Smart Meters Bill (Fifth sitting)

Clive Lewis Excerpts

Committee Debate: 5th sitting: House of Commons
Tuesday 28th November 2017 Public Bill Committees

[Dr Whitehead]

A future Secretary of State does not necessarily have to have quite the intents suggested by the Members making non-verbal interventions. I can easily envisage such circumstances. For example, bearing in mind that the present DCC is set up as the subsidiary of a private company—

[Clive Lewis (Norwich South) (Lab)]

A cartel.

[Dr Whitehead]

Indeed. The DCC was established in a deliberate way. In effect, there was an auction to decide who would run the DCC after it was set up and it was put into the realm of Capita, so the established DCC is a subsidiary of that company. However, if a future Government thought that it was a particularly bad idea for the DCC to be a subsidiary of Capita, or any other company, they might decide that it was worth enduring the hiatus in the roll-out in order to recast how the DCC operates. It is not beyond consideration that such a Government might think, “The easiest way to do this is by taking the licensable activities away from the DCC as it stands”—in its present arrangement—“and introducing new licensing arrangements.” Having done that under clause 1, to establish a DCC that would not be a subsidiary of Capita, there might be a different arrangement.

Some Members might think that that Government would be pretty misguided, and possibly fairly reckless, in putting the roll-out in jeopardy. But the fact that I have set out a scenario in which a Government, acting on a reasonable and rational consideration, might do that—whether or not one thinks it is a reasonable thing to do—indicates that one could easily envisage circumstances, contrary to what the Minister says, in which the power accorded by clause 1 could be implemented for purposes that we might not think would be helpful to the roll-out of smart meters but could easily be undertaken. Therefore, although that scenario is not very likely, having a line in the legislation to prevent it from happening seems to me a prudent way to proceed.

--- Later in debate ---

[Richard Harrington]

I understand the purpose of the amendment well. On the surface, it seems to be a good thing. Transparency is good anyway, and I will argue that the provision would lead to transparency. It is reasonable to argue that this is an important matter and that we want everyone to know what is going on. We are all here because we are part of a democratic process; I do not think anyone could disagree with that principle.

However, I cannot agree with the hon. Members for Southampton, Test and for Birmingham, Selly Oak because of what the amendment would mean in practice for the administration. Thankfully, none of us have experience of this kind of public, as opposed to commercial, administration—I know that is not quite the technical word—and I accept that. By the way, there will be plenty of legal requirements on the administration, which I will come to in a minute. It is just totally unrealistic for an administrator, given those requirements and all the complexities that it will have to deal with, unlikely though it might be, to spend hours ensuring that the public—I think this is what the amendment would mean—are kept informed of all the administrator’s moves, given that administrators have to meet plenty of requirements. I ask the Committee to bear that in mind; I cannot accept what the hon. Gentlemen said. That is not because we are secretly against transparency or anything like that.

[Clive Lewis]

It is not so much that the administrator would need to keep the public informed of every step they were taking, but that if the public, MPs or parliamentarians or others were interested, they would have access to the information to ensure that lessons could be learned in the future, if they felt that that was a requirement. Rather than the administrator giving out the information, it would be for the public or others to access the information; they would be able to access it.

Smart Meters Bill (Fourth sitting)

Clive Lewis Excerpts

Committee Debate: 4th sitting: House of Commons
Thursday 23rd November 2017 Public Bill Committees

We come back again to the DCC, which I know some people are cynical about, including some hon. Members today. One of the benefits of the DCC system, however, is that we believe that the greater certainty provided by the operation of the SMETS 1 meters, as adapted to DCC, will increase the uptake of churn contracts.

[Clive Lewis (Norwich South) (Lab)]

Having listened to the amendment moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak, I think he is articulating a market failure. I am listening to you quite carefully.

[The Chair]

Mr Lewis, you are not listening to me; you are listening to the Minister.

[Clive Lewis]

I apologise. It seems to me that the Minister is ignoring the fact that many of these meters are being switched to being dumb meters. Therefore it seems that this system is not working and the market is failing. The Minister may say that the market is working, but it is not, because so many meters are being switched to dumb meters.

[Richard Harrington]

I actively disagree with the hon. Gentleman. I accept the problem—whether it is 4%, 20% or the numbers that have been talked about that do not work—but I do not view that as an aspect of market failure. In my submission, market failure would mean the charge being 400% or 500% of the cost of manufacture. I regard it as a failure, but a technical failure that we hope will be changed within months by the operability technical changes, as I explained. I understand what the hon. Gentleman means, but I do not regard it as market failure. My contention is that the regulation of the supply, or the ability to regulate, as the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak mentioned, would not have made a difference to the technical failure side of it.

Smart Meters Bill (Second sitting)

Clive Lewis Excerpts

Committee Debate: 2nd Sitting: House of Commons
Tuesday 21st November 2017 Public Bill Committees

[Stephen Kerr]

Q I will be brief. My question is about engagement and awareness. We are talking about this smart meter roll-out in the context of the fourth industrial revolution and about what should be a centrepiece of national infrastructure renewal in that revolution. My concern is that there is not a lot of public awareness of the total picture of smart meters in the context of the smart grid and the smart economy. I do not think that there is a lot, but what is your experience? Is enough being done to raise awareness? What more can be done?

Sacha Deshmukh: You raise a good point. I am very enthusiastic about the smart British future. Consumer experience in terms of public engagement, particularly with nationally led projects, always teaches you to be very balanced and clear about the benefits available now, what they are building towards, when they will be available and the reality of that. It is about wanting to ensure that people can continue to trust the promise. Not least, all our communications through different channels are regulated by the Advertising Standards Authority, the Committee of Advertising Practice, the broadcast codes and so on. We need to be accurate in the promise to consumers today and give accurate expectations, but I very much take on board what you say.

For a number of our areas of activity, talking about why this matters for the bigger picture will be increasingly important. A consumer spoke to me recently in a focus group. Apropos of nothing, without any information, they essentially summed up an entire sustainable, reliable energy vision that really was a 60 to 100-page BEIS document. They got it and summed it up instantly, so you are right that the consumer appetite is strong. We just need to balance that with the accuracy of the promise to the consumer in the immediate term as well.

Dhara Vyas: I agree with Sacha. The only thing I would add is that I think we have to remember that not all consumers will either want, or be able to, engage. Customers and consumers need varying levels of support to engage with the benefit of not just smart meters but, as you say, the whole wider agenda. Smart meters may be the first internet-enabled thing in the home and it is really important that all consumers are supported to interact with it as much as they want to, or might not want to. There are always going to be some consumers who don’t want to and they should not be penalised for that.

[Clive Lewis (Norwich South) (Lab)]

Q My question follows on from that. In terms of your own organisation, when does your contract run out for what you are doing?

Sacha Deshmukh: Our organisation exists to support the roll-out, so our lifespan will be that of the roll-out.

[Clive Lewis]

Q Okay. Obviously, there are provisions in the Bill to extend the Secretary of State’s powers until 2023. Do you feel there is enough provision in the Bill beyond initial roll-out? It is very possible that many people will have this box on their wall at some point in the near future. There are 250 SMETS 2 and more SMETS 1. What is to stop those from being just boxes on a large number of people’s walls that bleep at them every so often? Where is the process for people to be able to engage past 2020, 2023, to be able to get the most from these boxes? No doubt the technology will develop; at the moment it is simply that a little figure will tell you how much energy you are using at the right time, and that will be swapped between you and the energy supplier. What about when people want to engage in some complicated manoeuvring on their SMETS 2 box—where will they get the support for that? It feels to me at the moment that you get a very complex box on your wall that can do lots of magical things, but who is going to explain that to you—who is going to support you in that process?

Sacha Deshmukh: During the lifespan of the roll-out, clearly supporter behaviour changes; that is an important part of our responsibilities. I am very excited that our organisation’s targets for next year have been set so that we will really be pushing in this area; there are enough consumers who now have the product for us to really help their behaviour, and it makes sense to do so. Looking forward—though you might say that I am speaking against my own interests and my own organisation—it is always important not to replicate bodies when other bodies exist that already serve consumers in different ways. It was absolutely right, given the scale and intensity of the roll-out, for there to be a body to engage around the roll-out. However, there are other organisations, such as the Energy Saving Trust, Citizens Advice and others. Liverpool John Moores University is looking into what could be done to support people with dementia using this technology. The Energy Saving Trust is looking into how the data could be used. I think that a plethora of organisations could best support consumers, alongside greater automation in the future. It may be counter to my interests not to argue intensively that it must be us; but I think that as this roll-out reaches its conclusions and you have the whole country taking that step forward, people should be looking at which organisations are most relevant to people’s lives. They should support the use of this service and create new services for consumers provided by the organisations that they recognise, rather than necessarily having a different body for all time to come.

Dhara Vyas: I agree with Sacha. The SMETS 2 meter is not the key thing here; it is about what it enables and what access to information via the DCC enables. Whether it is healthcare, peer-to-peer selling or generating of energy, there will be a market around it. We are beginning to think through the regulatory impacts of that and the consumer journey as well. How messy will it be to unpick who to go to for what support and help? Will that fall under the auspices of Ofgem, or a different consumer protection body? It is a really exciting future. Potentially it could be messy—if something were to go wrong for a consumer, how would we unpick those problems? The governance and regulation of these future disruptive technologies also needs to be thought through quite carefully.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Whitehead]

That is what I do not know. That is why I am asking the question.

[Clive Lewis]

Q In terms of the versatility of the smart metering data that you touched on, Richard, it was quite sobering to hear you say that that has never worked for you. We can probably quite accurately talk to suppliers about the build and so on, but I am thinking of all the other things, such as the heating being attached to movement sensors so that it goes off when you leave the house and, by talking to your phone, switches back on when you are due to arrive back in 15 minutes. Google can do that already.

Obviously, the cheapest and greenest energy is the energy that we do not use, so that is fantastic on the demand side, which we do not focus on enough in this country. You are saying that that is not really working. I wonder whether this legislation is the place where this will happen. Is there anything in this legislation that you feel is sufficient to give you encouragement that that will happen in the future, or are there holes in it that mean that those data and that potential will never be realised?

Dr Richard Fitton: There is nothing in the Bill that would cover that element. There is guidance around the periphery of the Bill and the licensing Acts and things like that, but there is nothing specific.

[Clive Lewis]

Q Does it need it?

Dr Richard Fitton: The consumer needs a route to access their real time data from the home area network. That needs a procedure to be put in place because that is the keystone.

Dr Sarah Darby: I wonder whether we are a little at cross-purposes here, because I am thinking of the in-home display as the way that the customer accesses that information. But I think you are talking about stuff talking to stuff.

Dr Richard Fitton: I am talking about stuff talking to stuff. The home area network—I will not do the thing with the cups—is provided in the smart meter itself that things can attach to. The consumer access device talks to that via a Zigbee principle and says, “Here is your data.” You can stream it, save it, and pass it on to other appliances.

[Clive Lewis]

Q When we talk about something that is at the heart of the demand side of the fourth industrial revolution, I guess you would expect us to be planning some years ahead to be able to make use of emerging technologies. What you seem to be saying at the moment is that this Bill does not do that. It is quite limited in its purview.

Dr Richard Fitton: Technology developers I am working with now are trying to make that work. That is how savings can be brought about. It helps things like grid smoothing and demand-load shift.

Dr Sarah Darby: I would add that it is important to consider stuff talking to people through the display. When people ask for a smart meter, or when they are getting one, the bit they are really interested in—almost always—is the display. The single most powerful reason people have for wanting or appreciating a smart meter is that they get visibility of their energy use.

The knock-on effect from that is also very important in terms of the future energy outlook. For example, no amount of smart technology will insulate your walls for you. There are still a lot of unsmart things that need to be done to our building stock in this country, for example, that the smart revolution will not actually do.

On the other hand, if smart technology can be used to communicate to people to get them thinking more about what can be done, and if it can be combined with advice and guidance so that they have clearer ideas about what options are open to them—if there is support for the metering in that way—a lot can be done to take us forward. I want to emphasise that aspect of it as well, in terms of communication.

Dr Richard Fitton: We are carrying out that type of work with the International Energy Agency—taking in this data and processing it in such a way that building physics can be incorporated with the algorithm so that we can then say, “These buildings are likely to need some type of intervention to make them cheaper, more fuel efficient and more comfortable for the occupant.”

[Douglas Ross (Moray) (Con)]

Q Dr Darby, in the information you provided you said that it is important to conduct the remaining smart roll-out well rather than do so at speed, and then you gave three main reasons for that. I am not sure whether you were here for the evidence session this morning, but I raised concerns about my own constituency in Moray in the north-east of Scotland, and other more remote and rural areas, where people want smart meters but the installation is not happening particularly quickly.

One of your main concerns about rolling out quickly is that customers will feel pressured into adopting smart meters; yet I have constituents who want smart meters but cannot get them. For example, a village hall, the Houldsworth Institute in Dallas, has had people out to try to get one installed, but there is no mobile phone reception—it is in a blackspot. How do you think your evidence relates to people who want to see the roll-out far quicker, but are hampered because the technologies do not allow it or we do not have enough installations happening in the more remote and rural areas compared with the more urban areas?

Dr Sarah Darby: That would be an argument for paying special attention to such areas and thinking how that could be addressed. It does seem to me that the strength of the programme so far is that it is voluntary, and that the early learning is being done by people who are already well-disposed to it and will perhaps put up with any kind of teething glitches that go on. They will adapt and then, if they are satisfied, will pass the word on to others so that others will want a smart meter too.

If we speed up, the amount of attention paid to the installation process will almost inevitably drop off. There will be pressure on installers just to go into a building, put the kit in and get out, and not to spend time doing the things that customers have said they appreciate about the roll-out so far: having someone who will explain stuff to them and show them how to use the equipment, and having that level of support to the installation. If we lose that through speeding up the whole process, the programme will suffer greatly in the long run.

Royal Mail Delivery Office Closures

Clive Lewis Excerpts

Wednesday 11th October 2017 Westminster Hall

[Clive Lewis (Norwich South) (Lab)]

It is an honour to speak in this debate under your chairmanship, Mr Gapes, and I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes) for securing it. It is a fantastic debate.

I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill (Hugh Gaffney) for a fantastic speech. Many on the Opposition Benches hope that his five-year career break will be a lot longer than five years. We need to hear his voice in this place, and it is a privilege to speak after him.

One of the key reasons why Opposition Members are opposed to the privatisation of national public assets such as Royal Mail is that we see no benefit for the country as a whole, just a benefit for a small handful of individuals who profit at the expense of the many. The number of Labour MPs who have turned out for this debate is instructive, while the sterling turnout on the Government Benches is a tumbleweed turnout—no one to speak up for the Government side, except of course for the Minister.

The British post has been one of the best in the world for almost two centuries: fast, reliable and much cheaper than that of nearly other country in the world. Also, it is—or was—a technological leader. It is widely envied throughout the world, not least because it has been a key historical driver in the UK economy.

When we opposed privatisation, we did so because we predicted that the only things it would lead to would be a worse service to the public and, as usual, the resulting extra profits being scooped off by the usual small cosy elites. I have to say that it looks like that is exactly what has happened. I will not go into the details, which we heard from Members earlier, because time is pressing.

I will say, however, that as the service is being squeezed, assets are literally being flogged off, with £200 million in property sales since privatisation. Fat dividend payouts to shareholders are estimated at £1 billion over the four years post-privatisation, and there have been the huge pay rises for senior managers for whom the word “privatisation” is like the word “Christmas” for a five-year-old. In 2016-17, Royal Mail’s chief executive, Moya Greene—I think my hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill told her, poignantly, to get her arse to the negotiating table and negotiate with the CWU—saw her total pay package increase by 23% to £1.9 million. I could not even begin to think about how to spend that.

The Conservative party likes to present itself as the party of business, the real world and responsibility, but in reality it is the complete opposite. It has taken a key component of a modern manufacturing economy, which is already a world leader in its field in nearly all measures, and has undermined it and hollowed it out to skim off short-term profits and shower them like confetti on a small, self-seeking minority. It has achieved much of that by chipping away at the quality of service and flogging off assets for one-time profit hits. The other obvious target for the vulture capitalists and asset strippers is the rights of the workforce, with attacks on pensions, pay and agreements.

On pensions, there is a new scheme that, according to Royal Mail’s own pension trustees, will produce pensions so small that Royal Mail pensioners will live in poverty. Who will make up the living standards of those workers? Other taxpayers, naturally. Once again, the management of a privatised asset have transferred costs on to the shoulders of us ordinary taxpayers and shovelled the profits into their own pockets. We can be pretty confident that plenty of that profit will find its way out of the country and to the spivvy tax havens of the rich, where it will be of almost no benefit to this country’s economy.

On pay, I have already mentioned Moya Greene’s generous offer to herself of a 23% pay increase this year. What has she offered her workers? A below-inflation pay offer. Let us call that what it is: a pay cut.

On industrial agreements, there has been an attempt to ram through huge alterations to agreements reached with workers through the CWU. Let us be clear: Royal Mail is reneging on its deals. It has already been mentioned that, unsurprisingly, when balloted on strike action, on a 73% turnout, 89% of Royal Mail workers voted for strike action. That is as clear a mandate as any decision ever gets, and in a healthy work culture it is a clear signal to management to start re-thinking their policies. But that is not where we are. Instead, management have merely threatened legal action against their employees—a bully-boy tactic that they are unlikely to use because they fear the cost of their likely defeat in court.

What my constituents want, and what the country needs, is not macho posturing by Royal Mail management. Nor do we need to see them handing one another more fat-cat bonuses and closing down more services. The actions of companies like Royal Mail affect all of us and none of us can ignore them, even if we wish to. That means that management need to consider their social licence to operate—the consent that the people, through their elected representatives, give them to operate. I believe that they have lost it. Without that, they do not have a right to be there and to do what they are doing to Royal Mail.

Oral Answers to Questions

Clive Lewis Excerpts

Tuesday 12th September 2017 Commons Chamber

[Claire Perry]

My hon. Friend’s question demonstrates his deep knowledge in this area, but I am happy to reassure him that my Department’s follow-up, which was published in February this year, to the biomass energy counterfactual study that he references showed that the UK’s imported biomass is both sustainable and carbon beneficial. Although there is a risk of non-sustainable practices, they are not happening thanks to our strict sustainability criteria, and we continue to monitor the situation, because we are determined to maintain our global reputation for clean growth.

[Clive Lewis (Norwich South) (Lab)]

19. Pope Francis warned yesterday that history will judge adversely politicians who do not act on climate change, so when will the Government heed his words and publish their long overdue report and fifth carbon budget emissions reduction plan?

[Claire Perry]

Again, I refer back to the fact that politicians, led by the hon. Gentleman’s colleagues and with cross-party support, published in 2008 the world’s first legally binding plan to reduce emissions. We also led the world in the Paris agreement that out set long-term, binding targets for the rest of the world. He should be proud of what we have achieved in this House and should join us in spreading the word that the UK is a leader in clean growth. Given the results of yesterday’s auctions, there is no longer a trade-off to be made between the cost of energy production and clean growth. We can both decarbonise and grow the economy, and he should be jolly well proud of that.

Post Office Closures

Clive Lewis Excerpts

Tuesday 25th April 2017 Westminster Hall

[Clive Lewis (Norwich South) (Lab)]

I am grateful to the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) for securing today’s debate on this extremely worthy subject, given that it could be one of the last debates we have in this Parliament. I declare an interest as a proud trade unionist. I believe that the Communication Workers Union has done as much as anyone. It has put post office closures at the forefront of political debate and campaigns in communities, such as the one I represent in Norwich South, to defend vital public services—the Post Office is a vital service.

The issue needs to be aired thoroughly, not least because of the job losses that sit behind the closures, and the substitution of good jobs with insecurity, and not just because it shows the Government’s contempt for those who responded to the closure consultations, who contributed time and expertise, and took the process seriously, only to be met with silence from the Government. Perhaps the Minister could today touch on the reason for that.

It needs to be aired not just because the closure of Crown branches is very likely to have a negative impact on the Post Office’s overall revenue—some might describe that as deliberate managed decline. For me, a key issue that draws the impacts together is this Government’s attitude to communities and those who live in them. When branches are closed or franchised, the lives of many of the people we are here to represent get a little bit worse. The small amount of research that we have points to a longer time spent queuing, lower levels of expert advice and poorer disabled access—in short, a poorer service.

I feel strongly that we must add to that a further erosion of what it means to live in vibrant community—a place that has resources and services that are not dependent simply on the ongoing existence of WH Smith; where people and the details and experiences of their lives count; where the expertise of those such as postal workers is valued; and where we can rely on their support to run our businesses, send parcels to our families, and send and receive goods. We do so in the knowledge that those serving us fully participate in our community, and that those with disabilities can be part of that normal life.

Every week we make 17 million visits to post offices. That is not a niche activity but part of ordinary life. Chipping away at that is yet another example of this Government’s thinning out of everyday life. Those are policy choices and those who make them erode the quality of people’s lives.

Oral Answers to Questions

Clive Lewis Excerpts

Tuesday 31st January 2017 Commons Chamber

[Jesse Norman]

I absolutely share my right hon. Friend’s view that major infrastructure investment is an important part, although only a part, of the wider overall investment that can be made in this country as part of the industrial strategy. He is right to suggest that those wider considerations must be balanced by a tempered assessment of value for money, and that is what we will be giving them.

[Clive Lewis (Norwich South) (Lab)]

With all due respect to the Minister, may I tell him that his Department simply not dragging its heels is not good enough? The Hendry report recommends that Ministers

“secure the pathfinder project as swiftly as possible”.

I can promise that he will have the full support of the Members on this side of the House for doing that, although I am unsure that he would have the same support from those behind him. Will he therefore press the Chancellor for an agreement on the Swansea tidal lagoon, to be announced in the March Budget?

[Jesse Norman]

I admire the hon. Gentleman’s dexterity in turning three weeks into foot-dragging. Given his rabbinical scrutiny of the Hendry review, I shall simply remind him that it specifically asks the Government to give these issues careful consideration, and that is what we will be doing.

--- Later in debate ---

[Greg Clark]

I am never too busy for Morecambe and Lunesdale, and I know what a passionate campaigner my hon. Friend has been for the business prospects in his area. If I may, I will talk to the Minister responsible for the northern powerhouse, who has responsibility for enterprise zones—I am sure he will be happy to have a meeting with my hon. Friend.

[Clive Lewis (Norwich South) (Lab)]

The Secretary of State’s plan to impose arbitrary cuts on the pensions of 16,000 nuclear energy workers, 7,000 of them in Copeland, threatens industrial relations in a key sector. I urge him to take the opportunity, at this week’s meeting with trade unions, to end his attack on workers who power our country and abandon the raid on their pensions before the industry is plunged into chaos.

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

I met the unions last week, and we had some constructive, although undoubtedly robust, conversations. The discussion continues and we hope it will end constructively.

Industrial Strategy Consultation

Clive Lewis Excerpts

Monday 23rd January 2017 Commons Chamber

[Clive Lewis (Norwich South) (Lab)]

I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of his statement, on this occasion.

Today would be a momentous day if it was indeed the day that the Conservative party finally broke free from the free-market fundamentalism that has dogged it, and the country, for decades. Will the Secretary of State tell us whether the “new, active” role for the state means that the Government are abandoning the approach of the last Prime Minister and Chancellor—and of the Secretary of State’s own predecessor, who even banned the term “industrial strategy” from the previous Department? If so, I will make it clear at the outset that we welcome that, alongside the good intentions set out in today’s Green Paper. The question is whether the details will live up to them.

For example, action on skills will be widely welcomed, given the challenges presented by automation and the pace of technological challenge and change, but this Government have already cut adult education by over £1 billion. Can the Secretary of State explain how £170 million of one-off capital spending can even begin to close the skills gap?

Nor will the Government themselves be equipped to support an industrial strategy if the Secretary of State’s predecessor’s cuts are implemented. Can he confirm that the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills 2020 project has now been thrown in the bin, along with the rest of his predecessor’s legacy?

The Secretary of State rightly sets the goal of developing a competitive edge in the industries of the future, but how does he reconcile this with his Government’s plan to privatise the UK Green Investment Bank? If the Secretary of State is serious about tackling our productivity crisis, will he go beyond piecemeal offers and finally bring investment in R and D and infrastructure into line with the OECD average? Will the Secretary of State promise a fundamental rethink of business rates, which many businesses say would help them much more than any other single measure? Does the Secretary of State agree that a successful industrial strategy must include partnership and co-operation with the workforce? Yet the Green Paper does not mention trade unions once; surely now is the time to promise that the toxic Trade Union Act 2016 will be repealed.

Steel is a critical sector for our future economy, but it is mentioned only once in the Green Paper. Will the Secretary of State commit to implementing the recommendations on procurement and supply chains contained in the all-party group on steel and metal related industries report out today?

We cannot limit our focus to high-tech manufacturing. An industrial strategy that narrows its focus to a few chosen sectors will let down the majority of businesses in this country and the people they employ. So can the Secretary of State tell us what this industrial strategy will do for small and medium-sized enterprises, which are huge employers, and for financial services, which are our main exporters, as well as for foundation industries, or for the retail outlets that shape our high streets up and down the country?

Finally, there is a glaring inconsistency between the noble aims of this Green Paper and the threats made by the Prime Minister to turn Britain into an offshore tax haven if she fails in her Brexit negotiations. Until now, the industrial strategy has seemingly consisted of one deal, made in secret, with Nissan. If the Nissan deal did not last six months, how can businesses be confident of the other commitments in this Green Paper?

It is often said, correctly, that an industrial strategy is a long-term project and that, if it is to work, it must outlast particular Governments. With this in mind, I can pledge our support for its broad aims from this side of the Chamber, but I feel compelled to ask whether the Secretary of State can count on the same support from his own side. When we previously debated the industrial strategy here, one of his own hon. Friends said that they had two problems with it: one was “industrial”, the other was “strategy”. I hope that he faces down such attitudes, because now is not the time for half measures. The BBC reported this morning that the Government wished to be in the driving seat but not have two hands on the wheel. I know that Conservative Members do not much like safety legislation, but that is not an approach I would recommend, especially if the Government keep making U-turns. If the Secretary of State finds himself isolated in the coming months, my party will be happy to help. We, too, are ambitious for a proper industrial strategy, but it will succeed only if the means match the ends.

[Greg Clark]

It is true that an industrial strategy wants to help all parts of the United Kingdom, and I look forward to engagement with colleagues from all parts of the House who wish to represent the views of their constituents. I am relieved that the hon. Gentleman has given his grudging support for this statement, given that the last time he appeared at the Dispatch Box, he said:

“Is it simply a case of ‘public good, private bad’? That is what we think on the Opposition Benches”.—[Official Report, 11 January 2017; Vol. 619, c. 319.]

That would send a disastrous signal to investors in this country, and I am pleased to be on the other side of that argument.

The hon. Gentleman asked a number of questions. Our commitment to transforming technical education has been widely welcomed by the business community up and down the country today. Also, it is highly unusual for a Green Paper to commit any funds. This is about the consultation on the direction, and the fact that the Chancellor has announced £170 million for new institutes of technology is a great step forward. The hon. Gentleman asked about increasing the level of research and development. He might have missed what I said about the Chancellor having committed to the biggest increase in research and development since 1979. I recall that the period since then has included several years of a Labour Government, so by implication this is a bigger increase than any that took place during Labour’s 13 years in office. He also asked about business rates. We are legislating this very afternoon to introduce 100% retention of business rates by local councils so that the interests of local businesses and councils can be aligned.

The hon. Gentleman asked about the workforce. I was clear in my statement that the consultation would involve employees as well, and I am looking forward to a roundtable with the TUC and its member organisations. On steel, he will see in the Green Paper an approach to sector deals. I have already met the chief executives of the steel companies and I am about to meet representatives of the trade unions again. I look forward to that being one of the deals that is being put forward.

The hon. Gentleman asked about involving small businesses. The chairman of the Federation of Small Businesses has said today:

“FSB has appreciated being part of the discussions with the business secretary…to help shape the Industrial Strategy.”

He said that the proposals

“fit well with the UK small business community.”

As far as the hon. Gentleman’s position on the fiscal arithmetic goes, he should reflect on the fact that the first foundation of any credible industrial strategy is confidence in the public finances, which were left in such a disastrous state during the time that Labour was in government. The hon. Gentleman made a point about unanimity of purpose. We are having a consultation on the industrial strategy, but I understand from reports in recent days that he is having a consultation with himself about whether he can support his own party’s position on triggering article 50. We will be looking forward to the responses to our consultation from all parts of the House as we form a strategy for the years ahead.

Green Investment Bank

Clive Lewis Excerpts

Wednesday 11th January 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hurd]

I agree with my hon. Friend’s opening comments about saluting what has been a great success story of the coalition—let us maintain the season of good will—but Conservative-led Government. It was the right thing to set up; it was we who did it; and it has been a great success, having mobilised £8 billion of private capital into a critical area of infrastructure, according to the last figures. I can, however, assure him—he is far too experienced to be drawn or influenced too much by media speculation—that we are not being naive in this process. We have set clear criteria for the sale. We have run a genuinely competitive process, and we are now evaluating the proposals before us, through the lens of the criteria we have set, which include value for money and reclassification. We are selling a going concern, and what we want to hear about are forward plans for a dynamic, ongoing concern seeking to mobilise more private capital into the green economy. He knows as well as anyone in the House that we need to mobilise a lot of private sector capital to get the clean energy we need.

[Clive Lewis (Norwich South) (Lab)]

I hope the Minister would agree that the GIB is a great British success story—he has already said as much—but let us put the record straight: it is also a Labour success story, having first appeared in our 2010 manifesto, and I am glad that the coalition Government took it up. If it is a success story, however, why are they selling it off? Is it simply a case of “public good, private bad”? That is what we think on the Opposition Benches, but Conservatives think it is “private good, public bad”. I am telling the House, quite simply, that from the assessment of Macquarie and what we have seen of it, we see that it has a history of asset stripping, so how exactly will the Minister protect this valuable public institution from having its assets sold off? That is a very fair question.

We know that the Government had planned to hold a share in the bank, which would have helped to maintain its green purposes, but new evidence has shown that Macquarie has already set up new companies that will control the GIB’s major assets. Will the Minister elaborate on the purpose of those companies and what oversight the Government will have of them once the sale goes through? The Prime Minister told us that the industrial strategy would be at the heart of her Government, yet the Government are now selling off an institution that has succeeded, from scratch and against the odds, in attracting capital for our green infrastructure on commercial lines. The Minister has already been outmanoeuvred by Macquarie bank and, frankly, we do not have much confidence that it will not happen again. Will the Government agree to stop the sale of the Green Investment Bank today until such time as its green purpose and core assets can be genuinely protected? If the Minister will not, does he accept that the GIB’s fate rests on his shoulders?

[Mr Hurd]

I will pass over the bizarre claim that the GIB is a Labour success story by virtue of its simply being mentioned in a 2010 manifesto, with nothing done for 13 years in government prior to that. This meant that in 2010, we started with far too low levels of clean energy in this country—a situation transformed by the coalition Government.

Again, I caution Members against making assumptions on the basis of speculation in the media, and I am not going to comment on that or identify any bidders.

The hon. Gentleman reflects the different view across the House about the benefits and values of the private sector. He should be aware, holding the position that he does, that we need to mobilise a huge amount of private capital. It is private capital, not public capital, that is going to make the difference when it comes to the big shift in infrastructure. What he misses is the critical role that the state has played in setting up the GIB to correct a market failure.

The fact that we have run a competitive process and that private sector bidders have come up and said, “We want to buy this as a going concern because of its green specialism,” indicates that the market failure has, to a large extent, been corrected. The fact that this institution has mobilised billions of pounds of private capital into this critically important area of infrastructure is a success story. Our whole instinct now is that because we want it to do more, it will do more and be an even more successful institution in the private sector as a going concern.

Oral Answers to Questions

Clive Lewis Excerpts

Tuesday 13th December 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hurd]

I thank my hon. Friend for standing up for his LEPs at a difficult time for them as a result of the allegations made. I assure him that LEPs are at the heart of the process of feeding into the industrial strategy; we are absolutely clear that that industrial strategy needs to reflect deep understanding of the different challenges and opportunities each area faces, which is why the Secretary of State has allocated ministerial champions to each LEP.

[Clive Lewis (Norwich South) (Lab)]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

If the hon. Gentleman will be very brief, I will take him now, but if he won’t, I won’t.

[Clive Lewis]

I will be very brief, Mr Speaker.

Some newspapers have exposed shocking examples of what I can only describe as crony capitalism in some of our LEPs. For example, the former elected mayor of Bristol, George Ferguson, received more than £50,000 for his own brewing firms while on the LEP board, which kept no minutes; perhaps the Minister is impressed to find right-wing politicians who can organise a booze-up in a brewery. Given that the Government are putting nearly £2 billion into LEPs through the autumn statement, can he tell us what they are doing to enforce basic standards of accountability?

[Mr Speaker]

I promise not to buy my dictionary from where the hon. Gentleman got his.