombudsman to protect farmers and food suppliers from unfair and uncompetitive practices by major retailers. The Government are taking that forward through the grocery adjudicator, which the Secretary of State has mentioned. We will work to ensure that the grocery adjudicator is given powers to ensure fair access across the supply chain. In office we set up the primary authority scheme—which he also mentioned—to help reduce the local regulatory burden on firms. The enterprise Bill will extend that to include more businesses, which is welcome. The Secretary of State also referred to the changes to parental leave. Again, we will look at the details, but on the whole, that does not sound like a bad measure.
We were told that the enterprise Bill would contain measures on executive remuneration—something the Secretary of State has just repeated. In order to build a more productive and responsible capitalism, it is important to ensure that we bring an end to rewards for failure and the excessive pay we have seen, which is bad for our economy and our businesses. On both sides of the House we agree that change and reform must be led by shareholders and investors with Government support. In office, we were the ones who introduced the advisory shareholder votes on remuneration reports, which have been causing a lot of news recently.
Mr Umunna
That quote has already been used. I would say two things to that. The hon. Gentleman, who studies these matters keenly as a writer for The Financial Times, will know that Christine Lagarde, the head of the International Monetary Fund, has said that to have a credible fiscal policy, we need growth. The problem is that there has been no growth since the comprehensive spending review. Secondly, we have had historically low interest rates on our sovereign debt and, of course, we control our own monetary policy, which has helped matters.
Mr Umunna
I am not saying that the Governor of the Bank of England was wrong. What I am saying is that we need growth for a credible fiscal policy. Many, including Government Members, would not necessarily argue that the Governor has always been right, particularly during the 2008-09 crisis.
The people have spoken, our businesses have spoken, families up and down this country have spoken, but the Government do not want to listen, so they persist with the same failed economic strategy, the same failed approach, exemplified in their Finance Bill carried through from the last Session with its granny tax, caravan tax, pasty tax and tax break for millionaires.
What of measures to put in place the building blocks for our economy in the long term? Was any change signalled in this Queen’s Speech? The Business Secretary famously wrote to the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister about industrial policy, outlining his and their failures. He quite rightly argued in his letter for Government to adopt an industrial policy. He said he sensed that there was “something important missing” from what the Government were and are doing—and that was “a compelling vision” of where the country was headed beyond deficit reduction. He rightly said, too, that
“market forces are insufficient for creating the long term industrial capacities we need”
and that
“we should be willing to identify British success stories as identified through success in trade and explicitly get behind them at the highest political level.”
That is precisely what we did in government in respect of the automotive industry—and we are now reaping the rewards from that.
The problem for the Business Secretary is that the Chancellor and the Prime Minister do not buy into active government and industrial policy. To their names we can add that of the Foreign Secretary as another roadblock to the active Government and industrial policy that those who own and work in businesses want to see. What evidence is there in the Queen’s Speech that the Business Secretary has been able to exercise any influence over these roadblocks to bring about a change of approach? None whatsoever.
The Business Secretary’s letter identified our energy and low-carbon industries as an important sector. We are told—the Business Secretary mentioned it—that the enterprise and regulatory reform Bill will include provisions to set up the green investment bank, which is an essential component of an industrial policy for a low-carbon economy. According to conventional definitions, however, a bank is an entity that borrows and lends money. Given the absence of those capacities and capabilities, we are left not with a body that can be called a bank, but with a fund. That is the only proper name that we can give to this initiative. It is not planned to become a bank until 2016, and will do so then only if public sector net debt is falling as a percentage of GDP at that point, which is by no means certain.
Often cited by the Business Secretary as evidence of an industrial policy, or industrial strategy, is the regional growth fund, and that was exposed as a complete shambles by the independent National Audit Office on Friday. The Deputy Prime Minister and the Business Secretary have been going around the country boasting that the scheme will create half a million jobs. What did the National Audit Office tell us on Friday? Only 41,000 jobs will be created, and many of them would have been created in any event. The House will remember that the Government abolished the future jobs fund on the basis that it was too expensive. It was claimed that each job created from that fund cost £6,500. How much did the NAO tell us each of these jobs has cost us? Up to £200,000.
While I am at it, let me thank the Minister of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr Prisk)—who has been chuntering from a sedentary position—for the letter that we all received from him inviting us to encourage businesses in our constituencies to bid for RGF money last week. In that letter, he said
“my officials are ready to help”
and
“there will be plenty of opportunities for bidders to meet the appraisal team to discuss their ideas before the bidding deadline”.
There is, of course, a small snag. The NAO told us that the fund started off with 12 economists seconded from other Departments to process these matters. They all returned to their home Departments before due diligence on the first round of bids began, and the fund had no dedicated administration budget. Let us hope that there are some officials left for us to see.