Bombardier

Greg Clark Excerpts

Tuesday 10th October 2017 Commons Chamber

[The Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Greg Clark)]

With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a statement on Bombardier, updating the House on the trade dispute brought by Boeing against that company. The case has serious implications for the workers at Bombardier Aerostructures & Engineering Services—Short Brothers—in Belfast, where the wings for the C Series aircraft are manufactured.

Following a complaint by Boeing, the US Department of Commerce has made two provisional determinations in the case, calculating duties of 220% in relation to alleged subsidies for Bombardier and of nearly 80% in relation to alleged mis-selling by Bombardier into the US market. These initial determinations are bitterly disappointing, but they are only the first step in the process: a final ruling in the investigation is due in February and would be subject to further appeal, were this to be upheld. This Government have been working tirelessly to bring the case to a satisfactory resolution and we will continue to do so.

In filing the petition, Boeing asserted three claims: first, that without Canadian and UK Government subsidies Bombardier would have been unable to develop the C Series; secondly, that Bombardier is selling at or below production cost its C Series aircraft in the US; and thirdly, as a result, that this is causing the threat of imminent material injury to the US domestic aerospace industry. This action followed Bombardier securing an order from Delta Airlines for 75 aircraft.

The Boeing petition makes allegations about funding support from the Canadian federal Government and the Government of the Province of Quebec for the C Series. It also alleges that the UK’s provision of £113 million of repayable launch investment funding, committed to Bombardier Short Brothers in 2009 to support the development of the composite wings, contravened trade rules. We strongly and robustly refute that allegation.

I want to make the Government’s position very clear: we consider this action by Boeing to be totally unjustified and unwarranted and incompatible with the conduct we would expect of a company with a long-term business relationship with the United Kingdom. Boeing does not manufacture a competing aircraft, so although Boeing claims harm in respect of the Delta aircraft order, it actually has no product in the 100 to 125-seat sector. Furthermore, this system of launch investment for the development of new aircraft reflects that of all major commercial aircraft programmes in their early years, including the Boeing 787. We refute entirely any suggestion that our support contravenes international rules.

The Shorts factory in Belfast employs more than 4,200 excellent skilled workers, with almost a quarter of those working on the C Series. It also supports a supply chain of hundreds of companies and many more jobs across the UK, as well as supporting nearly 23,000 workers in the United States of America, where 53% of the content of the C Series is produced by US-based companies. We will continue to work tirelessly to safeguard jobs, innovation and livelihoods in Northern Ireland.

From the outset, as is obvious, this has been a dispute that joins Canada and the UK, and we have been assiduous in working closely with the Government of Canada in our response. The Prime Minister has discussed the case with Prime Minister Trudeau, and I have been in regular contact with Canadian Foreign Minister, Chrystia Freeland, to co-ordinate our response and actions. We have had intensive engagement from across government at the highest levels. The Prime Minister has discussed the matter twice with President Trump, stressing the crucial importance of Bombardier’s operations in Belfast and asking the US Government to do all they can to encourage Boeing to drop its complaint. My Cabinet colleagues, including the Foreign Secretary, the Defence Secretary, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Trade Secretary and the Northern Ireland Secretary, and I have reinforced our serious concerns with, among others, the US Secretary of Commerce, the US Secretary of State, the US Treasury Secretary, the US Trade Representative and other members of the Administration, as well as, on this side of the Atlantic, the EU Trade Commissioner. My colleague the Minister for Energy and Industry, my hon. Friend the Member for Watford (Richard Harrington), has met Boeing International’s president, and I travelled to Chicago to meet Boeing’s president and chief executive to make absolutely clear the impact of these actions on the future relationship with the United Kingdom.

I am grateful for the consistent and indefatigable efforts of the constituency Member, the hon. Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson), and indeed the whole community in Northern Ireland who are united in opposition to this action. We will continue vigorously and robustly to defend UK interests in support of Bombardier, its workforce in Belfast and those in its UK supply chain. We will continue to work jointly and collectively with the Canadian Government. We will work closely with Bombardier, its workforce and its trade unions, and we will do everything we can to bring about a credible, early resolution of this totally unjustified case. As I said, the initial determinations are the first step in the process, but we completely understand the worry and uncertainty facing the workforce, which means that the earlier this issue can be resolved, the better. To that end, I expect to have further discussions with Boeing, Bombardier, the Canadian Government and the US Government in the days ahead. The House should be aware that neither this Government nor our counterpart in Canada will rest until this groundless action is ended. I commend this statement to the House.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Greg Clark]

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

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

[Theresa Villiers (Chipping Barnet) (Con)]

Does the Secretary of State agree that successive UK Governments have always been rigorous in compliance with their international legal obligations on state aid, and that, therefore, these punitive tariffs that are proposed are both irrational and unjustified and should be removed?

[Greg Clark]

I agree with my right hon. Friend. As she will remember, we do have a very rigorous system for scrutinising state aid, which is why we are totally confident that the system of launch aid that we have applied is compliant with all the international rules. The allegation does not have merit, and I expect to see it thrown out.

[John Mc Nally (Falkirk) (SNP)]

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

The Scottish National party regrets the preliminary ruling by the US Department of Commerce that could put these highly skilled jobs at risk in Northern Ireland, and we sincerely hope that the UK Government are doing all that they possibly can to engage with Bombardier and the trade unions to ensure that the future of all employees is as secure as possible.

These rulings clearly show that no one will be spared Trump’s protectionist agenda of “America first”, with jobs in the UK and Canada—some of the US’s closest allies—being put at risk as a result of the punitive tariffs being imposed on Bombardier.

I am afraid that the Tory Government have been cosying up to Trump with the false illusion—or delusion—that this will help them sign a trade deal with the US after Brexit, without realising that Trump’s Administration will not give in to any demands that may give a competitive edge to the UK over the US.

Leaving the EU means that we will lose leverage in trade negotiations as we will no longer be part of the world’s largest single market of some 500 million people, and we will lose the expertise that the EU has built up over the past 40 years negotiating on our behalf.

Does the Secretary of State not agree that the best way to promote trade and to create jobs across the UK is by maintaining our membership of the single market and the customs union?

--- Later in debate ---

[Greg Clark]

I am pleased that the hon. Gentleman supports our opposition to the proposed sanctions. If he has studied the form in these matters, he will know that the initial determination was not entirely unexpected by any of the parties, which was attested to by the Government of Canada. We have an outstanding case that there is no detriment to Bombardier, which we expect to prove along with the fact that the launch aid has been compliant. On our relationship with the European Union, he will observe that this dispute has taken place while we are a member of that Union. That justifies our commitment not just with the European Union but globally to seek a rigorous system of free trade in which there is a fair assessment of complaints rather than these punitive and unjustified tariffs.

[Mr Laurence Robertson (Tewkesbury) (Con)]

I thank the Secretary of State for his statement and congratulate him on the work that he is carrying out in this matter. It is of course extremely important to Northern Ireland that we get this right and protect the jobs and the industry in the Province. May I also ask him if he will—I am sure that he will—seek to strike a balance here? Boeing is a very important customer to many companies in this country, including some in my own constituency, which is very heavily dependent on aerospace.

[Greg Clark]

My hon. Friend makes an important point, which is why many of us in this House are so bitterly disappointed with the actions of Boeing. The company has been the beneficiary of important defence contracts. As many Members know, it is opening an important factory in Sheffield—its first in Europe. A long-term industrial relationship with this country, which it clearly seeks, entails obligations. Those obligations are to treat reasonably and fairly those important parts of our economy that are being attacked without justification.

[Gavin Robinson (Belfast East) (DUP)]

In thanking the Secretary of State for his statement, may I just reflect on the fact that this Northern Ireland trade dispute is unprecedented in terms of the political engagement it has had from our Government? As the representative for east Belfast, I greatly appreciate not only the work thus far but the presence today of the Northern Ireland Secretary; the Business Secretary; the Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, the hon. Member for Watford (Richard Harrington); the defence procurement Minister; the Minister of State, Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, the hon. Member for Devizes (Claire Perry); and, indeed, the Foreign Secretary, whose presence shows just how much support there is politically for us in Northern Ireland, and I greatly appreciate it.

I was, however, bitterly disappointed by the comments last week by the Commerce Secretary, Wilbur Ross. His comments were not only belligerent, but showed—while the process continues—the political support at this early stage for Boeing in its dispute. There is deep concern about the political overtures tied up with this ongoing issue. May I ask the Secretary of State, having engaged thus far, and seeing that what happened was the inevitable outcome of that engagement, how long it will be until we can assuage the concerns of those in Belfast and Canada that there are meaningful and genuine consequences in store should there not be an adequate and suitable resolution to this case?

--- Later in debate ---

[Greg Clark]

I repeat my thanks and admiration for the work of the hon. Gentleman, who is standing up for his constituents with vigour and strength. I would like to take the opportunity to pay tribute, too, to the leader of the DUP, and indeed to community leaders across Northern Ireland, for the united response that they have made. We are disappointed not only with the response, in terms of the proposed tariffs, but with some of the words that have been used around this. It seems to me that the case is overwhelming: we can demonstrate that any aid that has been given is not only completely in line with international norms, but consistent with the type of assistance that Boeing has had over time. We expect to be able to demonstrate that in a convincing way.

It also seems to me impossible to establish detriment to Boeing, given that it does not have a competitor aircraft. The process of the hearings is that, following the initial determination, there is a further call for evidence, and the evidence that we, completely hand in hand with the Canadians, will present will demonstrate that. We look to the US to make sure that this is a rigorous process and is not politically influenced.

We have been very clear. The Defence Secretary, on a visit to Northern Ireland, was very clear, as I have been, that this is not the behaviour we expect from a trusted partner, and could have implications for the future relationship between Boeing and the United Kingdom.

[Anna Soubry (Broxtowe) (Con)]

I had the great pleasure of going to the wings factory in Belfast, and I pay handsome tribute not just to the 4,000 workers there but to Bombardier in general and to the C series—it is a beautiful and exceptionally fine aeroplane, and we wish it great success. I also thank the Secretary of State and all his colleagues in the Government for the fine work they are doing, but does he share my concern that this decision, which we all hope will be overturned, marks a shift towards a more protectionist policy by the United States Government? Does he agree that that does not bode well, especially as we leave the EU, if we do not get a proper deal with the European Union?

[Greg Clark]

In my view, it underlines the importance of securing free trade not just with the European Union but around the world. The essence of a free trade agreement is that we have proper protections and dispute resolution mechanisms on which we can rely, so this issue underlines the importance of continuing free trade. As I say, it is not unusual in the aerospace sector for complaints to be made in one forum or another. I think all parties were expecting the initial determination to be as it was, and said as much. In terms of our work—we will not give up on this—we will fight to secure the legitimate future of this very important part of our aerospace sector, and we will do whatever it takes to do that.

[Rachel Reeves (Leeds West) (Lab)]

I join other hon. Members in saying that I hope this dispute is resolved as quickly as possible in the interests of everybody in Northern Ireland who works for Bombardier or in the supply chain. May I just pick up on a couple of points the Secretary of State made in his statement? First, he said that the Prime Minister had discussed the matter twice with President Trump to ask the US Government to do all they could to encourage Boeing to drop its complaint. While we welcome those sentiments, is the dispute not, in the end, with the US Government rather than Boeing, because it is up to the US Government, not Boeing, to impose sanctions? I hope the Prime Minister is also making that clear, and I just wanted some clarification on that point.

Secondly, the Secretary of State said he had

“travelled to Chicago to meet Boeing’s president and chief executive to make absolutely clear the impact”

on our future relationship with the company. Can he say a little more about what he has said to Boeing about that future relationship, which I am sure Boeing values, with our Government?

[Greg Clark]

I am grateful for the questions from the Chairman of the Select Committee. In terms of the process, only Boeing can withdraw the complaint. There is an administrative requirement on the part of the Department of Commerce to determine, initially, a complaint, hence the desire—and I think it is highly desirable—that Boeing withdraw this complaint. If it will not—and, so far, it has not—it must be determined in a completely fair and objective way. If it is, it will have no merit, and will be thrown out. Both are therefore important, but it would be in the interests of everyone in the workforce and in the country that the complaint be withdrawn so that this uncertainty can be taken away.

In terms of the points that I put to Dennis Muilenburg, who is the chief executive of Boeing, we were very clear that Boeing has a reputation in this country that was beginning to grow in a positive way through the investment in Sheffield and elsewhere, and to jeopardise that reputation and relationship by doing something that is completely unjustified is something that I do not regard as in the strategic interests of Boeing, and I said that very explicitly in terms.

[Mims Davies (Eastleigh) (Con)]

I thank the Secretary of State for the statement and for his balanced comments this afternoon. Our airports and our aerospace sector really matter to many communities represented across this House in terms of local jobs and prosperity, and particularly to Southampton in my constituency, which is No. 1 in Europe and No. 2 in the world. What estimates has my right hon. Friend made of the potential for growth in this sector, despite this mighty challenges?

[Greg Clark]

I am glad my hon. Friend asked that question, because, as the whole House knows, the aerospace sector in this country is one of our proudest success stories. It is growing. It is a huge source of exports—over 90% of the product of our aerospace sector is exported. Productivity growth, which is much debated in the House at the moment, is six times the rate in the economy as a whole. A quarter of a million very highly paid jobs are in aerospace, and we are absolutely determined—those colleagues who are familiar with our industrial strategy will see this in advanced manufacturing and in aerospace in particular—to build on those strengths and advance them. That is why the Boeing investment in Sheffield was welcomed, but to see that relationship jeopardised by this complaint is a huge setback and a bitter disappointment.

[Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)]

I welcome the Secretary of State’s condemnation. What has happened is condemned not just in Northern Ireland, but across these islands, including by the Irish Government, as the Secretary of State said. I hope Bombardier will accept my invitation, as Chair of the International Trade Committee, to help combat this. However, on the wider issue—the World Trade Organisation aspects—is it not concerning that disputes outside the EU, which might be a WTO issue, and where the efficient European Court of Justice will not, and cannot be, used in a post-Brexit situation, the UK may see itself picked off by friend and foe all the more frequently in the future? Surely it has to be a concern to the Secretary of State that interactions with more states will be at WTO level by definition if the UK has changed status.

[Greg Clark]

I am grateful for the support of the hon. Gentleman. The more we can be absolutely clear that the whole United Kingdom, all parties and both sides of the House share this view that the complaint should be withdrawn and the dispute settled, the better, and that has been emphatically the case here. Again, I make the point that it is clearly in all our interests to have free trade. In a sector where 90% of products are exported, that is obviously the case. But that trade needs to happen in a way that gives us confidence that disputes, which will happen from time to time, are resolved in a fair and objective way. We play by the rules—we always will—and all we want is a system that respects that. We are confident that we will gain from that scrutiny.

[Maria Caulfield (Lewes) (Con)]

Will the Government consider stepping in to support the workers in Northern Ireland who are affected by Boeing’s decision in the same way as they stepped in to support the workers during the Tata Steel dispute?

[Greg Clark]

We will of course always be behind the workers in every part of the country, but my determination is not only to save those jobs in Northern Ireland but to see the number of jobs increase and the company prosper and grow. As has been said, the C Series is gaining orders—it is an aircraft that fills an important position in the market. I would like to see the Belfast success story continue to grow in the years ahead.

[Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)]

This situation is a tragedy for Northern Ireland and for Bombardier, and particularly for Northern Ireland industry, which, as I know from when I visited last week, is clearly reeling from the impact of Brexit and the concerns about our leaving the customs union. I welcome the steps the Government are taking, but I wish to press the Secretary of State on the punitive tariffs. What does he think such tariffs imply for the prospects of a beneficial future UK-US trade deal? It is true that this is all happening while we are in the EU, but does he think we will be more or less vulnerable to this sort of bullying in future if we are in or out of the EU?

[Greg Clark]

The right hon. Gentleman describes this as a tragedy; I am absolutely determined that these jobs will be saved, and I never give up. I am determined that this will not be a tragedy; indeed, as I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Lewes (Maria Caulfield), I am determined that Bombardier will go from strength to strength. On future free trade agreements, I repeat my earlier point: we want free trade agreements that provide for a rigorous dispute resolution mechanism on which we can rely. That is something we would hope to negotiate with the US. The credibility and rigour of that process is essential to our agreeing it.

[Huw Merriman (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)]

Many of my constituents, like those of the Secretary of State, work in Gatwick, and I am sure they would send their solidarity to the hon. Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson) for the work he is doing to support workers in his constituency. The Secretary of State mentioned that aerospace industry turnover has grown to £30 billion; with respect to Boeing’s position, can more be done to use financial leverage for the future?

[Greg Clark]

The aerospace sector is a good example of how taking a strategic approach, bringing together the industry firms with universities and research establishments, makes it attractive for small firms in the supply chain to establish themselves. That has been the basis of the aerospace sector’s success, and it is the approach we take in the industrial strategy. As the Minister of State, Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Claire Perry) said in response to the urgent question earlier, an aerospace sector deal will build on that existing reputation and further advance the industry’s prospects.

[Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)]

Bombardier is a UK success story; I congratulate the workforce and management in Belfast. I agree with the Secretary of State that the relationship with Boeing is important, not only from a commercial point of view but from a military view. Does he agree that if Boeing does not relent on this issue, it will put at risk its plans for both technology enhancements and commercial opportunities in the UK?

[Greg Clark]

Yes.

[Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)]

As I understand it, the Secretary of State has said that the preferred solution would be a negotiated settlement with Boeing—an all-out war between the UK and Boeing is clearly in no one’s interest. He rightly referred to the development of Boeing’s first manufacturing output facility in Europe—it is in my constituency and work has started on it—but Boeing has been an essential and original player in the development of advanced manufacturing facilities in Sheffield and Rotherham for the past 10 years. It is crucial that we do everything we can to defend and protect the jobs at Bombardier, while doing nothing to compromise the possibility of further development and jobs from Boeing in Sheffield.

[Greg Clark]

The hon. Gentleman makes an important point, and I know from having attended the meetings in Sheffield just how important and welcome that investment has been. Nevertheless, we need to be absolutely clear that although advanced manufacturing institutions such as those in and around Sheffield are being established, we expect, just as the Canadian Government do, that if companies participate in institutions that promote the UK aerospace sector, they must not at the same time recklessly damage another important part of that sector.

[Lady Hermon (North Down) (Ind)]

I am enormously grateful to the Secretary of State for his valiant efforts to save the Bombardier jobs in Northern Ireland. In his statement, he emphasised the fact that the British Government are working jointly and collectively with the Canadian Government; nevertheless, I am really curious—as are, I am sure, people in Bombardier and in Northern Ireland—to know how effective he reckons the diplomatic efforts between the British and American Governments have been. This is our closest ally: how effective have the diplomatic efforts been?

[Greg Clark]

As I say, we are making a joint effort. It is important that we co-ordinate completely our approach with the Canadian Government, and we have done that. The intensity of our engagement and the actions that we have taken have been completely agreed with the Canadian Government. They obviously have an important relationship with the US, as we do, and we want to make use of that to communicate, as we have done, the importance of Bombardier in Belfast and the importance of applying fairness in this situation, and we will continue to do that. As I have said—my Canadian counterparts are on record as saying exactly the same—this is the first, initial determination. There is some way to go and we, and I personally, will not relent until these jobs are saved and Bombardier can continue its progress in Belfast.

[Nigel Dodds (Belfast North) (DUP)]

I thank the Secretary of State and his Cabinet colleagues for all the work they are doing on this issue, and I pay tribute to the workforce, the trade unions and the management of Bombardier in Belfast for the way they have approached this crisis. Does he agree that, not only today but going forward, everybody in this House should be united behind the workforce and the management? They should not seek to use this issue to score petty political points or as a battering ram against the Government. Our focus should be on the workers: that is what they want to see and they want everybody to be united behind them.

[Greg Clark]

The right hon. Gentleman speaks eloquently and strongly, and I think that is the mood of the House. Whatever the resolution, which we are determined will secure and sustain Bombardier’s future, the workforce is currently going through a torrid time, with people wondering about their livelihoods. That is why the earlier this situation can be brought to a conclusion by Boeing withdrawing its action, the better. It is important that we in this country show complete solidarity. Our debates about Brexit and the American Administration can continue, but every single Member of this House should recognise that this is an unjustified complaint against an important part of the economy. We should be united in standing up for the Bombardier workforce.

[Douglas Chapman (Dunfermline and West Fife) (SNP)]

I express my sympathy with Members from Northern Ireland, who have spoken eloquently on the issues that face them directly and the workforce that they are trying to protect. The Secretary of State in his statement said that, earlier in the year, the Minister for Energy and Industry, the hon. Member for Watford (Richard Harrington) met Boeing about the future relationship with the company. The Secretary of State will be well aware that there are huge and strategic contracts for P-8 maritime patrol aircraft, based at Lossiemouth, which will be important for the UK’s future strategic position and its position in NATO. What specific discussions has the Department had with Boeing about other contracts? How do we square the circle when it comes to what is happening with Bombardier in Northern Ireland and other Boeing contracts that we might have to rely on in future?

[Greg Clark]

The hon. Gentleman allows me to re-emphasise the conversation that I had with Boeing, which is that if there is to be a continuing relationship, we need the confidence that Boeing will deal fairly with the United Kingdom. If this is to be a strategic partnership, it needs to be a partnership, and partners do not take the kind of action against important United Kingdom interests that Boeing is seeking to take.

[Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)]

Does the Secretary of State agree that many workers at Bombardier and in the supply chain across County Antrim, and indeed all of Northern Ireland, will find it despicable that some people would come here— indeed, outside this Chamber—and use the peace process, the spectre of the border and the plight of workers as a critique of how the Government are dealing with this issue? We must stand together, united in our approach to this. Will he also give the House the assurance that when it comes to crunch time—and crunch time is coming—the British Government will not be found wanting in how they defend British workers in Northern Ireland?

[Greg Clark]

I can give that complete assurance to the hon. Gentleman. I think this does unite everyone in the House and across all parts of Northern Ireland, and indeed the island of Ireland. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has again been assiduous in ensuring that no stone is unturned in making the case, as have the leader of the hon. Gentleman’s party and others in Northern Ireland.

A point on which I did not answer the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon)—I apologise—was about our contacts with other people in the US system: congressmen, senators and governors. That has been carried out, again in complete co-ordination with the Canadian Government, and it has been significantly helped by the cordial relations that exist between the United States and many people in Ireland.

[Christian Matheson (City of Chester) (Lab)]

These events put me in mind of those in the 1970s, when the American aerospace industry ran an aggressive campaign against sales of Concorde, spiking any sales of that plane at the time. Does the Secretary of State agree that the motivation for Boeing is not about a trade dispute, but about wiping out a competitor? This situation on its own would be serious enough as it is, but does he also agree that, taken with the statement earlier about the problems at BAE Systems, this is a defining moment for the British aerospace sector as a whole and that we need strong Government support across the sector?

[Greg Clark]

I think these are separate issues. This is a trade dispute—an unjustified complaint that Boeing has brought against Bombardier. It is important that it should be thrown out and the case dismissed. As for the motivation for it, that is for Boeing to describe. It has alleged that this is unfair competition. All I would observe is that it is difficult to point to competition when the product does not compete with an existing Boeing product, so Boeing’s longer-term motivations will need to be justified to the International Trade Commission.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the Secretary of State for his statement and commend my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson) for his hard work and his endeavours on behalf of the workers. I have a Bombardier factory in my constituency, as well as a number of companies that feed into the supply chain. It is clear not only that those at Bombardier will be affected, but that those in the supply chain will be as well. At the same time, Bombardier’s aerospace business was worth $2.4 billion in the US last year—800 companies and, as the Minister said himself, 23,000 workers. Is it not the case that Boeing needs to be careful about the hand that feeds it?

[Greg Clark]

I appreciate what the hon. Gentleman has to say, and he is right to point out that, as well as the hon. Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson), who has worked so indefatigably on this, constituency representatives across Northern Ireland—indeed, across the whole of the United Kingdom—are also affected. I agree with his injunction that we should continue to pursue this to a satisfactory resolution. He has my commitment that we will do that.

Perhaps I can end by reiterating a tribute to the workforce, not just at Bombardier but in the supply chain, who have continued to work completely uninterrupted at the high level and on a calibre of product for which they have an international renown. We want that international renown extended and able to prosper in the future, and I am absolutely determined that we will do that.

Energy Policy

Greg Clark Excerpts

Thursday 14th September 2017 Written Statements

[The Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Greg Clark)]

As part of preparations for EU exit, the UK is establishing a domestic nuclear safeguards regime to ensure that the UK continues to maintain its position as a responsible nuclear state and that withdrawal from Euratom will not result in the weakening of our future safeguards standards and oversight in the UK.

This Government believe that it is vitally important that the new domestic nuclear safeguards regime, to be run by the Office for Nuclear Regulation, is as comprehensive and robust as that currently provided by Euratom. The Government have therefore decided that it will be establishing a domestic regime which will deliver to existing Euratom standards and exceeds the standard that the international community would require from the UK as a member of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). International oversight will be a key part of the future regime. The UK is seeking to conclude new agreements with the IAEA that follow the same principles as our current ones. This will ensure that the IAEA retains its right to inspect all civil nuclear facilities, and continue to receive all current safeguards reporting, ensuring that international verification of our safeguards activity continues to be robust.

Discussions with the European Union are on-going. We will be exploring a number of options for smooth transition from the current Euratom regime to a domestic one. The unique and important nature of the civil nuclear sector means that there is strong mutual interest in ensuring that the UK and Euratom community continue to work closely together in the future. The UK’s ambition is to maintain a close and effective relationship with the Euratom community and the rest of the world that harnesses the UK’s and the Euratom community’s expertise and maximises shared interests. By maintaining our current safeguards and standards we are providing the best possible basis for continued close co-operation with Euratom in the future.

Whatever the outcome of those discussions, the Government are committed to a future regime that provides at least the existing levels of assurance. The legislation to provide for this was announced in the Queen’s Speech and will be brought forward in due course. This policy statement provides important context both for parliamentary consideration of that Bill, and for the forthcoming talks with the European Union, which take place in the last week of September.

[HCWS137]

Oral Answers to Questions

Greg Clark Excerpts

Tuesday 12th September 2017 Commons Chamber

[Alan Mak (Havant) (Con)]

7. What steps he has taken to support the development of electric and autonomous vehicles.

[The Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Greg Clark)]

Our industrial strategy capitalises on our strengths as we build the next generation of motor vehicles. On 25 July, we committed £246 million to the Faraday challenge to make Britain a centre for the development of battery storage. The following day, BMW announced that the new electric Mini will be built in Oxford.

[Alan Mak]

As the fourth industrial revolution gathers pace, countries that embrace electric and autonomous vehicles will find it easier to move both people and products, reducing costs and boosting productivity. Will the Secretary of State continue to support such vehicles, as they drive our future economic growth and productivity?

[Greg Clark]

I will indeed and I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his championing of those investments. We already have an outstanding reputation in the automotive sector through our leadership and investment in both electric and automated vehicles. Ford, for example, has announced that its European smart mobility research will be based in Britain, and Nissan is conducting its automated vehicle testing in the UK. Our code of practice for testing new technologies is globally recognised as the best in the world. We have a successful motor industry and we want it to be stronger still.

[Stephen Kinnock (Aberavon) (Lab)]

On 20 February, the Secretary of State said that he would release the famous letter to Nissan

“when it is no longer commercially confidential”. —[Official Report, 20 February 2017; Vol. 621, c. 784.]

Will he explain whether that will be in 2017, 2018, 2019, or sometime thereafter?

[Greg Clark]

Yes, I will release the letter. The hon. Gentleman reminds us of the fact that the investment Nissan is making in Sunderland has secured 7,000 jobs on that site and nearly 50,000 jobs in the supply chain. It was a very welcome investment. We need to respect Nissan’s confidentiality, but I have made a commitment to the House that, when it no longer applies, I will certainly release the letter.

[Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)]

What discussions is the Secretary of State having with manufacturers on prolonging battery life as rapidly as possible, and on rolling out electricity charging points to ensure the existing points are working and not broken down, and that they become more readily available throughout the UK?

[Greg Clark]

We are gaining international respect and attention, including from some of companies that have been mentioned, for our commitment to research and development of battery storage. That is why, through our industrial strategy, the Faraday challenge to make us the best in the world in battery storage is so important. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to mention charging points. We want to make it possible for people to plug in and charge their cars. We have over 11,000 publicly accessible charge points. That is the largest network in Europe, and we want to expand it further.

[Maria Eagle (Garston and Halewood) (Lab)]

8. What steps he is taking to ensure the security of the UK’s energy supply after the UK leaves the EU.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jo Swinson (East Dunbartonshire) (LD)]

9. What steps he is taking to encourage long-term decision-making in corporate governance.

[The Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Greg Clark)]

One of Britain’s greatest assets in competing in the global economy is our reputation for being a dependable place in which to do business. In our response to the recent Green Paper on corporate governance, we set out plans to build on those strengths through greater transparency and accountability to shareholders, employees and suppliers, and others with an interest in the long-term success of companies.

[Jo Swinson]

A myopic focus on short-term profit and share price in many British boardrooms damages the UK economy, leading to chronically low rates of business investment and the treatment of workers as units of production rather than human beings. Some respondents to the Green Paper suggested that long-term investors should be rewarded with stronger shareholder voting rights. Can the Secretary of State explain why the Government rejected that interesting proposal?

[Greg Clark]

We consulted widely on the Green Paper, and the set of reforms that we are making has enjoyed broad support. We are proposing to extend the holding periods for long-term share incentives from three years to five years. I think the hon. Lady played some part in the introduction of the three-year periods, and I hope that she will welcome the extension. We are also making it a more explicit requirement of boards, including boards of directors, to reflect in their reports and accounts what they are doing for a wider range of stakeholders, not just the short-term issues. I hope the hon. Lady will welcome that as well.

[Mr Gavin Shuker (Luton South) (Lab/Co-op)]

11. To ask the Secretary of State what assessment he has made of the capacity of the industrial strategy challenge fund to increase economic growth.

[The Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Greg Clark)]

The industrial strategy challenge fund will help to drive growth in all parts of the country by using research and development to position us well in global markets where Britain has particular strengths.

[Mr Shuker]

Can the Secretary of State explain why his challenge fund is directed at sectors that are dominated by an over-representation of men, while many of the professions in which females are over-represented face low investment, low skills, low pay and low productivity?

[Greg Clark]

Our exchanges this morning show the potential and the strengths that we have in successful sectors such as the automotive, healthcare and medicine, and satellite and space sectors, in which we are creating very good jobs. However, my ambition and my Department’s ambition—which I hope the hon. Gentleman shares—is to increase the proportion of women and other groups who are under-represented in those industries, because there is talent there that we should be using, and part of our drive is to get the best talent into those world-beating industries.

[Mr Adrian Bailey (West Bromwich West) (Lab/Co-op)]

A recent report produced by Sheffield Hallam University found that the challenge fund had too narrow a sectoral focus, which was disproportionately benefiting areas in the south-east at the expense of traditional manufacturing areas in, for instance, the west midlands. What elements of the fund will benefit areas such as mine?

[Greg Clark]

I have not seen the report. I will look at it, but I think it is mistaken. The challenge fund includes, for example, the Faraday challenge, which I launched at the University of Birmingham along with many industrialists and academics from across the west midlands. It is proposed that the west midlands should be at the heart of the challenge. Investment in driverless cars, and in satellites and space, is taking place throughout the country. One of the big features of the challenge fund is that it reaches every part of the country, and, indeed, every part of the United Kingdom.

[Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)]

With Brexit uncertainty mounting, inflation rising, growth faltering, business confidence at a six-year low, and the euro at a record high—[Interruption.] I am sorry, but that is the truth. Our economy therefore needs action from this Government, but instead it is groundhog day, with the same money announced over and over again, which makes it back to the future for our regions, with, as my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich West (Mr Bailey) indicated, the challenge fund money being shown by Sheffield Hallam research to impact only 1% of the economy, overwhelmingly in the south-east. So will the Secretary of State stop prevaricating, do the right thing and tell us right now what level of regional growth he expects the challenge fund to deliver? Or does he not even know what success looks like any longer?

[Greg Clark]

Talking of groundhog day, the hon. Lady talks complete nonsense. The industrial strategy challenge fund and the industrial strategy Green Paper have been widely welcomed in all parts of the country. After our exchanges, I will send the hon. Lady the support it has had from the north-east of England, of which she should be aware. This is something that has long been called for. I have listed the sectors that will benefit. As we are talking about manufacturing, in terms of her reflections on the state of confidence in the economy, the hon. Lady should know that the EEF last week reported record orders, record export orders, record employment and record investment intention. She should welcome that.

[Ms Marie Rimmer (St Helens South and Whiston) (Lab)]

12. To ask the Secretary of State what steps his Department is taking to support small and medium-sized enterprises.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Philippa Whitford (Central Ayrshire) (SNP)]

13. What plans he has to ensure that the industrial strategy is effectively implemented in rural areas.

[The Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Greg Clark)]

Some of the biggest economic opportunities are in the rural parts of the United Kingdom, and I welcome the contribution of many rural representative groups to the development of our industrial strategy, including several organisations in Ayrshire.

[Dr Whitford]

Ayrshire has enormous industrial potential, including as a possible site for the medical manufacturing innovation centre and, of course, for the UK’s first spaceport, but for it to succeed and for local people to benefit and access those jobs we require wider infrastructure development. Ayrshire is not covered by a city deal, so will the Secretary of State speak to the Chancellor and back a full Ayrshire growth deal?

[Greg Clark]

The hon. Lady knows that I have great enthusiasm for a deal in Ayrshire, and conversations around that are ongoing. I am sure that she will welcome the progress being made on the spaceport, which is important for Prestwick, and the £3.5 million support for the Halo project at the old Johnnie Walker bottling plant in Kilmarnock. A lot is being done in Ayrshire, but I would like that progress to continue.

[Jo Churchill (Bury St Edmunds) (Con)]

Has the Secretary of State considered rural enterprise zones? Small, targeted areas within small rural communities would help to drive business in those environments.

[Greg Clark]

My hon. Friend makes an excellent suggestion. There are particular opportunities for start-ups and smaller businesses to locate in rural areas, where premises may be more available than in towns. Clustering them together so that they can support each other is an excellent suggestion and I will take it forward.

[Nigel Mills (Amber Valley) (Con)]

15. What steps his Department is taking to increase transparency in the property market.

--- Later in debate ---

[John Penrose (Weston-super-Mare) (Con)]

17. Whether Ofgem is able to implement a domestic energy price cap within its present powers.

[The Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Greg Clark)]

Ofgem has extensive powers that would allow it to establish a cap on household energy prices that cause consumer detriment. The Competition and Markets Authority identified a consumer detriment averaging £1.4 billion a year, which I expect Ofgem to take measures to eradicate.

[John Penrose]

I thank the Secretary of State for that clarification. Is it not pathetic of Ofgem to ask the Government to pass a law ordering it to impose an energy price cap when, as he says, it has the legal powers to do that already? Does that not show that Ofgem is miserably failing to stick up for energy customers? Will he therefore push Ofgem to grow a spine and introduce a cap without delay?

[Greg Clark]

Ofgem has yet to respond to my request. I have the power to oblige Ofgem to put a cap in place. Doing that would seem excessive, and it would require primary legislation. Ofgem has those powers, so there is no need for that. That is why, faced with this huge detriment of £1.4 billion on average, I believe it is essential that Ofgem uses the powers that Parliament has given it to eradicate the detriment.

[Caroline Flint (Don Valley) (Lab)]

T1. If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

[The Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Greg Clark)]

Over the last few weeks we have made significant progress across a number of the Department’s responsibilities. We have been discussing the first sector deal, which will involve the Government working alongside life sciences businesses to capitalise on our expert science and research base to make that industry even more competitive. Our reforms of corporate governance, which will ensure that businesses publish pay ratios between chief executives and staff, will help to maintain the UK’s reputation as a confident place in which to do business. We continue to invest in innovation throughout the country through the industrial strategy. In July, I announced the Faraday challenge, a £0.25 billion investment in battery technology in all parts of the country that will boost both research and development and job creation in the industry.

[Caroline Flint]

The Secretary of State knows that the concern for Ofgem, even though it has the power, is that energy companies would appeal to the CMA and frustrate the process. What he has not acknowledged today is that, under section 26 of the Energy Act 2010, he already has the power to introduce a price cap if one group of customers is treated less favourably than other customers by an energy supplier. Why does he not seek measures to introduce the power he already has?

[Greg Clark]

Ofgem is the regulator, and it had a report from the Competition and Markets Authority saying that consumers are being ripped off to the tune of £1.4 billion a year. We have a regulator with powers given by Parliament, and those powers should be used. That is the challenge for Ofgem. I would be very surprised and very disappointed if any of the big six, knowing the objectivity of the CMA report, were to protest and appeal against such a determination.

[Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)]

T2. I know the ministerial team has been working hard on this, but the issue with sleep-in shifts, if it is not resolved, is that charities will have to close their doors and the people they support, including those with learning disabilities, will be left without care. Will the Minister update us on the progress on quantifying the back-pay liabilities of those charities and on when an appropriate solution will be delivered?

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

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

[Greg Clark]

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

[Rebecca Long Bailey]

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

[Greg Clark]

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

[Jo Churchill (Bury St Edmunds) (Con)]

T3. The life sciences industry is worth £64 billion to the UK, and Sir John Bell’s report last week indicated how important manufacturing was. Will the Minister therefore join me in welcoming the opening of the cell and gene manufacturing unit and welcome further jobs in this industry in the east of England, particularly in my constituency?

[Jessica Morden (Newport East) (Lab)]

T5. This week’s electricity grid connection deal would make the Cardiff tidal lagoon the UK’s largest renewable energy project, generating some of the cheapest power in the country, and it would be a big boost to Newport, but its potential can be realised only with the Government first backing the pilot project in Swansea bay. When will that happen?

[Greg Clark]

I do understand the great interest in this matter. As the House knows, I am enthusiastic about renewable technologies, but we have an important responsibility to make sure that they proceed at a price that is reasonable for consumers, who pay through their bills. That is being assessed and I will report to the House when that assessment is finished.

[Bill Grant (Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock) (Con)]

T4. Although wind turbines play an important part in the nation’s energy mix, it is alleged that the quality of life and health of some rural residents is adversely affected by noise emissions. Are the current noise limits and recording methodologies sufficient—I am referring to low-frequency noise and infrasound—or should the methodologies be reviewed?

--- Later in debate ---

[Greg Clark]

I am aware of the issue and the representations being made on it. I am happy to meet the hon. Gentleman to explore what steps might be available, but he will be aware that pensions are, correctly, run at arm’s length from the Government, through an independent regulator and through the trustees, and so the Government’s ability to determine these things is very limited.

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

T6. Trading on the world’s markets as a free trade nation after 2019 will be a bit like swimming in the Serpentine on a winter’s morning: bracing and invigorating but a bit heart-stopping if one is not prepared. Will my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State explain how he is gearing up his entire Department to ensure that British industry no longer debates the rights or wrongs of staying in the EU or the single market but is fully prepared, and up-to-scratch with conferences, seminars and all the rest, to trade on the world’s markets?

[Greg Clark]

My hon. Friend will be aware that my whole departmental team are very active, both in this country and overseas, in setting out the huge opportunities to build on this country’s strengths and be economically successful post-Brexit. I know that that work enjoys his full support.

[Catherine McKinnell (Newcastle upon Tyne North) (Lab)]

The growth of new and renewable technologies presents a huge opportunity for the north-east economy but, given the continued uncertainty about the clean growth plan and our membership of and access to the single market, what are the Government doing to encourage business investment in this area?

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Hammond (Wimbledon) (Con)]

T8. Now that it is autumn, many of our constituents are concerned about the cost of fuel and energy this winter. What can the Secretary of State say to reassure all our constituents that fuel and energy will be accessible for all this winter?

[Greg Clark]

We still have in this country some of the lower energy prices in Europe, but the major energy companies’ increases for those on the standard variable tariffs are clearly unacceptable. The issue has been identified by Ofgem, which needs to take action to correct it.

[Peter Kyle (Hove) (Lab)]

Since the launch of the much heralded productivity plan 18 months ago, productivity has plummeted to pre-crash levels. Will the Secretary of State tell us which one part of that productivity plan he feels is responsible for the cataclysmic productivity figures we have today?

[Greg Clark]

The hon. Gentleman is an intelligent fellow and knows that the route to building productivity in this country is to look to the long term to establish, in a serious way, a shared analysis and determination about what is to be done. On skills, for example, I hope he will share our view that by investing in technical education through the new T-levels and extending the hours for which people are educated, we are taking a step towards addressing what is a generational challenge for the UK economy.

[Vicky Ford (Chelmsford) (Con)]

More than eight out of 10 British manufacturers export elsewhere in the EU and tariffs or customs delays could have a negative impact. Will the Secretary of State confirm that the Government will seek to negotiate transitional relationships that maintain the economic benefits of the single market and customs union until a new relationship with the EU can be implemented?

[Greg Clark]

It is completely understood that a cliff edge would be bad for business. Companies need to have the confidence to be able to make investment decisions over the next few months and years. That acceptance across Government is welcomed by business.

Corporate Governance Reform Green Paper

Greg Clark Excerpts

Wednesday 6th September 2017 Written Statements

[The Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Greg Clark)]

One of the UK’s biggest assets in competing in the global economy is its reputation for being a dependable and confident place in which to do business. This has been maintained by keeping the corporate governance framework up to date.

The Government published the Green Paper on corporate governance reform last November. It focused on three specific aspects of corporate governance where the Government saw particular scope to strengthen the current framework—executive pay, corporate governance in large privately held businesses, and the steps that company boards take to engage and listen to employees, suppliers and other groups with an interest in corporate performance.

The Green Paper attracted 375 responses from a wide cross-section of business and society and have provided Government with a solid basis on which to take decisions. It has also benefited from the work of the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee which published recommendations for corporate governance reform in April.

Three key themes emerged from responses to the consultation.

First, in relation to executive pay, there were widely held concerns that a small minority of companies are not responding adequately when they encounter significant shareholder opposition to levels of executive pay and that remuneration committees need to do more to demonstrate that they are sensitive to pay and conditions across the wider workforce.

Second, a widely held view that large companies could do more to strengthen the employee, customer, supplier and wider stakeholder voice at boardroom level as a key factor in improving boardroom decision-making, delivering more sustainable business performance and building wider public confidence in the way businesses are run.

Third, there was a widely held view that there should be more transparency and accountability for corporate governance in large privately held businesses, reflecting their economic and social significance.

The Government have now published their response to the consultation setting out the proposals that they now intend to take forward to address these and other corporate governance issues. They involve a combination of secondary legislation, enhancements to the UK corporate governance code (which is overseen by the Financial Reporting Council) and voluntary, business-led action.

The Government intend to introduce secondary legislation to:

Require quoted companies to report annually the ratio of chief executive total remuneration to the average pay of the company’s UK employees, and to set out more clearly in remuneration policies the impact of share price growth on long-term executive pay outcomes;

Require all companies of significant size to explain how their directors comply with their requirements under Section 172 of the Companies Act 2006 to have regard to employee and other interests;

Require the UK’s largest companies, including privately-held businesses, to disclose their corporate governance arrangements, including whether they follow any formal code, except where they are already subject to an equivalent reporting requirement.

The Government have also invited the Financial Reporting Council (FRC), as part of their consultation on a revised UK corporate governance code later this year, to consider a number of new provisions including:

Giving company remuneration committees a broader responsibility for overseeing pay and incentives across the company and explaining how these relate to executive pay incentives;

Requiring companies to be more specific about the steps they should take to address significant shareholder dissent on executive pay (and other matters);

Requiring companies, on a comply or explain basis, to adopt one of three employee engagement mechanisms: a designated non-executive director, an employee advisory council or a director from the workforce.

The Government have asked business and professional bodies to take forward related business-led initiatives, including:

Inviting the CBI, the Institute of Directors, the British Venture Capital Association and the Institute of Family Businesses to work with the FRC to develop a voluntary set of corporate governance principles for large, privately held businesses; and

Asking the Investment Association to implement its proposal to establish and maintain a public register of companies receiving significant shareholder votes against resolutions, including on executive pay.

In addition, the Government have asked the FRC, the Financial Conduct Authority and the Insolvency Service to conclude new or, in some cases, revised letters of understanding with each other before the end of this year to ensure the most effective use of their existing powers to sanction directors and ensure the integrity of corporate governance reporting. The Government will consider, in the light of this work, whether further action is required.

Implementation of these measures will improve shareholder scrutiny of executive remuneration, strengthen the employee voice in board-rooms and build confidence in the way companies, both listed and privates are run. They will build on the UK’s corporate governance strengths and help ensure that we are equipped for the economic opportunities and challenges that lie ahead.

The Government’s full response to the Green Paper consultation is available on the gov.uk website and copies have been placed in the Library of the House.

[HCWS112]

Energy Price Cap

Greg Clark Excerpts

Monday 3rd July 2017 Commons Chamber

[Dr Alan Whitehead (Southampton, Test) (Lab)]

(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy if he will make a statement on the Government’s intention for an energy price cap.

[The Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Greg Clark)]

Following a two-year inquiry, the Competition and Markets Authority found that energy customers on standard variable tariffs were paying on average £1.4 billion a year more than would be the case in a competitive market. That is completely unacceptable, so my party’s manifesto committed to introduce a safeguard tariff to extend the price protection currently in place for some vulnerable customers—those on pre-payment meters—to more customers on the poorest-value tariffs. The energy regulator, Ofgem, has the powers necessary to impose such a price cap without delay, and I wrote to its chief executive on 21 June to ask it to use its powers to do so. Today, the regulator has replied and announced that it will work with consumer groups to take measures, including extending the current safeguard tariff for those on pre-payment meters to a wider group of consumers, and move urgently to implement these changes.

I welcome this initial proposal—it is a step in the right direction—but I will wait to see the actual proposals turned into action to cut bills, as the test of whether the regulator’s changes go far enough is whether they move sufficiently to eradicate the detriment to consumers that the CMA identified. I remain prepared to legislate if they do not, and I hope that such legislation would command wide support across the House.

[Dr Whitehead]

I thank the Minister for his response. Does he recall that during the election his party placed the promise of an overall cap on energy prices at the centre of its manifesto? Indeed, does he recall the Prime Minister stating:

“I am making this promise: if I am re-elected on 8 June, I will take action to end this injustice by introducing a cap on unfair energy price rises. It will protect around 17 million families on standard variable tariffs from being exploited with sudden and unjustified increases in bills”?

Does the Secretary of State accept that Ofgem’s response to his letter of 21 June on energy prices falls far short of implementing that promise and that, although there are welcome suggestions on safeguarding tariffs and capping warrant charges for the installation of pre-pay meters, those measures would affect only 2.5 million customers, leaving more than 14 million SVT customers completely unprotected from price rises over the next period? Will he confirm that his letter did not ask Ofgem to consider introducing a general price cap? Will he tell the House why it did not, even though the chief executive officer of Ofgem confirmed earlier this year that it would have the discretionary power to implement an energy price cap?

Does the Secretary of State intend to pass legislation to require Ofgem to introduce a price cap, or is he now content to let his firm election promise of a cap fall by the wayside? If so, what does he have to say to the 17 million people on standard variable tariffs who thought that relief from rip-off price rises was on its way but will now feel completely betrayed by this policy U-turn?

--- Later in debate ---

[Greg Clark]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his questions. I hope he will see that I answered many of his points in my initial response to the urgent question. He will share my view—indeed, I think it is his view, too—that we should act as soon as possible to provide relief to consumers. That will require Ofgem to use its powers. It has powers that it can use immediately, and I have encouraged it to do so.

The hon. Gentleman mentioned my letter. I am sure that, as he was hoping to come into government, he studied the prospective use of the powers, so he will know that legislation requires me to ask Ofgem for advice. I did so under exactly those terms and Ofgem has responded by saying that it will work with consumer groups to identify how far the protection should go. I have been clear that I want the detriment of £1.4 billion a year to be eradicated. It is a test of Ofgem’s responsiveness that it should use its powers to that end. The constituents of Government and Opposition Members will look to the regulator to make use of its powers to prevent the continuation of such an unacceptable situation, which involves more than £1 billion a year.

[John Penrose (Weston-super-Mare) (Con)]

To build on my right hon. Friend’s most recent answer, some 17 million families are being ripped off by expensive standard variable tariff deals. Ofgem’s proposals will deal with at most 3 million of them, leaving 14 million still being preyed on by the big six energy firms. Does my right hon. Friend agree that Ofgem’s proposals will be viewed as a great betrayal of those 14 million households? If we are going to create an economy that works for everyone, will he distance himself from this big six stitch-up and pledge to help the millions of households that Ofgem seems set to ignore?

[Greg Clark]

My hon. Friend has done great work with many Members from various parties to establish that there is an appetite and need to tackle the problem exposed by the CMA, which has been going on for too long. In response to my letter, Ofgem has said today that it will work with consumer groups and come forward with a range of responses. I will look at them closely, as I know my hon. Friend will, and I am sure that the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee will, too. I have said clearly that the test of the adequacy of the responses is that they address the clear detriment that the authorities have identified.

[Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)]

The UK Government really lack strategy right across the energy sector. The £20 billion Hinkley Point C project will add to future household bills, mention of energy was sadly lacking in the Green Paper that was published before the election, and now there is this lack of a joined-up approach to an energy cap. Will the Secretary of State confirm the Government’s plans to protect the 14 million people who will not be covered by the current proposals? Of the £1.4 billion that the CMA has said is going to the big companies instead of staying in consumers’ pockets, how much will be returned to consumers under the measures that are being introduced? He said that he might consider legislation, but what is his timescale for reviewing what is happening and deciding whether there is a need to act? Will he ask Ofgem to determine what the true level of a cap should be?

--- Later in debate ---

[Greg Clark]

The hon. Gentleman talks about energy strategy, and it is right that the Government have taken a decision—this was ducked by previous Governments for decades—to renew our nuclear power stations that are coming to the end of their lives. He will know that the SNP Government in Scotland agreed to extend the lives of nuclear power stations there, and he will also know about the impact of our success on renewable energy, specifically offshore wind, in Scotland. I have had fruitful discussions with colleagues throughout Scotland, especially in the remote islands, about the future possibilities for that.

On Ofgem’s response to my letter, I have set out clearly that it has said it will work with and consult consumer groups, and come up with a range of options. The £1.4 billion detriment has to be eradicated, and that is the test of whether the proposals are acceptable. I am sure that the House wants to scrutinise them as much as I do.

[John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)]

My right hon. Friend inherited a system that relies increasingly on dear energy, which drives up household bills. Is there anything that he can do to bring a greater amount of cheaper energy into the mix so that bills reduce in five or 10 years’ time?

[Greg Clark]

My right hon. Friend makes an excellent point. We need to ensure that we meet our important climate change commitments at a competitive cost—for consumers and for businesses—and that we obtain the industrial benefits from having a supply chain in this country. That is exactly why we devote a chapter of the industrial strategy Green Paper to future plans to make the most of the clean energy transition in all respects.

[Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)]

Having seen the recent report, surely it is safe to say that wind and solar will be the future for low-cost energy, but there was a Duke Ellington song called “How long has this been going on?” The fact is that this has been going on too long—this exploitation of people who cannot avoid paying above the price. Is it not about time that we moved away from botched privatisation and inadequate regulation to an answer that puts money back in people’s pockets, rather than taking it out?

[Greg Clark]

In response to the first part of the hon. Gentleman’s question, I welcome, as he does, the huge progress that has been made not just in the deployment of renewables, but in the cost reductions that we have seen. That process has created jobs across the UK, especially in coastal towns. I had the pleasure of opening the Siemens wind blade factory in Hull, which created 1,000 good jobs. However, he is right that the detriment has been going on too long, which was why the Government asked the CMA to investigate the industry root and branch. It has identified £1.4 billion of detriment, and I have made it absolutely clear that that detriment needs to be returned to the pockets of consumers.

[Mrs Anne Main (St Albans) (Con)]

May I tell the Secretary of State that the latest data show that 2,687 households in my constituency are estimated to be in fuel poverty? That is 6.6% of all households. What more can be done to identify these vulnerable groups and ensure that they have the best advice and information about switching tariffs? The suggestion that people search online is not the way forward. Perhaps it would be more helpful to have a better dialogue between the consumer and the energy provider.

[Greg Clark]

I agree with my hon. Friend. One feature of the energy market is that the poorer someone is, the larger the proportion of their income that they spend on energy. That is why it is imperative that vulnerable consumers should not be required go on the internet every few months to check that their tariff has not defaulted to a much higher one. That was the reason for my letter to Ofgem, and it is why I want its response to be vigorous. My hon. Friend is absolutely right that an aspect of the wider set of policies is to make it easier for consumers to know the price of energy and how much they consume, and smart meters are being introduced to help more people to do that.

[Sir Edward Davey (Kingston and Surbiton) (LD)]

Has the Secretary of State seen the analysis and evidence of former independent energy regulators who say that the consumer detriment pointed to by the CMA in this market was based on seriously flawed methodology? If he has not, will he look at that and report back to the House?

[Greg Clark]

I have seen that. This two-year inquiry conducted by the CMA identified £1.4 billion of detriment, which is a huge amount of money. When our constituents see the difference—it can be up to £100 a year—that they pay for a dual fuel bill by being on a dual fuel tariff, they know that that is significant amount.

The CMA said that suppliers have “unilateral market power” over their inactive customer base and could exploit their position by pricing their SVTs above a level that could be justified. That cannot go on.

[Stephen Kerr (Stirling) (Con)]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that it will take more than easier switching to encourage a fairer energy market in this country?

[Greg Clark]

A response is required from the regulator; this is a regulated industry. The development of modern markets means that it is possible for suppliers, especially dominant ones, to identify the customers who are the least likely to switch. As my hon. Friend the Member for St Albans (Mrs Main) said, they are often among the most vulnerable. It is unacceptable to use that information to sting them, and regulation has to catch up with that.

[Mr Speaker]

I think it is time that we heard again from the good doctor—Dr David Drew.

--- Later in debate ---

[Greg Clark]

We are seeing a big increase in the deployment of renewables as the price comes down, as the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr Sheerman) said. The effect of the overcharging—the abuse—is not a return to consumers, and this is not about the increased deployment of renewables. In the analysis of the CMA, the practice results in profits that are higher than they would be in a competitive market and relative inefficiency on the part of the suppliers. Consumers should not be paying for either of those.

[Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)]

Many energy consumers, particularly those on low incomes, do not pay their energy bills by direct debit, but they get huge increased charges from many of the energy companies when they do pay, even when they do so on time. Will my right hon. Friend look into this and make sure that people who do not pay their energy bills by direct debit get a fair energy bill?

[Greg Clark]

My right hon. Friend makes an excellent point. As I said, the poorest 10% of households spend 10% of their household expenditure on energy, whereas the richest 10% spend 3% of theirs on it. We need to look particularly at the conditions of more vulnerable consumers to ensure that they are not disadvantaged. My right hon. Friend mentioned one of the ways in which they are.

[Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)]

Are we not tinkering at the edges and doing a little bit of window dressing? I think that we all agree that the energy market appears to be dysfunctional. We saw that best at the beginning of this year when there was an increase in tariffs across the board that bore no relation to wholesale prices, but had everything to do with the exchange rate, particularly that with the euro, as most of our domestic companies are actually based in France or Germany. The big six are essentially operating as a cartel, not in the interests of the consumer.

[Greg Clark]

I am not sure that I would give them the excuse of exchange rate movements. The Competition and Markets Authority has said that suppliers have unilateral market power over this part of their customer base. This is a regulated market. Ofgem has the powers to introduce and extend the price gap, and my view is that it should use those powers now.

[Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)]

Going back to switching, does the Secretary of State think that more needs to be done to make it much easier to switch, particularly for our more vulnerable constituents?

[Greg Clark]

I agree with my hon. Friend. While there should certainly not be barriers in the way, it also should not be necessary for people to spend every evening on the internet checking whether their bill has gone up by an outrageous margin. If people are loyal to a brand, it is not unreasonable for them to expect to be treated reasonably, especially as that brand may be a trusted brand. The regulator should enforce that.

[Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (PC)]

We produce far more electricity in Wales than we use, yet we pay the highest electricity prices in the British state. More than a third of our households are in fuel poverty. Does that not suggest that Westminster control over Welsh energy policy is not working?

--- Later in debate ---

[Greg Clark]

No, it is one of the reasons why this investigation was commissioned and why what I have asked Ofgem to consider and enact will be particularly important to the hon. Gentleman’s constituents in Wales.

[Rachel Maclean (Redditch) (Con)]

Will my right hon. Friend join me in welcoming Ofgem’s proposal to consult on more measures to help microbusinesses?

[Greg Clark]

I do welcome that. We have talked about household consumers, and for many very small businesses, their energy bill is also an important component of their costs. In my request for advice, which it was technically necessary to make to Ofgem, I asked for that advice to apply to microbusinesses as well.

[Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)]

The usual vested interests—the big six—were on the airwaves this morning advising consumers to switch their energy supplier, but if consumers really want to see a change to this rip-off of energy prices, do they not have to switch Governments?

[Greg Clark]

No, it was this Government who referred the whole industry to the Competition and Markets Authority. When the right hon. Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband) was Energy Secretary, I urged this measure on him, and he rejected it flat, so it is this Government who have exposed the level of the detriment, and it is this Government who are acting to put a cap in place to prevent this abuse—that did not happen under Labour.

[James Heappey (Wells) (Con)]

As welcome as a price cap will undoubtedly be, does the Secretary of State agree that the real key to bringing down prices for consumers is the liberalisation of the energy market through the digitisation of the energy system, storage in front of and behind the meter, and a demand-side response?

[Greg Clark]

My hon. Friend, who is well informed about such issues, is absolutely right. The opportunity that smart meters bring is that people can have much more knowledge and control of their energy use, and use that to get the best deals available. That is why the roll-out of smart meters is such an important part of our reforms to the energy market.

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

But does the outcome of the CMA inquiry not tell the Secretary of State, as a reasonable man, that this is the end of the road for the system? Privatisation did not work, the regulatory system has not worked, and we have had to have a CMA inquiry. What is needed is a fundamental reappraisal and change of this whole energy edifice?

[Greg Clark]

I am surprised to hear implicit support from the hon. Gentleman for the programme of nationalisation of this sector that the Labour party stood on. The billions of pounds that that would cost would not be the most important use of funds. This has been a regulated industry since privatisation many years ago, and the regulation needs to function better than it has.

[Sir Oliver Letwin (West Dorset) (Con)]

I have been listening carefully to my right hon. Friend’s answers. Am I right to understand that he would not be satisfied with a final solution from Ofgem that continued to cross-subsidise some customers out of a kind of loyalty premium paid by those who, even if not vulnerable, did not switch?

[Greg Clark]

This is a wake-up call for the industry. A model in which consumers who are known not to switch can be milked to pay a subsidy for other consumers in an unfair way—the CMA identified “unilateral market power”, which enables firms to exploit their position—has to come to an end.

[Mike Wood (Dudley South) (Con)]

While I welcome proposals to make it easier to switch away from poor deals, does my right hon. Friend agree that Ofgem needs to go much further than it suggested in its letter to him this morning to protect consumers from exploitation?

[Greg Clark]

There is a clear expectation that I want the detriment that the CMA has identified to be tackled once and for all. Ofgem has said that it will consult consumer groups, and I hope and expect that those consumer groups will share my hon. Friend’s analysis.

[Giles Watling (Clacton) (Con)]

Will my right hon. Friend join me in welcoming Ofgem’s acknowledgment regarding the ability to put a cap in place? Should we not urge it to use the power fully?

[Greg Clark]

My hon. Friend is right, and the proposal to consult consumer groups and to go beyond the CMA’s remedies—at least what the majority report of the CMA recommended—is welcome. As I said, that is a step in the right direction, but I would want to see this put out in detail and implemented before I would be satisfied with it.

[Tom Pursglove (Corby) (Con)]

Speaking as someone who represents an industrial town, has my right hon. Friend, as part of the wider debate on these issues, had the opportunity to assess what impact nationalising the energy companies would have on household and commercial energy bills?

[Greg Clark]

I have indeed. The impact of finding the billions of pounds necessary to take these industries into public ownership would not only be a disaster for our public finances, but the destruction of investor confidence in a whole range of industries that we need investment in.

[Mr Speaker]

I call Julian Smith. I mean Julian Knight.

--- Later in debate ---

[Julian Knight]

I was a BBC News consumer affairs reporter for five years, and during that time I saw the havoc that can be wrought by pre-payment metering. Does my right hon. Friend agree that practices such as rip-off emergency credit, which makes a payday loan look reasonable, need to be brought to heel, and that we should welcome Ofgem’s proposal to extend the current safeguard tariff for consumers on pre-payment meters?

[Greg Clark]

It can only be a matter of time before my hon. Friend enjoys the position to which you referred, Mr Speaker.

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. It has been the practice of this Government to intervene when there are abuses, especially of vulnerable people in the way in which he describes. That has happened with pre-payment meters, but the approach needs to go much further.

[Mr Speaker]

We are most grateful to the Secretary of State and to colleagues.

Oral Answers to Questions

Greg Clark Excerpts

Tuesday 27th June 2017 Commons Chamber

[Jo Churchill (Bury St Edmunds) (Con)]

2. What steps he has taken to consult businesses on the process of the UK leaving the EU.

[The Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Greg Clark)]

Since the referendum, I have held discussions with businesses, workers and local leaders across the UK, and investors all around the world. These will continue over the coming months, including my weekly meetings with the directors general of the five main business organisations. The Government are creating a new EU exit business advisory group to ensure that business is not only heard but is influential throughout the negotiations.

[Jo Churchill]

My particular interest is in the UK’s life science sector, which is worth some £30 billion to the economy and involves nearly half a million jobs, many of which are in my constituency of Bury St Edmunds. Will the Secretary of State tell me how he will ensure that there is continued support to this vital leading research and science sector as we leave the EU?

[Greg Clark]

I will indeed. My hon. Friend is a great champion of the sector. In our negotiations, we want to ensure that we can continue these successful collaborations, as well as making further investment in the future of research through our industrial strategy. The House may be interested to know that I can announce today that the Government’s commitment to underwrite the UK’s fair share for the Joint European Torus costs—the leading nuclear fusion facility in Oxfordshire, supporting 1,300 jobs—will be made. The facility is funded through a contract between the European Commission and the UK Atomic Energy Authority. In making this commitment, the Government hope to provide the certainty and reassurance needed for a mutually beneficial extension of the contract.

[Mr Ben Bradshaw (Exeter) (Lab)]

All the five business organisations to which the Secretary of State refers have come out against the Prime Minister’s extreme and damaging Brexit. What is he personally doing to ensure that the Prime Minister not only hears what they are saying, but listens to it?

[Greg Clark]

The right hon. Gentleman will know that the five business organisations have put forward a sensible set of principles to govern the transition and the shape of a final agreement. Those suggestions seem very sensible. Part of the point of engaging with business, as I do rigorously and frequently, is to ensure that that voice is heard.

[Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)]

One of the important principles that those business organisations have stressed is the essential nature of having contractual and legal certainty for those who are entering into legal obligations so that they know that that will continue to be enforceable once we leave the EU. Will the Secretary of State therefore ensure that particular regard is had to the need for transition periods to be based on the reality of business practice, rather than on arbitrary considerations?

[Greg Clark]

My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. If he has the continued privilege to chair the Select Committee on Justice, I am sure that it will provide some help in this.

[Rachel Reeves (Leeds West) (Lab)]

Many businesses are particularly concerned about additional checks on trade imports and exports if we leave the customs union. Can the Secretary of State give businesses any reassurance at all that there will not be additional checks if and when we leave the customs union?

[Greg Clark]

I have always been clear, as have the Government, that we want not only no tariffs, but no bureaucratic impediments of the type described by the hon. Lady. That is one of the objectives set out by the business organisations. As she knows, the negotiations have just started, but we are clear that that is our objective.

[Mr Jacob Rees-Mogg (North East Somerset) (Con)]

Will my right hon. Friend be asking businesses to list the most egregious and restrictive EU directives that may be removed once we leave in order to make British business more competitive and efficient?

[Greg Clark]

I am sure that my hon. Friend will be an assiduous contributor to the scrutiny of the repeal Bill. The approach is to transfer into UK law that which was part of EU law precisely so that this House can scrutinise and consider what should be continued.

[Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)]

The Government said yesterday that EU citizens will be able to apply for what they called “settled status”, so that they can continue to live and work in the UK. Application processes can be time-consuming, not to mention complicated, expensive and off-putting, especially when this Government are involved. How can the Secretary of State guarantee that all EU nationals working in the UK will be allowed to stay not just in theory but in practice, to the benefit of the many businesses that rely on EU workers?

[Greg Clark]

I welcome the hon. Gentleman back to his place. In fact, I think that Labour’s whole Front-Bench team has been reappointed. It is nice to see loyalty rewarded. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right, and I thought that he would welcome the Prime Minister’s very positive statement. It is important that the process is implemented with no bureaucracy so that people can apply with confidence.

[Stuart C. McDonald (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (SNP)]

3. What his policy is on the non-release or late release of cash retentions in the construction industry.

--- Later in debate ---

[Liam Byrne (Birmingham, Hodge Hill) (Lab)]

14. What steps his Department is taking to foster a positive environment for business growth.

[The Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Greg Clark)]

The industrial strategy Green Paper was launched on 23 January and has been warmly received across the country. We have received over 1,900 responses to the consultation, with respondents from every part of the United Kingdom. I look forward to taking our modern industrial strategy forward, with the involvement of all Members of this House, in the months ahead.

[Gavin Newlands]

In a damaging blow to business confidence and the wider economy in Renfrewshire, Chivas Brothers announced that it was moving operations from Paisley in 2019. The workforce have voted to strike over a pay offer that Chivas Brothers itself admits does not meet commitments it made to the workforce. Will the Secretary of State join me in urging Chivas to offer a deal that prevents industrial action and recognises the contribution the Paisley workforce have given to Chivas over many, many years?

[Greg Clark]

Of course we want to avoid industrial action. I am not aware of the particular circumstances, but I am very happy to meet the hon. Gentleman so he can inform me of them in more detail.

[Liam Byrne]

Does the Secretary of State agree with the Secretary of State for Defence, who spoke this morning about the need to provide extra investment in those areas that are left behind—even if the bill comes to something like £1.5 billion? When is he going to open talks with other hon. Members about the needs of their areas, so we can ensure that those left-behind regions are not left behind and left out?

[Greg Clark]

I am very surprised to hear that question from the right hon. Gentleman. Of all the people in this House, he was a great proponent of a city deal and a devolution deal for Birmingham and the west midlands, the value of which is over £1 billion. Looking around the Chamber, there are many Opposition Members who have made precisely such a case that we should invest in areas of the country, outside of national programmes. It seems to me to be reasonable to continue that programme.

[Mark Pawsey (Rugby) (Con)]

I took soundings from small businesses in Rugby at a small business expo run by the Federation of Small Businesses on Friday. Their single biggest concern related to the recruitment of staff, in that the skills they are looking for often are not available among local jobseekers. Given those instances, will the Secretary of State reassure us about the training of young people and the ability to recruit staff from the EU moving forward?

[Greg Clark]

I will indeed. One of the big findings, which has been reinforced by the consultation on the industrial strategy, is that we need to ramp up the level of skills and technical education and training in this country. We will respond to the consultation in the weeks ahead, but my hon. Friend can rest assured that that will be one of its key pillars.

[Amanda Milling (Cannock Chase) (Con)]

The Kingswood Lakeside business park in Cannock is home to many leading businesses, and the new developments there will create hundreds of new jobs. Does my right hon. Friend agree that those developments are evidence of business confidence, and show that Cannock Chase is well and truly open for business and is a great place to do business?

[Greg Clark]

I do indeed. Having visited Cannock Chase with my hon. Friend, I know that she is a great champion of the businesses there. It is fair to reflect that the confidence of manufacturers and employers in other sectors is high. As the CBI attested this week, it is high across the country, including in Cannock Chase.

[Layla Moran (Oxford West and Abingdon) (LD)]

8. What discussions he has had with Cabinet colleagues and other key stakeholders on the potential effect of the UK leaving the Euratom treaty on energy suppliers and on the availability of radioisotopes for the NHS.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Ruane (Vale of Clwyd) (Lab)]

22. What plans he has to implement an energy price cap.

[The Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Greg Clark)]

Our manifesto said that

“we will introduce a safeguard tariff cap that will extend the price protection currently in place for some vulnerable customers to more customers on the poorest value tariffs.”

I stand by that commitment.

[Emma Hardy]

The lived experience of many people in Hull West and Hessle is that the Conservative party has done nothing to fix the energy market for the past seven years. Although I welcome the Government’s move and transformation from calling an energy price cap Marxist and extremely dangerous to copying it, is the Minister facing calls to water down that policy either from the big six or from his own Back Benchers?

[Greg Clark]

I welcome the hon. Lady to the House; she follows a distinguished predecessor. I would perhaps invite her to reflect on her own party’s history in this matter—the former Leader of the Opposition was the Energy Secretary and failed to do anything whatever about it. I have been clear about the commitment that we have made, and we will see it through.

[Chris Ruane]

Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. To misquote Caroline Aherne’s question to Debbie McGee, what first attracted the Secretary of State to Labour’s financially astute, socially just and politically responsible energy price cap?

[Greg Clark]

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

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

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

[Greg Clark]

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

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

[Rebecca Long Bailey]

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

[Greg Clark]

The powers that I have are to ask Ofgem to move in this way, not to order it; Ofgem is independent. As there is a strong body of opinion on both sides of the House that the detriment that consumers have been suffering should be put to an end, I would have thought that the hon. Lady welcomed it being put to an end as soon as possible, rather than waiting for legislation to pass through the House. Ofgem has those powers and I believe it should use them.

[Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)]

12. What steps his Department is taking to ensure that all regions benefit from the Government’s industrial strategy.

[The Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Greg Clark)]

The importance of our regions is a core pillar of our industrial strategy. We will build on successful clusters, of which the Humber Energy Estuary is a perfect example, as the hon. Lady knows. The Humber’s leading position in marine engineering has been further strengthened by the opening of factories around the offshore wind industry, including at Siemens, where 1,000 new skilled jobs have been created. This is the industrial strategy in action.

[Diana Johnson]

Ministers recently blocked Hull’s privately financed initiative to deliver rail electrification all the way to Hull, an important part of our infrastructure that is needed in east Yorkshire. Are people in Hull right to now believe that the £1 billion that was found for the Northern Ireland powerhouse comes at the expense of the northern powerhouse?

[Greg Clark]

The hon. Lady knows as well as anyone in this House the commitment that this Government, and I in particular, have made to devolving funds to Hull and the Humber. They have benefited considerably, first from a city deal and then from a growth deal. That has contributed to the increased prosperity in her city, which I would have thought she would welcome.

[Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)]

Notwithstanding what my right hon. Friend has just outlined, and despite the fact that business confidence in the region is high, as outlined by the most recent Hull and Humber chamber of commerce’s quarterly report, there are still further initiatives that could be taken to advance the northern powerhouse. What further plans does my right hon. Friend have?

[Greg Clark]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. One of the aspects of the progress made around the Humber is the close working relationships that have been established by businesses and council leaders north and south of the Humber with the Government. I look forward to visiting the area again—I am a regular visitor—so that we can have further devolution of funds and powers there.

[Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

Over the last seven months nearly 2,500 job losses have been announced in York, including some at Nestlé, as well as the closure of two company head offices. There are clear challenges to York’s economy. Will the Secretary of State agree to meet me, along with his senior officials, so that we can address those serious challenges and ensure that the industrial strategy reaches York as well?

[Greg Clark]

I should be very happy to do that. Nestlé is, of course, a major employer, and there is a cluster of food and drink and agriculture businesses in and around York. It has been identified in the industrial strategy as an area of real potential, and I look forward to working with the hon. Lady to realise that potential.

[Kevin Foster (Torbay) (Con)]

As the Secretary of State will know, expanding Torbay’s manufacturing sector is a key part of diversifying our economy for the future, but a lack of skills may hold us back. Will he confirm that the Government are still seeking to deliver institutes of technology throughout the regions in England?

[Greg Clark]

I will indeed. As I said in an earlier answer, the importance of upgrading our skills education is vital in all parts of the country, including Torbay, and institutes of technology are a way of making sure that industries can benefit from the particular skills that they need.

[Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)]

Having abolished the regional development agencies, the Conservative party has refused to invest in growth for good jobs across the country. Ours is now the most unequal economy in western Europe. If every region produced at the same rate per head as London, we would all be one third richer, but instead working people have not had a pay rise for seven years. Will the Secretary of State commit himself to matching the specific proposals for investment for jobs that are laid out in Labour’s industrial strategy, or does his new-found largesse end at the shores of Ulster?

[Greg Clark]

Again, that was a disappointing response. The hon. Lady knows, and the leaders of her local councils know, how important initiatives such as the city deal and the growth deal have been in the north-east. If she looks around the country, she will see that, whereas in past years most jobs were created in London and the south-east, that situation has been transformed, and the north-east of England is one of the areas that have created jobs at a more rapid rate than anywhere else in the country. She should commend that development.

[Ruth George (High Peak) (Lab)]

13. What the reasons are for the time taken to publish the Government’s carbon reduction plan.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rachel Reeves (Leeds West) (Lab)]

T1. If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

[The Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Greg Clark)]

As outlined in the Queen’s Speech, our industrial strategy will drive prosperity across the country, and in the past month we reached an important stage in that process. While we analyse the nearly 2,000 responses, we continue to make decisions that help UK-wide industries. We have announced £1 billion over the next four years for our most innovative industries, such as artificial intelligence, medicine, and autonomous vehicles. We have boosted investment in UK bioscience, such as by providing the University of Edinburgh’s Roslin Institute with some £20 million, which will not only support its research on infectious diseases but create more highly skilled jobs and cement the UK as a world leader in science and innovation.

[Rachel Reeves]

Energy security is essential for national security and for family finances. The essential Moorside energy project in Cumbria is key to such security, but with Toshiba now predicted to lose £7 billion and the French firm backing the project pulling out will the Secretary of State tell us if and when the project will go ahead and provide the assurances that industry, workers and consumers desperately need?

[Greg Clark]

We have inaugurated a new era of nuclear power through the approval of Hinkley Point C. The NuGen consortium, the membership of which has changed from time to time, is confident that that investment will be able to proceed.

[Alan Mak (Havant) (Con)]

T5. I welcome the Government’s commitment in the Queen’s Speech to the new industrial strategy. Will the Secretary of State update the House on his plans to support new, cutting-edge technologies that will help Britain to lead the fourth industrial revolution?

[Greg Clark]

My hon. Friend was a great champion of the strategy in the previous Parliament, and I hope that he will be here. One of its early fruits is the industrial strategy challenge fund, which is already making resources available for research in healthcare and medicine, artificial intelligence, clean energy, driverless cars, advanced materials, and satellites and space technology. That is exactly in line with what he and his group have been urging.

[Kate Hollern (Blackburn) (Lab)]

T2. The Conservative manifesto pledged to deliver a country“where wealth and opportunity are spread across every community in the United Kingdom”,and I see that Northern Ireland has just had its share. Will the Secretary of State tell me how the Government’s industrial strategy will bring wealth and opportunity to places such as Blackburn, where the national average wage is far less than it is in Maidenhead, for example? Blackburn has seen too many cuts from this Government and it is time that we had some investment, so how quickly can the strategy be delivered?

[Greg Clark]

I welcome the hon. Lady to her place. She will discover over time, I hope, that a key part of the industrial strategy is to drive growth in all parts of the country. My Department and I have looked to get funds out of Whitehall and into local places in every part of the country, including £320 million in Lancashire for the funding of the growth deal. She will also be aware that it is necessary to have an economy that is prospering, and one thing that would stand in the way of that is the record peacetime taxation with which the manifesto on which she stood was threatening the country.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

--- Later in debate ---

[Luke Graham (Ochil and South Perthshire) (Con)]

What assessment has the Secretary of State made of the Government’s industrial strategy for Scotland?

[Greg Clark]

It has been warmly received in Scotland, and we have had a positive response from businesses there. I had an enjoyable roundtable in Aberdeen, which was described by one local business as a “breath of fresh air.” I look forward to continuing that engagement with everyone in Scotland, and I am sure my hon. Friend will play a big part.

[John Spellar (Warley) (Lab)]

T7. While other countries, including our EU partners, have over the years used public purchasing to support their own industries, Britain often has not. As Brexit approaches, what are the Government doing to ensure that Government Departments, local services, emergency services, councils and other public bodies back British industry and British jobs by buying British first?

[Greg Clark]

The right hon. Gentleman will know that we have already changed the procurement guidance so that local value can be taken into account. We have anticipated the issue he mentions and this is being done.

[Will Quince (Colchester) (Con)]

The Secretary of State is aware that I have long campaigned for parental bereavement leave, and I was delighted to see this policy in not only the Conservative manifesto, but the Labour manifesto. On that basis, will he kindly set out what steps the Government will take to introduce this important benefit?

[John Cryer (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab)]

The Secretary of State has talked repeatedly today about the discussions he has had on Brexit. Which trade unions has he met, and when?

[Greg Clark]

I regularly meet trade unions: I met Frances O’Grady of the TUC last week; I spoke to Roy Rickhuss of the steel union yesterday; and I spoke to Len McCluskey a few weeks ago. My contacts cover both sides of the employer and trade union mix.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Dennis Skinner (Bolsover) (Lab)]

I have listened to the questions and answers for the past hour, and I hear about the city deals and all the rest of it, but why does the Secretary of State not answer the specific questions about the trade unions? If he wants to give the impression that he is on the side of working-class people, why do not the Government drop the trade union Bill and all the rest of it?

[Greg Clark]

I could not have been clearer about the regular discussions I have with trade unionists. My concern, which I hope would be the hon. Gentleman’s concern, is to make sure that in all parts of the United Kingdom we generate the jobs and growth to ensure that all working people have a prosperous future to look forward to. That is the purpose of this Government, in contrast to the manifesto on which he stood.

[Mr Skinner]

Answer the question!

Joint European Torus Facility: UK Underwrite

Greg Clark Excerpts

Tuesday 27th June 2017 Written Statements

[The Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Greg Clark)]

Today I have laid before Parliament a departmental minute describing the contingent liability resulting from Her Majesty’s Government’s underwrite of the UK’s fair share of the Joint European Torus (JET) costs.

JET is a world-leading nuclear fusion research facility based in Oxfordshire and supports 1,300 jobs in the UK. JET is funded through a contract between the EU Commission and the UK Atomic Energy Authority. As part of this contract, the EU provides around £60 million of funding per year representing 88% of the JET running costs.

The current JET contract is due to end in December 2018 and the EU Commission is currently considering a potential extension of the JET contract until at least the end of 2020. This extension is crucial to the future of JET, the researchers that work there and to ensuring the UK continues to lead the world in fusion technology and research.

I wrote to the EU Commission on 20 June 2017 confirming that, should the JET contract be extended, the UK would continue to pay its fair share of JET costs. This underwriting of UK JET costs aims to provide the certainty needed to secure the extension of the JET contract and minimise the uncertainty around the future of this world-class facility.

The departmental minute describes the contingent liability that the Government will hold as a result of underwriting the UK’s fair share of the JET costs. The value of the liability is subject to negotiation. Estimates as to the possible value of the liability will need to remain confidential so as to avoid prejudicing the UK’s future negotiating position.

It is usual to allow a period of 14 sitting days prior to accepting a contingent liability, to provide Parliament with an opportunity to scrutinise the proposal and raise any objections. Because of the dissolution of Parliament it was not possible to allow for a period of scrutiny before incurring this liability. This was in order to ensure that the underwrite was communicated to the EU Commission in time to influence a key report on which decisions about the JET contract extension will be based. This action was judged to be in the public interest because of the additional costs to the public finances which might be incurred if the Commission was not informed of the UK’s intentions in time to influence its decisions.

[HCWS13]

Magnox: Early Contract Terminations

Greg Clark Excerpts

Monday 27th March 2017 Commons Chamber

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

(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy if he will make a statement on the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority’s early contract terminations at the Magnox estate?

[The Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Greg Clark)]

This morning, I informed the House that the NDA has terminated its contract with the Cavendish Fluor Partnership for the decommissioning of 12 redundant Magnox sites. The NDA ran a £6.1 billion tender process from April 2012, which resulted in a 14-year contract being awarded in September 2014 to the partnership, which is a joint venture between the British firm, Cavendish Nuclear, and Fluor Inc.

CFP started work on the estate on 1 September 2014 and there then started a consolidation process to ensure that the scope of the 2012 tender matched the actual status of decommissioning. It became clear to the NDA that there is a significant mismatch between the work that was tendered for and the actual scale of the work that is required to be carried out. The NDA board concluded that it should terminate the contract on two years’ notice. Termination is made with the agreement of CFP and is no reflection whatsoever on its performance.

Dealing safely with the UK’s nuclear legacy is fundamental and non-negotiable. Decommissioning work will continue under CFP for a further two and a half years. The NDA will establish arrangements for a replacement contracting structure to be put in place for when the current contract ends. The NDA has also settled outstanding claims against it by Energy Solutions and Bechtel in relation to the 2014 Magnox contract. The NDA was found by the High Court to have wrongly decided the outcome of the procurement process. It is clear that the 2012 tender process was deeply flawed. The NDA has agreed settlement payments with Energy Solutions of £76.5 million, plus £8.5 million of costs, and with Bechtel of $14.8 million, plus costs of about £462,000—approximately £12.5 million in total.

Those are very substantial costs, which could have risen further if the case had proceeded. Taxpayers must be able to be confident that public bodies are operating effectively and securing value for money. Where that has not been achieved, such bodies should be subject to rigorous scrutiny. I have therefore established an independent inquiry into the original procurement process and why the 2014 contract proved unsustainable. Those are separate issues, but they need to be examined thoroughly. I have asked Mr Steve Holliday, the former chief executive of National Grid plc, to lead this inquiry. It will take a cradle-to-grave approach, beginning with the NDA’s procurement and ending with the contract termination. The inquiry will set out the lessons learned and recommend any further actions it sees fit, including any disciplinary investigations or proceedings that may be appropriate. The inquiry will report jointly to me and to the Cabinet Secretary, and his report will be available to this House and to the Select Committee.

This was a defective procurement with significant financial consequences, and I am determined that the lessons to be learned should be exposed and understood; that those responsible should be properly held to account; and that this should never happen again.

[Rebecca Long Bailey]

The NDA has withdrawn its appeal against the judgment that was handed down in late July last year, so will the Secretary of State explain why this decision has been taken now, why the matter was brought to appeal in the first instance, and whether both actions were sanctioned by him or his predecessor?

The judgment confirmed that the NDA had not acted properly in the tender process, and that it was

“acutely aware that an unsuccessful bidder might challenge the outcome of the competition.”

The court stated that the NDA had fudged the evaluation to achieve a particular outcome. More worryingly, the judge also confirmed that the NDA attempted to get rid of information that might have been detrimental to its case, and there was reference to the shredding of notes. Given the serious nature of the judgment, will the Secretary of State assure the House that there will be full public disclosure of the investigations, and a public hearing? Does he agree that this case has called into question the future operation of the NDA? Will he explain what structural changes are necessary, and when? Can he offer any assurances to Magnox workers?

Finally, the Secretary of State’s written statement confirms:

“It has become clear to the NDA…that there is a significant mismatch between the work that was specified in the contract as tendered in 2012”.

Will he tell the House when he or his predecessor was first aware of that mismatch and whether it would have been apparent from the work that had already been carried out by previous contractors?

[Greg Clark]

The hon. Lady is quite right to ask her questions, and I hope she will agree that the written ministerial statement I have made today is thorough and comprehensive. I am very happy to have conversations with her and the Select Committee over the weeks and months ahead.

The hon. Lady asked some specific questions about the termination of the contract and the litigation. On the latter, there was indeed a Court hearing and judgment in July last year, and there was another one in December on which the NDA has reflected. On 1 March this year—a few weeks ago—a new chief executive and chair of the NDA took office. It seemed to me appropriate that a new set of eyes should consider these matters and the course of action, rather than those people who were responsible for and involved in the procurement exercise looking into it. In answer to the hon. Lady’s question, it was a decision for the NDA board—that is how it is constitutionally established—but its decision required ratification by me, the Chief Secretary to the Treasury and the accounting officer in my Department.

The hon. Lady asked some very important questions about the conduct of the original procurement process and its management. That is exactly why we need to have an independent figure—independent of Government and of the NDA—to make a report available to the House, to me and to the Cabinet Secretary, not only so that we can learn the lessons and ensure that things cannot happen again, but so that, if there is fault and an error has been made, the recommendation of disciplinary action can follow.

The hon. Lady rightly asked about the Magnox workforce, for whom this will be a difficult day. I am happy to confirm to the House that there is no question about the operational good performance of the contract; it was a question of the terms of the letting of the contract. Good progress has been made, and the workforce employed on the decommissioning contract will continue as planned. When the report is made available, lessons will be learned about the NDA’s structure, as well as any particular procedural aspects.

[Mr John Whittingdale (Maldon) (Con)]

Will my right hon. Friend join me in paying tribute to the workforce at Bradwell-on-Sea in my constituency? They are doing a magnificent job in decommissioning the power station there. Will he confirm that nothing in his statement will prevent that work from continuing? Will he also listen to their concerns about the effect on their pension entitlements of certain changes that have been made regarding the cap on exit payments?

[Greg Clark]

I join my right hon. Friend in paying tribute to the workforce. As he will be aware, good progress has been made in decommissioning the site in Bradwell, with the underground waste vaults containing intermediate level waste having been cleared and decontaminated. That is a reflection of the hard work. There is a separate set of discussions and consultations going on with regard to the pension arrangements, which is not related to today’s announcement.

[Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (SNP)]

I thank the Secretary of State for his response and the shadow Secretary of State for securing this urgent question. This debacle shows that the UK Government cannot even manage their current nuclear project, which comes at great cost to the taxpayer, leaving their case for a nuclear energy future more threadbare than ever. Given the bizarre and illogical decision to leave Euratom, the trade union Prospect is right to be concerned and to seek reassurances that uncertainty over the future of decommissioning will not lead to a deterioration in standards. What assurance can the Secretary of State give today?

This should be a wake-up call. The UK Government’s nuclear obsession will do nothing to lower energy bills and will only burden the next generation with unprecedented economic, environmental and security instability and risk. The Tories should do the responsible thing and scrap their nuclear obsession in favour of investment and renewable energy in carbon-capture technology. Scottish Renewables recently reported that one in six renewable energy jobs in Scotland will be under threat in the next year. Will the Government acknowledge that their energy policies need to be reviewed to allow the Scottish Government to continue with their competent and ambitious vision of a prosperous green future? Finally, when can we expect full details of the timetable of the investigation into this matter?

[Greg Clark]

A little humility might be appropriate here, because the Scottish Government provided oversight of this procurement as part of the NDA competition programme board. I am sure that the lessons to be learned from 2012 to 2014 also apply to the Government in Scotland. I am sure that, whatever the view on future new nuclear power, the people of Scotland, as well as those of the whole of the United Kingdom, would want the existing nuclear power stations to be decommissioned safely and to have arrangements in place to ensure that that can be done reliably. On the independent review, which I hope the hon. Lady welcomes, I have asked Mr Holliday to give some interim findings by October, so that they can inform the further decisions about the re-letting of the contract.

[Sir Oliver Letwin (West Dorset) (Con)]

I am sure that my right hon. Friend will pay no attention whatsoever to the bizarre asseverations of the Scottish National party spokesman. In asking Steve Holliday, in whom we have considerable confidence, to do this review, I hope that my right hon. Friend will seek to bring the review to a final conclusion reasonably soon after the interim report in October so that we can get to the bottom of this matter and ensure that it does not repeat itself in future years.

[Greg Clark]

I agree with my right hon. Friend: it is important quickly to learn the lessons and to apply them. This is very important work. The work is being carried out to a high standard, but those lessons must be learned and applied.

[Mr Iain Wright (Hartlepool) (Lab)]

May I thank the Secretary of State for his courtesy call on this matter this morning and for his subsequent letter? The Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee will challenge hard, but work constructively with him and with Steve Holliday on this important issue. Will he clarify whether the inquiry will be confined to the procurement process, which led to this specific contract? Will it consider other contracts such as the one to decommission Dounreay, which was awarded to essentially the same consortium that won the Magnox contract? I think that he has already confirmed this, but will he say whether the inquiry will be broad enough to consider whether the governance and management arrangements of the NDA have always been, and will continue to be, fit for purpose?

[Greg Clark]

I am grateful to the Chairman of the Select Committee for what he said. I can confirm that the governance and the management arrangements of the NDA are very much in scope. I put the terms of reference in the Library of both Houses of Parliament this morning. It is open to Mr Holliday to go where the evidence takes him—to use that phrase on this. The particular concern is over this contract, but if he feels that he needs to look at other aspects of the NDA’s management, he is absolutely free to do so.

[Edward Argar (Charnwood) (Con)]

I welcome the characteristic candour and openness with which the Secretary of State has approached the issue. Will he reassure me and the House that the scope of the inquiry will look not only at the NDA, but—as I think he just alluded to—at the role, if any, of UK Government Departments and the Scottish Government in the process?

[Greg Clark]

I will, indeed. The terms of reference that were published with my written statement this morning make it very clear that, as is absolutely right and proper, the inquiry applies to the NDA and Government Departments, from the beginning of the procurement in 2012 to the conclusion of the litigation and the termination of the contract.

[Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)]

Under current plans, Trawsfynydd power station will lose most of its jobs in less than 10 years. The Government are now in a position to commit to a programme of continuous decommissioning, as recommended by the Select Committee on Welsh Affairs. When will the Secretary of State publish revised plans following today’s announcement, and will he agree to meet me to discuss the future of the Trawsfynydd site?

[Greg Clark]

I will certainly meet the hon. Lady. I am glad that she has given me the opportunity to emphasise that the work will continue as planned at all the sites. As she will know, work is ahead of schedule in the plant she mentioned. In the light of that, I will meet her to update her on the latest timings.

[Antoinette Sandbach (Eddisbury) (Con)]

This was clearly a defective procurement with quite serious financial consequences. I welcome the Secretary of State’s determination that the reasons will be exposed, but will he assure the House that people found to be responsible or at fault will be brought to account?

[Greg Clark]

I can confirm that the terms of reference make it very clear that the inquiry can make any recommendations that it sees fit, including as to any disciplinary investigations or proceedings that may, in its view, be appropriate as a result of its findings.

[Catherine West (Hornsey and Wood Green) (Lab)]

Will the Secretary of State please confirm that the thousands of people waiting for an outcome on their pensions will not be ripped off?

[Greg Clark]

Yes. There have been constructive discussions with the representatives of the workforce. Those discussions and consultations continue. Of course, we want to bring them to a satisfactory conclusion.

[Mike Freer (Finchley and Golders Green) (Con)]

The NDA settlement payments are very substantial. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that although the payments were made without accepting liability, the cost had the potential to rise much further were the matter taken to court?

[Greg Clark]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We have a duty to consider the further risks to public money, which is why my accounting officer, the Chief Secretary to the Treasury and I accepted on advice that, however painful it is—these are significant sums of money, as my hon. Friend the Member for Finchley and Golders Green (Mike Freer) said—we should prevent the sums of money from being even greater.

[Rob Marris (Wolverhampton South West) (Lab)]

Given the cost problems with the NDA’s Magnox decommissioning contract, how can the Secretary of State have any confidence whatever in the cost figures for Hinkley Point C, which will itself need decommissioning, especially given the farce of the massive cost overruns and huge time delays in building the EDF sister reactors in Finland and Normandy, neither of which has yet opened and each of which is years late?

[Greg Clark]

This is about a procurement process that was mis-specified around decommissioning; it is not against the build costs of a future reactor. If Steve Holliday’s report includes wider lessons for the industry, we will be sure to take them.

[Huw Merriman (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)]

All public sector organisations can learn much from procurement processes and public-private initiatives, as the £3,700 a minute spent by the NHS on private finance initiatives would attest. Will the Secretary of State assure me that all public sector organisations will be given the opportunity to learn best practice from the Holliday review?

[Greg Clark]

I will. It is important when there is such a serious set of consequences for public money that the conclusions should be publicly available, and available to this House and to other Government Departments that may want to reflect on them.

[Mr David Nuttall (Bury North) (Con)]

Will the Secretary of State confirm that the Holliday inquiry will have reached its final conclusions and issued its final report in time for any lessons learned to be taken into account before the new contract process begins?

[Greg Clark]

One reason I have asked Mr Holliday to make a report by October is so that that can happen. I will meet him in the coming days, as he sets out the scope and timetable, but that is one of the key reasons for the report, and I am sure he will want to make his recommendations available for the new process.

[Mr Dennis Skinner (Bolsover) (Lab)]

What were the terms of the pay-off? The Secretary of State has not mentioned it.

[Greg Clark]

I have mentioned the settlement—it is nearly £100 million for the settlement of the litigation. The chief executive of the NDA has come to the end of his contract.

BEIS Non-departmental Bodies

Greg Clark Excerpts

Monday 27th March 2017 Written Statements

[The Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Greg Clark)]

I would like to inform the House that the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority (NDA) has today announced its decision to terminate its contract with Cavendish Fluor Partnership (CFP) for the management and decommissioning of 12 redundant Magnox sites (including two research sites) which, together with the Calder Hall reactor on the Sellafield site, formed the UK’s first fleet of nuclear power stations.

The NDA ran a £6.1 billion tender process from April 2012 which resulted in a 14 year contract being awarded in September 2014 to the Cavendish Fluor Partnership—a joint venture between the British firm Cavendish Nuclear, a subsidiary of Babcock International, and the US company Fluor Inc. This decision was approved by the then Department for Energy and Climate Change and HM Treasury.

CFP started work on the Magnox estate on 1 September 2014.There then started a process to ensure that the scope of the contract assumed in the 2012 tender matched the actual status of the decommissioning to be done on each site—a process known as consolidation.

It has become clear to the NDA through this consolidation process that there is a significant mismatch between the work that was specified in the contract as tendered in 2012 and awarded in 2014, and the work that actually needs to be done.

The scale of the additional work is such that the NDA board considers that it would amount to a material change to the specification on which bidders were invited in 2012 to tender.

In the light of this, the NDA board, headed by a new Chair and Chief Executive, has concluded that it should exercise its right to terminate the contract on two years’ notice. The contract will be terminated in September 2019, after five years rather than its full term of 14 years. This termination is made with the agreement of CFP.

Dealing safely with the UK’s nuclear legacy is fundamental and non-negotiable. It is important to emphasise that this termination is no reflection on the performance of Cavendish Nuclear or Fluor, and work on decommissioning at all the sites will continue with the management of CFP for a further two and a half years.

During this period, the NDA will establish arrangements for a replacement contracting structure to be put in place when the current contract ends. This work will be led by the NDA’s new Chief Executive, David Peattie.

I have every confidence that CFP will continue to deliver to high standards during the remainder of the contract.

Although this decision is one made by the board of the NDA, it requires the consent of myself, the Chief Secretary to the Treasury and the Accounting Officer of my Department. That consent has been given.

We have a responsibility to ensure that the NDA’s decisions reflect its legal obligations, including under procurement law, that further risks to taxpayers’ money are contained and that robust arrangements are put in place to deliver this essential decommissioning programme.

In addition I can announce today that the NDA has settled outstanding litigation claims against it by Energy Solutions and Bechtel, in relation to the 2014 Magnox contract award.

The NDA was found by the High Court in its judgment of 29 July 2016 to have wrongly decided the outcome of the procurement process.

As part of the settlements, NDA has withdrawn its appeal against the judgment. While these settlements were made without admission of liability on either side, it is clear that this 2012 tender process, which was for a value of up to £6.1 billion, was flawed. The NDA has agreed settlement payments with Energy Solutions of £76.5 million, plus £8.5 million of costs, and with Bechtel of $14.8 million, plus costs of around £462,000—approximately £12.5 million in total.

These are very substantial costs and had the potential to rise much further if the case had proceeded to trial.

Taxpayers must be able to be confident that public bodies are operating effectively and securing value for money. Where this has not been achieved such bodies should be subject to rigorous scrutiny.

I am therefore establishing today an independent inquiry into the conduct of the 2012 procurement process and the reasons why the 2014 contract proved unsustainable. These are separate issues but both need to be examined thoroughly by an authoritative and independent expert.

I have asked Mr Steve Holliday, the former Chief Executive of National Grid, to lead the inquiry. The inquiry will take a ‘cradle to grave’ approach beginning with the NDA’s procurement and ending with the contract termination.

The inquiry will also review the conduct of the NDA and of Government Departments and make any recommendations it sees fit—including what further investigations or proceedings, for example possible disciplinary proceedings, may be required as a result of its findings.

The terms of reference for Mr Holliday’s inquiry will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses. Mr Holliday will report jointly to me and to the Cabinet Secretary, and his report will be made available to this House, including to the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee.

This was a defective procurement, with significant financial consequences, and I am determined that the reasons for it should be exposed and understood; that those responsible should properly be held to account; and that it should never happen again.

[HCWS554]

Oral Answers to Questions

Greg Clark Excerpts

Tuesday 14th March 2017 Commons Chamber

[Justin Tomlinson (North Swindon) (Con)]

5. What steps he is taking to support growth in the UK space sector.

[The Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Greg Clark)]

The UK’s space sector is world leading. A quarter of the world’s telecommunication satellites are either built here or are built with key UK components. Our recently announced draft Spaceflight Bill will enable UK businesses to enter a global market worth an expected £25 billion over the next 20 years. Our industrial strategy will ensure that we build on that and continue to be a global leader in this very important sector.

[Justin Tomlinson]

Many people think that my constituency, North Swindon, is out of this world, and they are not wrong, as we are home to the UK Space Agency. Will the Secretary of State therefore tell me how the upcoming Spaceflight Bill will enable the UK to build on its strengths in science, research and innovation?

[Greg Clark]

North Swindon has a stellar Member of Parliament, too. The space sector is one of our most important industries, and the Spaceflight Bill, in particular, will move us forwards and enable us to be in the business not only of manufacturing satellites but of launching them, which will give us further industrial opportunities from which not only Swindon but the whole UK can benefit.

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

The collaborative approach of the UK aerospace sector is one of the lessons that the Government need to remember in the difficult years ahead. Will the Secretary of State please come to one of the most important aerospace sectors in the country in north-east Wales to see its excellent work and the potential threats to one of the most successful industries in our country?

[Greg Clark]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. One of the reasons why the space and satellite sector has been so successful is the collaboration between the firms, the Government and the research institutions, which is the way forward. The Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, my hon. Friend the Member for Hereford and South Herefordshire (Jesse Norman), will visit north Wales and the facilities that the hon. Member for Wrexham (Ian C. Lucas) mentions, and I look forward to hearing all about it.

[Mr Steve Baker (Wycombe) (Con)]

18. As someone who has calculated inertia matrices and Hohmann transfers, I am pleased that the Government are focusing on this area. What assessment has the Secretary of State made of the capacity of the UK’s commercial space flight sector? What steps will he take to support it?

[Greg Clark]

I am glad that my hon. Friend is not questioning me on inertia ratios and matrices. The capacity is there, but it requires planning ahead. That is why the industrial strategy mentions the need to invest in science and research and development—it is important that we do that—and the need to look forward to make sure that we have the skills in the workforce to fulfil the order books. The purpose of having a long-term industrial strategy is so that we are prepared to reap those very opportunities.

[Carol Monaghan (Glasgow North West) (SNP)]

6. What support his Department is providing to small businesses as a result of the UK’s decision to leave the EU.

--- Later in debate ---

[James Morris (Halesowen and Rowley Regis) (Con)]

13. What assessment he has made of the potential effect of the Government’s industrial strategy on the west midlands.

[The Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Greg Clark)]

Last week, we published the midlands engine strategy. It is further demonstration that this Government are committed to investing in the midlands, a region that has seen over 180,000 more people in employment since 2010.

[Lucy Allan]

I thank the Minister for his reply. Telford is seeing increasing inward investment from businesses in the automotive supply chain such as Polytec and Magna’s Cosma, bringing real jobs and growth to Telford. Does he agree that Telford, with its reputation for innovation and advanced manufacturing, is set to play a key role in the midlands engine strategy, and will he congratulate those businesses on helping to build a successful future for Telford?

[Greg Clark]

I will indeed. My hon. Friend’s constituency, which includes Coalbrookdale, has a good claim to be the cradle of the first industrial revolution—[Interruption.] It is perhaps a disputed claim, but I think Abraham Darby, in 1709, was fairly early. However, now, Telford is at the heart of the fourth industrial revolution, as my hon. Friend says. The T54 site is proving to be a very important location for automotive sector supply chain.

[James Morris]

Does the Secretary of State agree that one pivotal thing that needs to be in an industrial strategy for the west midlands is closing the skills gap that has held back the west midlands for too long, so that areas such as the black country can continue to work to become leading specialists in things such as aerospace, automotive and advanced manufacturing, which are critical to the agenda of the Conservative candidate for west midlands Mayor, Andy Street?

[Greg Clark]

I agree with my hon. Friend—he is absolutely right. The reputation of the black country is very strong. There is the phrase

“Made in the Black Country, Sold around the World”,

but to fulfil that we need good skills. Andy Street, being a person of great business experience, is the best person available to bring that business acumen to bringing more businesses to the whole of the west midlands.

[Mr Speaker]

Order. This is supposed to be about an industrial strategy, rather than an electoral strategy, but there you go.

[Rob Marris (Wolverhampton South West) (Lab)]

In passing, may I say that it was the black country that was the birthplace of the industrial revolution, not Coalbrookdale? However, on transport spending, which is key to the industrial strategy for the west midlands, when does the Secretary of State expect to persuade his colleague the Secretary of State for Transport to spend as much per capita in the west midlands as in London?

[Greg Clark]

The hon. Gentleman, who is an assiduous reader of these things, will see that, in the industrial strategy, we propose a commitment to upgrade infrastructure right across the country. I hope he will respond to that so that when we have the Budget later in the year, we will be in a position to make further such announcements.

[Craig Tracey (North Warwickshire) (Con)]

24. What role does my right hon. Friend see the self-employed, particularly those in my constituency, playing as the industrial strategy develops?

[Greg Clark]

The self-employed have an important role to play. One trend that colleagues on both sides of the House will know of is that the development of supply chains is one of the key sources of innovation in many industries. Within that, start-up businesses, including those run by the self-employed, can make a big contribution to making us attractive for jobs and new businesses.

[Christian Matheson (City of Chester) (Lab)]

12. If he will make an assessment of the effectiveness of his sector-based approach in delivering the aims of the Government’s industrial strategy.

[Louise Haigh (Sheffield, Heeley) (Lab)]

16. What steps the Government is taking to ensure that all sectors of the economy benefit from its industrial strategy.

[The Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Greg Clark)]

We have had great success over the years in developing key sectors, including aerospace and the automotive sector. To build on this, we have set out proposals for new business-led sector deals in the industrial strategy. The first set of deals is already under development. We are taking steps to drive growth in sectors across the economy, including with funding for science, infrastructure and technical education.

[Christian Matheson]

Does the Secretary of State share my concern that the implementation of an industrial strategy led by the big players will focus solely on the big players? What is he doing to ensure that the small and medium-sized enterprises in those sectors, which are often the engine rooms, get their fair say and their fair share?

[Greg Clark]

I assure the hon. Gentleman that that is not the case. I have regular discussions with the Federation of Small Businesses, the British Chambers of Commerce and smaller businesses right across the country. The supply chain, and making our country more attractive to supply chain businesses, are absolutely foundational to our industrial success, and that involves a particular regard for small businesses.

[Louise Haigh]

Cyber-security is one of the most important sectors for this country’s growth, but the UK has the highest skills gap in cyber-security in the world. Does the Secretary of State think that the Government’s current commitment to educate 1% of our students in cyber-security by 2021 is anywhere near good enough?

[Greg Clark]

The hon. Lady makes a very good point. If we are to take advantage of the opportunities that exist, we need to upgrade our technical education. That is why in last week’s Budget the Chancellor made such a clear commitment, prominent in the industrial strategy, to transform the level of technical education, including to increase by 50% the hours of tuition that are available. Cyber-security is one of the areas in which I would expect that to be applied.

[Lucy Frazer (South East Cambridgeshire) (Con)]

20. I welcome the £90 million that the Chancellor has given in the Budget for PhD places. Has the Secretary of State determined how they will be distributed and whether the academically excellent area of Cambridgeshire will benefit from this funding?

[Greg Clark]

Yes. I would expect all competitive areas to make a bid for these places. The University of Cambridge and Anglia Ruskin University in Cambridgeshire, and other institutions more broadly across the country, will be in a good position to benefit from that.

[Andrew Stephenson (Pendle) (Con)]

21. The aerospace sector is of vital importance to the economy in the north-west of England. In December, I was delighted to take part in a ground-breaking ceremony at Rolls-Royce in Barnoldswick ahead of its £50 million expansion of its Pendle site. How can the Government’s industrial strategy help to further the growth of our aerospace sector?

[Greg Clark]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. This is an important sector, as has been evident from our discussions this morning. That reflects the track record of working together that will continue and be reinforced. I think that all Members across the House will have been as delighted as I was that Boeing made its commitment to its first ever UK plant in Sheffield, showing how attractive we are to advanced manufacturing businesses such as that.

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

The BEIS Committee’s recent report stated that the industrial strategy Green Paper

“provides little clarity on how…sectoral deals will work in practice”,

and that it appears to lack “political will”, falling short of

“providing a clear framework for decision making in the long term.”

Is it lack of clarity or lack of political will that has led to a bespoke Brexit deal for certain manufacturers while leaving others, and indeed other industries, in a state of uncertainty?

[Greg Clark]

May I welcome the hon. Lady to her first BEIS oral questions? I see her predecessor behind her. She is, I think, my third opposite number in the eight months that I have had this job. The first was appointed in the summer, the second in the autumn, and she was appointed in the winter. I noticed this week that the birds were singing and the sun was out, so I hope that is not bad news for the hon. Lady. On her points about the industrial strategy, the sector deals that we have proposed have been widely welcomed. We have set out a number of initial deals in, for example, life sciences and the creative industries. We are already talking to other sectors such as the steel sector, and a lot of colleagues in the House will want to see that taken forward.

[Rebecca Long Bailey]

Oh, the Secretary of State is cheeky! He might want to refer to the report, because it also states that the White Paper on exiting the EU failed to meaningfully refer to an industrial strategy

“and reinforces a lack of coordination between the Government’s major challenge and its principal plank of business policy.”

Given that last week’s Budget failed to mention Brexit or the industrial strategy, does the Secretary of State agree with the recent Foreign Affairs Committee report that the Government have provided “no evidence” of industrial contingency planning in the event of no deal? If that is so, what is his no deal plan?

[Greg Clark]

I say gently to the hon. Lady that she will have to do a bit better than that. I have the Budget here. She says that it does not mention the industrial strategy. I can tell her that it is mentioned in the first paragraph on the first page, and throughout. Given her interest in this, she ought to read the Budget.

[Mary Robinson (Cheadle) (Con)]

15. I am keen that the north-west should play its part in the Government’s industrial strategy to drive up competitiveness in our area. How can small businesses play their part in my area?

[Greg Clark]

In my hon. Friend’s area, as in every area of the country, the opportunities for the supply chain to be attracted to and to locate in this country—to supply the major manufacturers and service providers, but also to export around the world—is one of the key themes emerging from the sector deals that are being negotiated.

[Pat Glass (North West Durham) (Lab)]

19. What recent steps his Department has taken to promote renewable energy.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)]

23. If he will make it his policy to increase competition within the energy supply market; and if he will make a statement.

[The Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Greg Clark)]

I will respond shortly to the Competition and Markets Authority report, and I will take steps to increase competition and help consumers.

[Sir Desmond Swayne]

If the Secretary of State is successful in engendering much greater competition, will we need a regulator at all?

[Greg Clark]

The aim of Government policy must be to have such vigorous competition in markets that that takes care of itself. Unfortunately, I do not think we are in that position, so I am determined to make sure that customers are treated fairly.

[David Rutley (Macclesfield) (Con)]

T1. If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

[The Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Greg Clark)]

As well as continuing the consultation on our industrial strategy Green Paper, we are acting on its diagnosis. Last week’s Budget set out our plan to transform technical education—increasing the hours students are taught by 50%, increasing funding for technical education by £500 million a year and establishing new institutes of technology. We announced in the Budget the first £270 million of projects under the industrial strategy challenge fund, including a world-leading investment in the development, design and manufacture of batteries to power the next generation of electric vehicles, and we announced a £100 million fellowship fund to attract the world’s brightest minds to come and work in the United Kingdom.

[David Rutley]

I am pleased that my right hon. Friend is planning to visit AstraZeneca’s Macclesfield site, the largest pharmaceutical site in the United Kingdom, in the near future. Will he tell the House what plans the Government have to support the life sciences further as part of its northern powerhouse strategy?

[Greg Clark]

My hon. Friend, who is a great champion of the life sciences as well as of the Cheshire economy, knows that the opportunity to negotiate a sector deal for life sciences, which is being led by Sir John Bell, will be good for the whole country, but will have particular relevance to Cheshire and Macclesfield. I am looking forward to visiting his constituency to see the facilities for myself.

[Ian Austin (Dudley North) (Lab)]

T2. Will the Secretary of State join me in congratulating the greatest evening newspaper in the country, the Express & Star, and the brilliant work of Wolverhampton University, which have launched the green shoots scheme? The scheme has now successfully distributed £4 million of regional growth fund money, supporting 65 businesses, creating or protecting 600 jobs and, extraordinarily, generating over 11 million in private sector investment to support businesses in places such as Dudley. Contrary to what he said earlier, everybody knows that Dudley was the real birthplace of the industrial revolution.

[Greg Clark]

Having dipped my toes into controversy by talking about places with claims to be the cradle of the industrial revolution, I am certainly not going to nominate the best local newspaper in the country—suffice it to say that I gather the Foreign Secretary began his illustrious career on the Express & Star, although I do not know whether that shows its prescience, or whether it has recovered from that particular judgment. Local newspapers make a vital contribution to the success of local business, and I am delighted to hear about the initiative that the Express & Star is promoting.

[Kelly Tolhurst (Rochester and Strood) (Con)]

T4. Since 2010, my constituency has seen 8,800 apprenticeships started across many sectors, and very soon I will be hosting my first apprenticeship fair, bringing together local students and businesses. Will the Minister outline what steps he is taking to encourage more small businesses to engage with apprenticeships and take on more apprentices in places such as my constituency?

[Bridget Phillipson (Houghton and Sunderland South) (Lab)]

T3. The Government’s industrial strategy Green Paper talks of the need to close the skills gap and invest in infrastructure, so can the Secretary of State explain to the House why childcare is not mentioned once?

[Greg Clark]

Making ourselves attractive as a country to the workforce and making sure that we are the best place to operate a business and to work is an important theme of the strategy. I look forward to the hon. Lady’s contribution to the consultation, and if that issue does not have the emphasis that she thinks it needs, we will have the opportunity to address that.

[Jeremy Lefroy (Stafford) (Con)]

T6. I thank the Secretary of State for his support for the midlands engine. In Stafford, we build them. Last week I had the honour of opening the technical training centre at Perkins’ large engine plant in Stafford. Does he agree that that shows just how important it is for businesses to be proactive in putting together the facilities needed for apprentices and taking on more of them, as Perkins is?

[Ms Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab)]

T5. Given that the Brexit negotiations are about to start, does the Secretary of State agree with his right hon. Friend the Prime Minister that no deal is better than a bad deal?

[Greg Clark]

Yes, Mr Speaker.

[Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge and Malling) (Con)]

T9. Will my right hon. Friend set out how he intends to shape the regulatory environment as we leave the European Union, including through such things as visa allocation, to ensure that the United Kingdom remains at the forefront of the technological revolution?

--- Later in debate ---

[Tom Pursglove (Corby) (Con)]

When I visited the Corby steelworks on Friday, there was real enthusiasm for a sector deal for the steel industry and a real commitment to ongoing partnership working. Is my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State willing to visit the Corby works to discuss those opportunities?

[Greg Clark]

I would be delighted to visit Corby with my hon. Friend. He is absolutely right—my discussions with the steel industry show a real appetite for a long-term sector deal to secure the future of the steel industry.

[Richard Arkless (Dumfries and Galloway) (SNP)]

T8. Given the decimation of Scotland’s renewables sector and the fact that Scotland has very different energy capabilities from the rest of the UK, why do the Government continue to think that a one-size-fits-all energy policy is in any way appropriate for Scotland?

--- Later in debate ---

[Greg Clark]

As my hon. Friend knows, in the growth deals that are part of the midlands engine there is support, through local enterprise partnerships, for small businesses—both start-ups and growing businesses.

[Mr Iain Wright (Hartlepool) (Lab)]

Following npower’s 15% price hike last month, the Government pledged that

“where markets are not working we are prepared to act.”

E.ON raised its prices by 14% last week and SSE by 8% yesterday. How many more companies need to raise their prices before the Government actually act to stop energy customers getting fleeced?

[Greg Clark]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that that behaviour is unacceptable. It has been reported by Ofgem that there is no reason to increase prices. We have committed to a Green Paper on consumer markets, which will be published very shortly. The time is up for these companies.

[Robert Courts (Witney) (Con)]

As the recently elected chair of the all-party group for small and micro business, I know that access to finance in the early years is a real challenge for small businesses. What advice could the Minister give to those in my constituency who are looking for access to finance in the early years?

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Stephenson (Pendle) (Con)]

On Friday, I visited Graham Engineering, in Nelson. It is an excellent company in the nuclear supply chain that currently has 30 new vacancies, which will be on offer at my seventh annual Pendle jobs fair on 24 March. What more can we do to support the nuclear supply chain?

[Greg Clark]

One of the things that we have done to support the nuclear supply chain is to have a continuing commitment to nuclear power in this country, and that will benefit my hon. Friend’s constituents. Through our network of training colleges, we will make sure that we grow the nuclear skills that we need for this industry.

[Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)]

I thought the Minister was a touch complacent in his earlier answer on smart meters given that this will cost the taxpayer £11 billion by the end of the Parliament. What is he going to do about the fact that they do not work when a customer switches supplier?

--- Later in debate ---

[Melanie Onn (Great Grimsby) (Lab)]

The digital strategy is a key component of the Government’s industrial strategy. Can the Secretary of State do better than the Department for Culture, Media and Sport and tell me which companies have committed to work in Great Grimsby as part of the digital skills partnership?

[Greg Clark]

The whole of the industrial strategy is an invitation to businesses in every sector to come forward and propose to the Government what is required to grow jobs and skills. That is the invitation to all digital companies.

[Greg Mulholland (Leeds North West) (LD)]

The Pubs Code Adjudicator Paul Newby failed to declare a much more fundamental direct conflict of interest than Charlotte Hogg, yet Ministers are ignoring it. Tomorrow, tenants will protest outside his office. How long will Ministers keep failing to do their duty and not face up to this situation?