Corporate Governance

Clive Lewis Excerpts

1st reading: House of Commons
Tuesday 29th November 2016 Commons Chamber

[Clive Lewis (Norwich South) (Lab)]

It is a shame that the Secretary of State did not share the statement with us in advance; presumably we are now expected to get first sight of Government policy through a long lens on Whitehall. But after weeks of press briefings, at least they have finally decided to come to this Chamber, because we have heard a lot about the Prime Minister’s policy on corporate governance, but the more they said, the less we have actually known.

When the Prime Minister launched her leadership, she said she wanted a change in the way big business is governed. She said:

“later this year we will publish our plans to have not just consumers represented on company boards, but workers as well. Because we are the party of workers.”

But it seems there has been a change of mind because just weeks ago we heard it was not about putting workers on boards but about finding a model that works for everyone. Perhaps it is the same model as for Brexit: to have their cake and eat it.

When we debated in the Chamber last month the fate of Sir Philip Green, I said that the most shocking thing about the whole affair is that everything he did was legal. A key question today is whether anything that has been proposed would change that: do these proposals pass the BHS test?

Bringing private companies into the plc rule book is a move so targeted at a particular series of events that I expect it will come to be known as the BHS law, but had the proposals outlined today by the Secretary of State been in place six months ago, I am not wholly convinced we would have avoided the corporate governance scandals that have plagued the last summer. To force private companies to abide by the corporate governance code will do little unless the code is tightened. BHS may have been a private company, but Sports Direct is not, and we all know what has gone on there.

Similarly, to strengthen the power of boards to give oversight on how companies are run or their remuneration structures will change little unless the make-up of those boards is also shaken up, yet we all know what has happened to the Government’s commitment to put a diversity of voices on boards. It is a weakness of too many discussions of corporate governance, and a weakness reflected in this Green Paper, that they are dominated by high-profile scandals.

For too long our economy has suffered from an inherent short-termism—a short-termism that sees the long-term health of a company being sacrificed for a quick buck, and that all too often obscures the link between rewards and long-term performance. In 1970, £10 in every £100 went on dividends; now, it is between £60 and £70. It is employees and investment that have lost out from this shift. We see that in our pitiful investment and productivity rates. Britain now languishes 33rd out of the 35 OECD countries on investment rates. Seen in this light, it is no surprise that it takes British workers five days to produce what German workers produce in four—and we see this in the yawning gap between top pay and average pay: in the 10% increase in executive pay when workers are suffering 10 years of stagnant wages.

Our damaging short-termism is also seen in corporate takeovers that occur against the public interest and the company’s interest—takeovers that have instead served as a means to asset-strip, as when Kraft took over Cadbury with hedge funds buying up 31% of the shares and selling Cadbury short.

When the unacceptable face of capitalism surfaces, as it has in the last few months with the scandals in BHS and Sports Direct, what we are witnessing is the extreme manifestation of these broader problems, and that is what makes today so particularly disappointing. Corporate governance reform is not just about improving the image of our corporate sector or placating our innate sense of injustice at the lack of proportionality between the salaries of directors and their employees; nor is it just about fulfilling the wishes of the six out of 10 members of the public who, as TUC figures show, want to see workers on boards. These things matter, of course, but corporate governance reform is also about changing the way our companies, and therefore our economy, work.

The recasting of how our economy works is key to Britain’s success. Without more long-termism in our corporate practices, we will not be able to address the problems—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. The hon. Gentleman has had his five minutes. I do not know whether he was then proposing to put questions, but I gently say to Members that in these matters there is a form to be followed—a procedure to be adhered to—and although I have listened to the hon. Gentleman with great care and attention, he has contributed in the manner of a debate rather than a response to a statement. Ordinarily, I would be very happy to hear his questions, but Members cannot make a long preamble and exceed their time, and then almost as an afterthought get around to some questioning. So I think we will for now have to conclude that the hon. Gentleman has concluded his contribution. But I am sure the Secretary of State will find in the commentary some implied questions, using the great intellectual dexterity for which he is renowned in all parts of the House.

Oral Answers to Questions

Clive Lewis Excerpts

Tuesday 8th November 2016 Commons Chamber

[Greg Clark]

My hon. Friend will recognise that, over recent years, there has been considerable progress and agreement between the sector and the Treasury to ensure that we have the best possible tax regime for the UK continental shelf. That will continue, and we will make sure that the regime remains competitive.

[Clive Lewis (Norwich South) (Lab)]

Our economy is desperately in need of more long-term strategic thinking, decision making and far less reliance on free markets and the laissez-faire approach that was mentioned earlier; I am grateful for the Secretary of State’s response to his colleague’s comments. Yet for many businesses the long term is currently a “maybe” rather than a certainty, as the uncertainty arising from Brexit places investment and survival in grave doubt. Will the Secretary of State give all companies the Nissan treatment and say how he will support all our businesses and industries through Brexit?

[Greg Clark]

I am disappointed with that question. Perhaps it was rewritten by Seumas Milne when the hon. Gentleman was not looking—that might account for it. He knows very well that I will be vigorous and active right across the economy in promoting Britain as a good and competitive place to do business. That is our responsibility in government, and no one will discharge it with more vigour than me.

--- Later in debate ---

[Greg Clark]

I will indeed join my hon. Friend in congratulating the University of Leeds. In fact, I initiated this week’s tech summit in India during a visit to India two years ago, so I am delighted that it is taking place. I took a party of vice-chancellors with me on that occasion. He is absolutely right that Leeds plays a formidable part in the scientific excellence of the north.

[Clive Lewis (Norwich South) (Lab)]

I can assure you, Mr Speaker, that no walls or media devices have been harmed in the formulation of this question—nor have they ever been.

In the light of the enthusiasm for workers’ rights expressed in yesterday’s debate by the Secretary of State, will he join me in offering his support to delivery riders? These workers are seeking union recognition as part of their fight against bogus self-employment and to secure employment rights, such as sick pay and holiday pay. Will he commit his Government to helping in whatever way they can?

[Greg Clark]

The hon. Gentleman might have noticed that we have commissioned a review of these new employment practices, which Labour did not do when it was in government. There is perhaps a problem for him in that the review is being led by Matthew Taylor. I do not know whether the former head of the policy unit under Tony Blair counts as a person he trusts with the review; nevertheless, he is engaged with the review and will report to the Government and to the House.

Exiting the EU and Workers’ Rights

Clive Lewis Excerpts

Monday 7th November 2016 Commons Chamber

[Clive Lewis (Norwich South) (Lab)]

I note that when Conservative Members talk about being the party of the workers, they can barely keep a straight face. I am pleased to open the debate for the Opposition. Indeed, I am very pleased that we are having this debate at all, given the events of last week and the attitude of Government Members earlier this afternoon.

Our country is going through a period of dramatic change. We are in a rare moment in history. The decisions made in the coming months will reshape our country and the world for generations to come. As I said to the Secretary of State last week, in moments of such national importance, it is imperative that the Government are subject to scrutiny by the elected representatives of the entire country. That is not in any way to diminish the result of the referendum. Like the Secretary of State, I voted to remain. Like him, I fully accept the democratic decision of this country and am committed to implementing it.

In voicing their preference to leave the European Union, however, the people of this country did not get the chance to say what they wanted in its place. They voted to set off on a journey, but were not asked their preferred destination. As a result, the Government cannot treat the referendum result as a blank cheque. They must work through a process of dialogue with the House to ensure that Britain exits the European Union on terms that carry the country with them. There are few areas on which Brexit has more potential to impact on people’s lives than workers’ rights.

[Stephen Doughty]

Does my hon. Friend agree that when the Foreign Secretary says he wants to scrap the social chapter and the International Development Secretary says she wants to halve the burden of EU employment and social rights, we should be very concerned? That is exactly why Parliament should be scrutinising this issue.

[Clive Lewis]

I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. It reminds me of the old adage “Never trust a Tory”—that is what this comes down to.

[John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Clive Lewis]

I will make some progress. I will give way, but I will make some progress first—[Interruption.] I will take nothing back.

It is a well-established fact, and not one that reflects well on us as a country, that many protections and rights awarded to workers in Britain reside in EU legislation. Throughout the referendum campaign and since, my party has sought assurances that leaving the EU will not lead to any erosion or dilution of those rights. It follows that much of what the Secretary of State has said today will be welcomed by Opposition Members, but let us not forget that it is EU law that has given working people in this country their rights to a limited working week and guaranteed rest periods. It is the EU that has ensured equal pay and protection against discrimination, and it is to the EU that we owe maternity and paternity rights and much, much more. Removing these rights would cause real damage to the lives of working people.

It is a relief to hear that the Government intend to transfer those rights into British law, but that is not enough. I share the Government’s assessment that the overwhelming majority of the 17 million people who voted in favour of Brexit were not voting to axe our employment rights, but there is a tiny minority who were. It is that minority that has a strong presence on the Government Benches.

[John Redwood]

rose—

[Clive Lewis]

I will give way to the right hon. Gentleman, one of the individuals in question.

[John Redwood]

As someone who has always fully supported the transfer of all these rights into British law, I welcome the Secretary of State’s promise. Will the Labour party promise us that, assuming the proposed Bill transfers all those rights unequivocally, they will support that Bill? It will be the only way to transfer and guarantee those rights.

[Clive Lewis]

That is a really important point. What we did not hear from the Secretary of State was any promise or guarantee that employment legislation will not, once it comes out of international law, simply go into secondary law. We want to see it in primary law, and our concern is that once it goes into secondary law, the Government will use statutory instruments to undermine employment law and workers’ rights, and that is not what we want to see.

Let us carry on. I am talking about the Foreign Secretary, who described the weight of EU employment legislation as “back-breaking”. Then there is the Secretary of State for International Trade who dismissed the idea of protecting workplace rights as “intellectually unsustainable”. Then there is the Secretary of State for Exiting the EU who spent years attacking employment rights embodied in EU law as “unnecessary red tape”.

[Melanie Onn]

Does my hon. Friend also recognise that the former Minister for Employment, the right hon. Member for Witham (Priti Patel) went so far as to call for the UK to

“halve the burdens of EU social and employment legislation”

after Brexit?

[Clive Lewis]

The list is lengthy.

Let us go back. Who spent years attacking employment rights embodied in EU laws as unnecessary red tape before undergoing his recent makeover into an ally of the working class, insisting that it is only “consumer and environmental protections” that he regards as unnecessary? As an aside, it is worth emphasising that those protections are as important to the quality of life of working people as employment rights, but they are not the topic of today’s debate.

[Caroline Lucas]

The hon. Gentleman is making a very strong case. Does he agree with me that what many workers value most of all is the right to work in other EU countries, and that the best way to guarantee that is by free movement? Will he therefore join me in pressing for free movement to be a fundamental right that needs cast-iron protection as part of any future relationship with the EU?

[Clive Lewis]

That is a very important point, and it is one to which I shall come back in the future.

Let me return to the issue at hand. While I welcome now, as I have before, the Government’s recent apparent Damascene conversion when it comes to workers’ rights, I cannot but remain sceptical about how deep it goes. When it comes to limiting the number of hours people have to work in a week and giving temporary workers the same rights as permanent staff, the Conservative party has resisted at every turn the enhanced protection for workers that was introduced through EU legislation. Yet now we are asked to believe that they will defend that legislation. How are the workers of this country supposed to trust them? The public have already been misled about what Brexit will mean.

[Michael Tomlinson]

The hon. Gentleman says that these developments are recent, but as I pointed out to the Secretary of State, in fact they go back hundreds of years—back to 1802, which saw the very first factory Act enacted by a Conservative Government. Furthermore, there is no need for these laws to be protected by the EU, because we enhance those protections and have already done so.

--- Later in debate ---

[Clive Lewis]

Shall we have a little history lesson? How many Acts of Parliament between 1980 and 1993 that attacked working people through anti-trade union legislation do you think your Government took part in? Was it one, two or three? No, it was six, so don’t lecture us on the history of workers’ rights. You have nothing to say on it.

[Charlie Elphicke]

rose—

[Clive Lewis]

I am going to make some progress.

[Anna Soubry (Broxtowe) (Con)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Clive Lewis]

No.

The public have already been misled about what Brexit will mean. On the morning after the referendum, Mr Farage’s hangover had barely set in before the leave campaign withdrew the promise that leaving the EU would free up £350 million a week for the NHS. In the last week, we have seen that the Government are prepared to go to the highest court in the land to avoid proper democratic scrutiny of the terms of Brexit.

[Anna Soubry]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way.

[Clive Lewis]

Do you know what, I will give way to the right hon. Lady.

[Anna Soubry]

Will the hon. Gentleman tell us how many pieces of legislation introduced by the last but one Conservative Government the then Labour Government repealed?

[Clive Lewis]

I think you will find that through the employment legislation of the last Labour Government, we made considerable strides on improving workplace rights for working people, so we will take no lectures from the right hon. Lady on workers’ rights.

[Ian C. Lucas (Wrexham) (Lab)]

Will my hon. Friend confirm that the only reason the social chapter was introduced into legislation in the United Kingdom was that we had a Labour Government?

[Clive Lewis]

You make the point very well. When it comes to the rights of working people in this country, it is only the Labour party that can be trusted to deliver.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Clive Lewis]

I want to make some progress.

So why should we believe that the party that has fought tooth and nail against EU protections for workers and that has dismissed as “unnecessary red tape” laws that have made UK workplaces more fair and more humane will now be the defender of those rights? I want to believe it—I truly do—but I cannot. It is not just because of the Government’s record of opposing the very legislation that they now claim to support; it is because, despite his good intentions—I am prepared to believe that he has good intentions—nothing that the Secretary of State or the Prime Minister or anyone else in this Government has said or done over the past six years convinces me that they understand or care about the lives of working people. This Government are the children of Thatcher. Sticking up for workers goes against every instinct and is contrary to the very political DNA of so many Conservative Members.

I would like to shift focus and reflect on people’s experiences of the world of work under this Government, on how workplaces and labour markets are changing, on what this has meant for working people and on what the Government have—or, more often, have not—done for them. From the recent exposé of Victorian employment practices at Sports Direct to the horror stories of Uber drivers being unable to take a toilet break, working conditions in this country are getting worse, not better, for too many people. Over the past six years, jobs have become lower skilled, less secure and worse paid. We have seen the rise of zero-hour contracts and growing reliance on agency workers. We have seen the birth of the gig economy, taking more and more workers outside formal employment regulations. The Tories boast about the recovery of employment since 2008, but on every other criterion, our labour market is failing.

[Geraint Davies]

Given that there will be enormous pressure on business from tariffs, no more money coming in and less inward investment because of blockages to the markets, does my hon. Friend accept that the business community will ask for their costs to be reduced, which will threaten statutory holiday pay, maternity pay and other workers’ rights? Once those powers have been given to this Government, they will be empowered to repeal those things in the future, and there will be no European guarantees. We will be at the will of future Governments. [Interruption.]

[Clive Lewis]

I hear Conservative Members talking about scaremongering, but the facts speak for themselves. You are the enemy of working people. The Tories boast—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

Order. First, the House is too noisy. This is meant to be a genteel and well-behaved debate on an important matter. Secondly, although I hesitate to interrupt the hon. Member for Norwich South (Clive Lewis) while he is speaking from the Dispatch Box, I must point out that he has now used the word “you” on several occasions, and that there are several good reasons why we use the third person in this place. It has to do with keeping the level of debate reasonable and courteous. I know that the hon. Gentleman is extremely courteous and will want to continue to be courteous. If he wants to accuse hon. Members of something, he should not accuse me.

[Clive Lewis]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I stand formally chastised, and rightly so. I think, however, that it reflects the level of anxiety and passion felt by Opposition Members about workers’ rights. I so often see smugness from some Conservative Members who obviously feel that Brexit is going to be bonfire of regulatory rights in the workplace—and we do not want to see that.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Clive Lewis]

I shall make some more progress.

The Tories boast about the recovery of employment since 2008, but on every other criterion, our labour market is failing. Wages, which have been falling as a share of national income for decades, have stagnated under the Tories, creating nearly a decade of lost pay. Too many people are having their work-life balance undermined by rising workloads and suffering stress due to punitive performance reviews. Even those who are not in precarious employment worry about their future job security.

[Charlie Elphicke]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Clive Lewis]

I am going to make some progress, if that is all right.

We cannot continue to prioritise quantity over quality in the belief that if we want to ensure that everyone has a job, we have to accept any job. From the millions of women who continue to be paid less than men to the growing number of involuntarily or bogusly self-employed, it is hard to escape the reality that, for most, conditions have become worse. What have the Tories done in the face of all that? They have frozen public sector pay for six years running; they have introduced fees for employment tribunals, making it harder for people to gain access to the rights to which the law entitles them; they have placed severe restrictions on the right to strike, and onerous burdens on the ability to organise. In the Trade Union Act 2016, they have pushed through the biggest attack on workers’ rights in a generation.

We are back to the issue of trust. The Government have recently taken to calling themselves the party of working people, but in their last six years in office, they have not acted like that; on the contrary. Is it any wonder that, for those of us who genuinely care about workers’ rights, the promises that the Secretary of State has made today provide only cold comfort and a heavy dose of wary scepticism? I do not intend to brand the Secretary of State a liar; he seems to me to be a decent guy. [Interruption.] I did not say that, and I do not intend to.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

Order. I understand rhetoric just as well as the hon. Gentleman, and I appreciate that he used the negative, but he nevertheless used a word that is not suitable in the Chamber. I am sure that he can make his point just as strongly through a rather different use of words.

[Clive Lewis]

I will rephrase that, Madam Deputy Speaker. I do not intend to brand the Secretary of State a person who exaggerates excessively; he seems to me to be a decent guy. However, given that the Brexit triumvirate of Mr Johnson, Mr Davis and Mr Fox have so regularly said and done things that contradict the promises that we have heard today, it is hard to be confident that the Government will deliver.

[Stephen Doughty]

I thank my hon. Friend for giving way again. He is very generous. Does he not also find it incredible that the Secretary of State prayed in aid the appointment of Baroness McGregor-Smith to a position that involves advising on employment rights? She was ennobled at a time when her company, Mitie, and its subsidiary MiHomecare were being investigated by Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs for non-payment of the minimum wage to its workers.

[Clive Lewis]

I did not know that, but do you know what? It does not surprise me in the slightest.

[Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)]

Will the hon. Gentleman explain why, during the 1970s and 1980s, when I was a teenager growing up in the part of the United Kingdom where I live, the unemployment level was regularly over 30%?

[Ian Paisley]

No, there was a Labour Government.

Today my children, aged 18 and 19, see an unemployment level of 5% or 6% in some areas. Will the hon. Gentleman explain the analysis that he has given to the House, suggesting that there are no jobs? There are jobs, and there are opportunities for people.

[Clive Lewis]

I think that the peace process—a Labour-oriented peace process—would have had a great deal to do with that.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Clive Lewis]

I will make some headway now. I can see that you are agitated, Madam Deputy Speaker.

[Ian Paisley]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Is it right for the hon. Gentleman to use the peace process as an excuse for unemployment legislation?

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

As the hon. Gentleman knows, it is not for me to decide whether what a Member who has the Floor is saying is reasonable or otherwise, but I am sure that the hon. Member for Norwich South (Clive Lewis) will bear in mind what has been said by the hon. Member for North Antrim (Ian Paisley), and will moderate the way in which he is using his excellent rhetoric.

[Clive Lewis]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.

Even if we take the Secretary of State at face value, he is surrounded by the kind of free-market fanatics who, past behaviour suggests, will always work to undermine workers’ rights rather than to bolster them.

[Charlie Elphicke]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way, on that point?

[Clive Lewis]

I am going to make some progress. I am conscious of time, and many other Members clearly want to have their say.

Last time I had the pleasure of facing the Secretary of State across the Dispatch Box, he reached out to me in the name of bipartisanship. One cannot help wondering if the opinion of some of his colleagues has forced him to consider whether he might find it more congenial to work with us on the Opposition side of the House. I sympathise: if he truly believes what he said to us today, no wonder he has reached out for allies on our Benches. So I say to him, “You’re on. “ If he is serious in his commitment to workers’ rights, let us work together towards three goals.

First, the Secretary of State must accept that given his Government’s record, a day one transfer of EU rights to UK law is simply not enough. Grant Shapps must not get his sunset clause.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Order. I really have tried not to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, and when he has done something once I have let it go, but I am afraid that I cannot do that twice. In the Chamber, we must either refer to each other by constituency or refer to “the Minister” or “the Secretary of State”. I will not insist that the hon. Gentleman get the constituencies right; just the odd reference to “the Minister” would do fine.

[Clive Lewis]

I am sorry, Madam Deputy Speaker. It was a genuine error, for which I apologise.

The right hon. Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Grant Shapps) must not get his sunset clause. Instead, workers need a cast-iron guarantee that rights will not be eroded over time, either by a failure to keep pace with new EU legislation or because UK courts interpret it more weakly.

Secondly, all EU citizens who are currently employed here must be guaranteed the right to remain. These are people who have built their lives in this country. To leave their future shrouded in uncertainty so that they can be used as a pawn in future negotiations with the EU is quite simply wrong. It is also bad for businesses. We know that many are already having to recruit and train replacement staff as EU workers up and leave before they are pushed.

If the Secretary of State would agree to work with us to achieve those two objectives, it would prevent us from going backwards, but we cannot afford to stand still when it comes to workers’ rights. The United Kingdom ranks 31st richest out of 34 on the OECD’s employment protection index. Among comparable economies, we already have one of the least regulated and least protected workforces in the world. That simply is not good enough.

[Charlie Elphicke]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Clive Lewis]

No, I am going to press on. I do apologise.

The fact that we have relied on the EU for so many of our protections reflects badly on all of us in this place. How can we interpret the referendum results other than as an expression of dissatisfaction with the status quo—a demand for a better deal? Labour wants to give the people a better deal, and where better to start than in the workplace? Labour markets are changing, and technological progress is opening up new possibilities for the way in which we organise our workplaces and working lives, but for too many workers, new technology has meant not new freedoms, but new forms of exploitation.

Brexit Britain faces a choice. We can enter a race to the bottom, steadily eroding workplace protections in an attempt to attract investment and custom away from low-wage countries, or we can lead the way in ensuring that workplace rights and protections keep pace with changes in labour markets, and developing new business models that harness the benefits of new technology for the many and not just the few, as part of a high-wage, high-skill, high-productivity economy. We cannot win the former, and in truth we would not want to; but we can do the latter, and that is the only way in which to ensure that the people of this country get the better deal that they deserve.

I call on the Secretary of State to sign up to a new social settlement: one that places workers’ rights at its centre, and recognises and rewards everyone’s contribution; one that empowers people to take more control over their workplaces and their lives. That will require more than just rhetoric. For the Government, it will require a drastic change of direction. It will mean repealing the Trade Union Act and embracing, and working with, trade unions, rather than attacking them. It will mean leading the way on workers’ rights across Europe, rather than digging their heels in and resisting every advance. It sounds far-fetched, but it is time for the Government to put their money where their mouth is. You say you want to be the party of workers, Mr Secretary of State.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Order. No: they say they want to be that. I do not say anything.

[Clive Lewis]

They say they want to be the party of workers. They say they want to work together. Well, these are the terms, and we are game if you are.

Nissan: Sunderland

Clive Lewis Excerpts

Monday 31st October 2016 Commons Chamber

[Clive Lewis (Norwich South) (Lab)]

I thank the Secretary of State for his statement and for responding to our repeated requests for clarification on the events of the past few days. I join him in warmly welcoming Nissan’s decision to keep production in the UK. It is fantastic news for Nissan’s 7,000 employees and the 38,000-plus employees who rely on its supply chain. It is fantastic news for Sunderland, and it is fantastic news for the whole country. It is a testament to the skill, productivity and ability of the workforce and management that Nissan has such confidence in its Sunderland operation.

Without detracting from that, we still have some concerns. The right hon. Gentleman has denied giving Nissan special treatment, but he has refused to be transparent about what he has offered to it. As our most productive car factory, Nissan’s Sunderland plant epitomises the strengths of the UK’s automotive industry. He knows that we simply could not afford to lose it. That is why, despite the assurances that he has given now and in his tantalising television appearances over the weekend, the nagging question remains: are we really to believe that Nissan is risking millions of pounds of investment and the success of its newest models on the basis of the Government’s good intentions alone? If that is the case, why have they kept their good intentions to themselves?

The overwhelming impression until now has been that the Government have no strategy for Brexit. Are we expected to believe that the Government now have not only a strategy, but a strategy so convincing that they have persuaded Nissan to stay without the need for any special guarantees? If so, why will they not tell us what it is? We are told in the media—the media is where most of last week’s revelations transpired—that the Government gave a commitment to Nissan that Britain would be as attractive after Brexit as it is today.

It would seem that the Secretary of State has discovered the Brexit equivalent of the Philosopher’s stone: tariff-free market access with no concessions, readily agreed by all 27 EU countries, including Wallonia. Surely, that is a feat worth sharing. So can he tell us whether he is committing to full single market access or to a customs union or to something else entirely—or do the Government simply not know? We all want all car manufacturers to keep their production in the UK—[Interruption.] Yes, we do. So why are they not privy to the same assurances as Nissan, and what about the many other businesses up and down the country—businesses that, like Nissan, are currently deciding whether to continue investing in the UK? Surely, they, too, should be told.

I have acknowledged that the automotive sector is hugely important to our economy, but it is not our only strategically important industry. Where were the Government during the crisis in the steel industry? They were blocking the EU from taking action against Chinese steel dumping—that is where they were. What are the Government doing for the aerospace industry, or for pharmaceuticals, and what about the service sector, which accounts for more than three quarters of our economy?

It seems that the Government are giving private reassurances to particular companies, while leaving the majority of businesses, the public and their elected representatives in the dark about their intentions. Piecemeal, back-room deals will not provide the active industrial strategy that Labour has long advocated and to which the Government now claim to be signed up. We Labour Members want the economy firing on all cylinders, not spluttering along on one or two.

As we embark on Brexit, Britain needs a Government who are visionary, not reactive, and strategic, not shambolic. As a start, we need a Government who are transparent and accountable, instead of secretive. Why not start now? If the right hon. Gentleman did not offer Nissan a sweetener, what has he got to hide? Show us the letter. If the assurances he gave to Nissan apply to all the automotive sector, surely all that sector should be given them? Show us the letter. If, contrary to appearances, the Government do have a strategy for Brexit, why will they not tell us what it is? Show us the letter!

[Greg Clark]

I welcome the hon. Gentleman to the Dispatch Box, but if that is the kind of spluttering old banger of an approach to these issues, I think he should upgrade to a new model. I would recommend a Qashqai; they are very good cars. I find it surprising that, in response to an announcement that has thrilled Sunderland and the north-east and provided a big boost to the economy, the Labour party’s demeanour is so miserable. Is it beyond the hon. Gentleman to put party politics aside and just celebrate and congratulate everyone involved on a success that is in all our interests?

I seriously ask the hon. Gentleman to weigh this issue up carefully. When I met Nissan, one thing it commented on was the continuity over 30 years of a very successful participation in the UK economy, with cross-party support and consensus over the Sunderland plant—reflected in what both Conservative and Labour Governments have done. It would be to take a wrong turn if the Labour party lurched away from the bipartisanship that has been so successful there.

As for the conversations that we had, one of the things that I have learnt over the years is the importance of getting to know, over time, the companies that are in this country and those that invest in it, and understanding what their investment decisions will be based on. We have taken the opportunity to do that, and the four reassurances that I was able to give Nissan and that have resulted in this investment reflected what Nissan had said to me.

I said that I would aim for the best possible ability to trade with other European Union countries. I said that I would pursue the negotiations in a positive and constructive spirit, mindful of the substantial common ground that exists between us. I said that whatever happened, we were determined to keep Britain’s world-beating motor industry competitive. Do Labour Members share those intentions? If they do, why on earth do they think that I would play games with the livelihoods of 35,000 working people in this country, the pride of the world in their industry, by not stating them clearly and transparently to Nissan? I welcome the decision that Nissan has made.

The hon. Gentleman asked me whether I would publish the correspondence. I have set out the information that I gave to Nissan. My responsibility, on behalf of the Government, is to encourage and attract investment in this country. When companies of all types and in all sectors share with me investment plans that would be of interest to their prospective competitors, it is important for them to be assured that those plans will not be disclosed to their competitors to their disadvantage. My objective is to obtain the investment, but I shall be happy to answer questions about every aspect of it, today and when I appear before the Select Committee—which I intend to do, at the Committee’s invitation.

The hon. Gentleman is a relatively new Member, and I hope that he will have a distinguished tenure here, but Members in all parts of the House—from Newcastle to Newquay, from Liverpool to Lowestoft—will know that whenever I work to attract success to our regions, towns, cities and counties, I do so on a cross-party basis. Party politics never feature in the way I work. I hope that, in future, we shall be able to work together on such common interests.

BHS

Clive Lewis Excerpts

Thursday 20th October 2016 Commons Chamber

[Clive Lewis (Norwich South) (Lab)]

First, I thank the Backbench Business Committee for organising this debate on such a timely subject. I also thank the combined Select Committees for their report, as that work has brought us here today. They deserve great credit for having so patiently and thoroughly investigated this whole sordid, shabby affair. I also thank colleagues who have participated in today’s debate, particularly my hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool (Mr Wright) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Frank Field), both of whom, through their fantastic chairmanship of their Select Committees, have shone a light on some of the systematic abuses by Sir Philip Green and his accomplices. I should also mention the suggestion made by my hon. Friend the Member for Heywood and Middleton (Liz McInnes) of stripping Sir Philip Green of his knighthood and awarding it to one of his former employees, a self-confessed cynic—how could we blame him for being a cynic after what has happened in the past few years?

I have referred to contributions made by hon. Members today, and it is clear that this issue cuts across party lines. There is a great deal of anger in the House, which reflects the anger that many of those who elected us are feeling. Sir Philip Green treated BHS as his own personal plaything. He failed to invest in the company’s branches, he neglected the brand and he ran down the pension scheme. In effect, he used the company to line his own pockets and then jumped ship like the proverbial rat from a sinking ship. Despite that woeful, even wilful, neglect of this historic company, he still retains his knighthood for “services to retail”.

The House has rightly expressed widespread incredulity at that state of affairs, a view that I share entirely. All human societies have found ways of honouring those who have acted with great distinction. We recognise those who receive such honours as people who have enriched all of our lives—people whose lives challenge us all to try to emulate theirs. Although it is clear that Sir Philip Green has, by his actions, tarnished the honour that we, as a society, have given him, he has tarnished his own good name far more gravely. Stripping him of his knighthood will not create jobs for the 11,000 who lost them. It will not fill the £571 million deficit in the pension fund. It will not fill the hole left on high streets up and down the country. It will not pay back the £6 million owed to Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs. Nor will it ensure that firms in BHS’s supply chain, many of which are small businesses, the foundation stones of our economy, are paid what they are owed.

Our first priority is to save the pension fund. As far as I am concerned Sir Philip Green can keep his honour, provided he pays back the pension deficit in full from his own ample wealth. He should make good his wrongs with deeds, not just the good intentions that he offered the Select Committee. But if all we do today is posture in condemnation of one man, we are doing little except indulging in competitive scapegoating. I am sure I speak for many people in this country when I say this: the most extraordinary thing about this whole affair is that legally, Sir Philip Green has done nothing wrong. Had he broken the law, and were he just a criminal caught with his hands in the till, it would have been up to the courts to act, but he is not a criminal, and there is no suggestion that he is. This House can rightly condemn the actions of the man, but we cannot escape our own responsibility for this affair. Where are our laws made? Here. Who makes them? We do. Who is responsible when powerful men shamelessly rip off the weak, and yet they have not broken the law? We are.

[Ian Blackford]

I am very heartened to hear the hon. Gentleman’s remarks. Does he not share my disgust that the Government have failed to learn lessons from this debacle, and have failed to put any proposals forward so that we ensure that we do not have any other situations such as BHS again?

--- Later in debate ---

[Clive Lewis]

I will address that point a little later in my speech. I think the Government have said that they intend to change their tune, and that they are now the party of the workers. We shall see whether they genuinely are, but I will not be holding my breath.

[Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)]

There have been a number of occasions when there have been similar incidents. Only about 12 months ago, nearly 1,000 jobs went at City Link on the outskirts of Coventry. I tried to get a ten-minute rule Bill through, and it was defeated. It is about time that we had some really tough legislation on these issues.

[Clive Lewis]

I thank my hon. Friend for that comment—it is one that many of us on the Labour Benches agree with. We want to see action, not words. When scandals such as this break, we here cannot have it both ways. We must either shrug our shoulders and say, “Tough luck, guys, that’s the way the game works, you lose,” or say, “We will legislate to make sure that this never happens again.” Will we do that? Will we look at the role of the auditors who signed off on BHS as a “going concern” just a year before it was sold off for a £1 like a second-hand yo-yo? Will we look at the role of the huge city financial advisers who waved through the sale of BHS to Chappell, or at the pillaging of the pension scheme, that, let us remember, is not unique to British Home Stores? This is the story not of one bad apple spoiling everyone’s reputation, but of a system that is bent, and we know in whose favour.

Good businesses are the lifeblood of our economy, but, as honest, responsible, hard-working business people up and down the country know well, the system often allows good businesses to be undercut by bad businesses. When companies are used to extract wealth rather than to create it, it hurts everybody.

In the near future, the shape of the modern economy will be transformed. Let us make sure that that transformation is truly for the benefit of all and that we do not need to come back to the House again and again to express our outrage at yet another scandal and yet another rip-off of the ordinary people of this country. The rules of the game need changing.

I am delighted to see the cross-party condemnation of Sir Philip Green’s conduct. I am also delighted—if not more than a little surprised—to hear the Prime Minister claiming to have thrown out the laissez-faire fanaticism that has dominated her party’s thinking for the past 30 years. We on the Labour Benches welcome any move towards an economy founded on fairness and democracy. It is, after all, what our party has always stood for. It is not what the Conservative party has always stood for. Are we really to believe that the party of billionaires and tax avoiders is the one to transform our economy in the interests of fairness?

Let us take one example: the Prime Minister’s modest proposal to give workers a voice by allowing them representatives on boards. We welcome that suggestion. Giving workers a voice is what our party has always stood for, but I am not convinced that the proposal goes far enough. Are we to believe that an individual worker or two would have been able to stand up to the likes of Sir Philip Green? A voice is useless without teeth. However, even the Prime Minister’s own Cabinet will not support that modest proposal. Members of the Cabinet are, I surmise, more honest than the Prime Minister, more aware of which side their bread is buttered.

I hope that Sir Philip Green is better held to account as a result of today’s debate. I hope even more that it serves as a wake-up call on deeper problems and proves to be a turning point in how our economy is governed. I welcome the Prime Minister’s rhetorical conversion to our party’s values, but the question that she and other Conservative Members must answer is this: they have talked the talk, but can they walk the walk?