Industrial Strategy

Debate between Greg Clark and Wayne David

Wednesday 18th April 2018 Commons Chamber

[Greg Clark]

The right hon. Gentleman makes an excellent point. First, in terms of what was achieved before, he is right to recognise that we are building on what have been successes. Successful arrangements that have been put in place in the process industries, for example, are recognised and built on in the strategy. It is very important that we have a long-term approach. He is absolutely right; this is not my Department’s industrial strategy, my industrial strategy or even the Government’s industrial strategy. The ambition for this strategy is to unite all the nations of the United Kingdom and the UK Government certainly, but also the leaders of our cities, towns, counties and universities. The approach we have taken in developing the strategy is precisely for that purpose.

I have a set of responsibilities which the right hon. Gentleman will know, from his tenure in my Department, are limited to those allocated to the Business Department. However, when it comes to skills or investment in transport infrastructure, for example, it is vital that all join together. One of the strategy’s purposes is that we can clearly brigade in a way that reinforces the different contributions.

[Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab)]

Will the Secretary of State give way?

[Greg Clark]

I will, then I will make progress.

[Wayne David]

On that point, one crucial aspect of our industrial base is the defence sector, yet one of the surprising things about the Government’s industrial strategy is that the defence sector is hardly mentioned, if at all.

[Greg Clark]

I would not read too much into that. The defence industrial strategy is a very important part of our overall strategy. There are many references to industries—I mentioned aerospace—in which the innovation that comes from defence work can have important spillovers for the wider economy. We recognise that across the world that tends to be the case. The defence sector is very important to the strategy, and when some of the sector deals that I will come on to discuss are agreed, the hon. Gentleman will see that in abundance.

Drawing on input across the United Kingdom, we have an approach that is the distilled wisdom of many different contributors. It is a vision to help businesses raise their productivity performance, which is essential if we are to increase the country’s earning power. If we want to pay ourselves better as a nation and a society, we need to earn the way to do that by creating better-paid jobs and putting our country at the forefront of the industries of the future.

Let me introduce the four grand challenges that we have set out. I mentioned that we are uniquely well placed in this country, having leadership in some of the areas of the future, but we should not take that leadership for granted. We should have a deliberate plan and programme to reinforce that success. The four areas we have set out in the strategy, on advice, are artificial intelligence and the data-driven economy; clean growth; the future of mobility; and meeting the needs of an ageing society. Those challenges have been identified on the advice of our leading scientists and technologists, and they will be supported by investment from the new industrial strategy challenge fund and matched by commercial investment.

Let us take each of those briefly. We know that, whether in the Alan Turing Institute or in our companies throughout the UK, we have some of the most innovative thinkers and practitioners in AI and the use of data. We already have that reputation, but we need to keep at the forefront of those developments. A big part of the strategy is to recognise that, historically, as all Members know, we have been better at the “R” of R&D than the “D”. We have had brilliant ideas, but sometimes we have let them slip through our fingers and seen them implemented in industrial processes and investments in manufacturing in other countries. A big part of the challenge is therefore not just discovery but applying those discoveries in UK industry.

GKN: Proposed Takeover by Melrose

Debate between Greg Clark and Wayne David

Tuesday 27th March 2018 Commons Chamber

[Greg Clark]

The hon. Gentleman is aware of the regime under which we operate. I hope that he agrees that it is right, before the shareholders make their final decision, to encourage the company to set out more clearly than it has done its future intentions, not only so that that information is known, but so that, where it makes commitments, were it to succeed, it can be held legally to account for those.

[Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab)]

The Secretary of State specifically referred in his statement to the importance of the defence sector. However, the reply from Melrose to him, which I have looked at, states in one short sentence that it

“will execute a deed of undertaking in favour of the Ministry of Defence”.

One legal point of view is that that is a weak legal basis to base that on. Will he or the Secretary of State for Defence come to the Chamber at an appropriate time to give their response to that letter and indicate whether they intend to take action under the Enterprise Act 2002?

[Greg Clark]

When I receive the appropriate advice and make a decision as to whether an intervention is required, I will of course inform the House.

Recall of MPs Bill

Debate between Greg Clark and Wayne David

Monday 27th October 2014 Commons Chamber

[Greg Clark]

The hon. Gentleman expresses his reasonable and important point well. As I said on Second Reading, I do not take the view that the Bill cannot be strengthened. One thing we can conclude from the Second Reading debate is that we will want to reflect, in Committee and during the Bill’s later stages, on the public’s involvement. The Bill can be improved and clarified, and I repeat my personal assurance that the Government will be open to reflecting improvements in the Bill during its passage.

Amendment 42, a cross-party amendment that was ably spoken to by the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr Heath)—although he is my hon. Friend, he has the demeanour of a right hon. Member—proposes a constituent-led trigger for recall, albeit one based on misconduct. That important suggestion has much to commend it, so I will reflect carefully on the amendment. Similarly, the Opposition have suggested making the trigger more sensitive and sending the clear message that the criminal abuse of the parliamentary expenses system should trigger recall, and I appreciated the spirit in which the hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife spoke to those proposals. While my colleagues and I will vote to maintain the balance that the Bill as drafted strikes, and for a faithful adherence to the manifesto on which we stood, it might well be possible for us to support changes on Report. That demeanour is an appropriate response to today’s proceedings and last week’s Second Reading debate, given that no overwhelming case has been made at this stage for sending the Bill back to the drawing board and starting again.

[Wayne David]

Would the Minister like to go a little further and indicate whether he is prepared to have genuine cross-party talks to see whether it is possible to establish a consensus?

[Greg Clark]

Well, I think that we are having them now in Committee; the parties are approaching a serious subject and seeking to strengthen the Bill. Of course, those talks can also take place between now and further occasions when the Bill is debated. The hon. Gentleman makes a reasonable point.

--- Later in debate ---

[Greg Clark]

I do not know whether departure from an election manifesto would constitute a reason for recall under my hon. Friend’s proposals, but the hon. Gentleman stood on the same manifesto as we did in favour of our brand of recall. He is tempting me on to a path that it is probably not profitable to go down.

Let me say to my hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome and the colleagues who signed his amendment that I understand where they are coming from. I am willing to contemplate ways to improve this Bill, and between now and Report I undertake to reflect seriously on how that can be done.

I have much sympathy with the amendment to new clause 2 tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for South East Cambridgeshire (Sir James Paice).

[Wayne David]

Will the Minister give way?

[Greg Clark]

No. I want to make a bit of progress, if I may.

The amendment would ensure that the statement of reasons could not contain reasons relating to a Member’s freedom of expression in Parliament, including what an MP said or how he or she voted. In other words, recall by petition would be focused on conduct, not causes. However, it would not stop people campaigning for recall based on what the MP did in Parliament; it would simply prevent the statement of reasons from being disclosed in relation to the statutory requirement to avoid such matters. Other publicity could state with impunity other reasons, perhaps the real reasons, behind the move to recall an MP. It therefore would not work as a safeguard, which many Members will wish for, to prevent Members’ freedom of expression from being used to recall them. I hope that my right hon. Friend will reflect on that, and we will look to see whether the spirit of the amendment might be carried forward separately.

I turn to the amendments tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for South Leicestershire (Mr Robathan), who is not in his place. They would give the Bill retrospective effect in that a currently serving MP who had been suspended by the House for at least 21 sitting days would be liable to a recall petition. Only one such person is currently sitting in Parliament—the right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz), who was suspended for a month in 2002. The House tends not to favour retrospectivity. In general, the courts impose punishments for offences that were current at the time of the offence.

Cyprus

Debate between Greg Clark and Wayne David

Monday 18th March 2013 Commons Chamber

[Greg Clark]

My hon. Friend makes a point that finds an echo throughout the Chamber. As the days go by, I think we are all reassured and relieved that we did not make the decision that the Labour party made in principle to join the euro.

[Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab)]

One of the fundamental rules of banking has been broken, in that the deposits and savings of ordinary people have been, in effect, taken over in part by the state. That is a fundamental breach. What assurances can the Government give us that this precedent will not be followed by other countries in the near future?

[Greg Clark]

As I said, we need to get resolution arrangements in place, but the ECB and the spokesmen for different members of the eurozone have been clear that the decision to impose this kind of levy was taken by the Cypriot Government with the eurozone. They could have done it in different ways, but that is the mechanism they chose.

Banking Union and Economic and Monetary Union

Debate between Greg Clark and Wayne David

Tuesday 6th November 2012 Commons Chamber

[The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Greg Clark)]

I beg to move,

That this House takes note of European Union Documents No. 13682/12, a draft Regulation amending Regulation (EC) No. 1093/2010 establishing a European Supervisory Authority (European Banking Authority) as regards its interaction with Council Regulation (EU) No…/… conferring specific tasks on the European Central 5 Bank concerning policies relating to the prudential supervision of credit institutions, No. 13683/12, a draft Regulation conferring specific tasks on the European Central Bank concerning policies relating to the prudential supervision of credit institutions, No. 13854/12, Commission Communication: A roadmap towards a Banking Union, and an unnumbered Explanatory Memorandum: Towards a Genuine Economic and 10 Monetary Union: Interim report; and welcomes the Government’s decision to remain outside the new supervisory arrangements while protecting the single market in financial services.

I welcome these debates. The subject matter of today’s debate is, if anything, even more important than what we discussed last week. It is essential that proposed developments in the EU are robustly scrutinised by this Parliament. I am grateful for all the work done by the European Scrutiny Committee and its equivalent Committee in the House of Lords, as they applied their attention to the 1,100 European documents that were referred to them last year.

One theme we will come on to is how we can strengthen the scrutiny of sovereign national Parliaments over the institutions and policies of the EU. I believe that that is essential. It is principally Members of this House and our colleagues in the other place who will search for assurance that our national interest is not being blown away by a zeitgeist that is capable of carrying people along in the wrong direction.

This week is a particularly appropriate one in which to recall the value of that questioning voice. It was 15 years ago on 10 November 1997 when the then Leader of the Opposition first stood out against all fashionable opinion at the time and, in a speech to the Confederation of British Industry conference, committed my party to oppose joining the proposed euro. I had a hand in preparing that speech, and I recall one of the lines that I was proud made the cut. It said that

“if the nightmare of our experience in the ERM teaches us anything, it is not to steer by the siren voices of a supposed consensus, but to exercise the independent judgement of a cool head.”

Of course, the two people responsible for that decision and that speech are now our Foreign Secretary and our Chancellor of the Exchequer. They were excoriated at the time for declaring on that day that they intended

“to campaign against British membership of the single currency at the next general election”.

I believe that this caused the brand-new Labour Government of the day to hesitate, and by missing the moment, they spared Britain from a disastrous fate.

Fifteen years on, the documents that we are considering today are a direct consequence of the creation of the euro and, in particular, of the failure to address from the outset some of the inevitable factors. Now, as then, it is imperative that the United Kingdom exercises the independent judgment of a cool head to determine whether the new policies being proposed are consistent with the interests of our own economy.

Let me deal first with the proposals on banking union. The first thing to say is that we and the EU need to tread particularly carefully on matters that affect financial services. The financial services industry, including banking, is not evenly distributed across all member states of the EU. The United Kingdom has a vastly greater strength in the conduct of, and international trade in, financial services than any other member state. Financial services and related areas employ more than 2 million people in this country—two thirds of them outside London—and contribute £1 out of every £8 of Government revenue. That is about £1,000 for every man, woman and child in this country.

We have a £37 billion trade surplus in financial services and Britain accounts for 61% of the whole of the EU’s exports of financial services. Commissioner Barnier said last month:

“It is in our general interest in Europe to have the biggest financial centre in the world. A strong City is good not only for Britain but for Europe.”

That is a welcome recognition. We will never jeopardise an industry of such particular importance to the United Kingdom.

In scrutinising these proposals, we need to have a clear fact in mind. People do not need banking union because they are part of a single market. The appetite for banking union arises solely because of the problems of the single currency. However, although banking union is primarily a matter for members of the eurozone, it strongly engages Britain’s interests in two ways.

[Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab)]

Does the Minister honestly believe that the Prime Minister throwing a tantrum, walking out of a Council meeting and claiming that he exercised a veto when he did not is helpful to Britain’s national interests?

[Greg Clark]

I and, I think, the country are pleased that the Prime Minister was prepared to stand up for British interests, and I know that he will always do so. It is certainly not a matter of regret.

I think it is desirable from the point of view of the British economy that, since the eurozone exists, it should be successful, rather than a source of economic weakness. Indeed, as the Governor of the Bank of England has said:

“The biggest risk to the recovery”

in this country

“stems from the difficulties facing the euro area, our main trading partner.”

Secondly, we need to be vigilant to ensure that our access to the single market in banking, now and in the future, is not undermined and jeopardised by the creation of a banking union. That means putting in place safeguards to ensure that the UK cannot be discriminated against in the future in single market decision-making processes.

The Commission’s current proposals are not yet acceptable in that respect. For example, the European Banking Authority—which, as Members know, is the organisation that currently ensures that there is a level playing field for banking within the single market—operates on the basis not of unanimity but of majority voting. The European Central Bank regulation specifies that that the ECB would

“coordinate and express a common position of representatives from competent authorities of the participating Member States in… the EBA”.

That effectively requires participating member states in the euro to caucus in adopting positions and voting in the European Banking Authority.

--- Later in debate ---

[Greg Clark]

I do not think that there is any difference between us on this. It is essential that this arrangement is legally sound. At the moment, the negotiations are continuing and the shape of the regulation is evolving, but the sensible commitment I have given is to make sure not to proceed unless we are satisfied that it is legally robust.

Let me talk about some of the other measures we need to bear in mind. We must make it absolutely clear that both now and in the future there should be no requirement, for example, for clearing houses that handle significant amounts of euro-denominated business to be located geographically in the eurozone, as proposed by the ECB—a proposal against which we have launched legal proceedings. That blatantly undermines the single market and the United Kingdom’s financial services industry. It is a poor indication of the ECB’s attitude if it intends to proceed in such a way. We need to be clear, too, that London is home to more clearing houses than any other EU capital and such proposals are unacceptable.

As the House will see, there is some way to go before the banking union proposals are acceptable to the Government. They will not be agreed by the United Kingdom unless and until we are satisfied that the UK’s position in the single market has been secured.

Let me turn briefly to the document known as the four presidents’ report, which was published on 12 October. It is an interim report that gives a general overview of the measures that the euro area member states might want to consider taking to improve the functioning of the euro. At this stage, there is little detail in the report apart from in the area of banking union and a great deal more discussion will be needed before there is agreement even on which issues should be explored further. The House will have a particular interest, however, in the discussion about democratic legitimacy and accountability.

I emphasise again that although the UK will not be part of the arrangements, it seems to me to be important that when significant decisions are being taken at the eurozone level about national matters, national Parliaments should be able to scrutinise those decisions, just as the Bank of England, the UK regulatory authorities and not least Ministers are accountable to this House and the House of Lords.

[Wayne David]

I welcome what the Minister has just said, but does he accept that in much of the documentation we are discussing, as the European Scrutiny Committee has pointed out, preference is given to the European Parliament rather than national Parliaments as regards accountability?

[Greg Clark]

Indeed it is. The point I am making very clearly—perhaps not clearly enough—is that I think there should be a greater role for national Parliaments.

The Chairman of the European Scrutiny Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Stone, was characteristically eagle-eyed and meticulous in his regard for independence when he baulked at the line in my explanatory memorandum that stated that

“there should be further consideration of how we can use national parliaments to enhance legitimacy and oversight.”

He is absolutely right that “use” is not the mot juste and instead I should have said that the authority of national Parliaments should be respected. It was the very independence and rigour of his and the Committee’s scrutiny that I was commending, and anyone who labours under the misapprehension that his Committee can be used does not know him or his colleagues. I will be more exact in future.

When the document was considered in the October Council, the Prime Minister secured an explicit commitment that the final report and road map in December must include concrete proposals to ensure that the single market’s integrity is respected. I look forward to this afternoon’s debate and tell all hon. Members who will participate that their guidance and advice will be taken seriously by the Government as the detailed negotiations on all these matters proceed in Brussels and across capitals in Europe over the weeks and months ahead.

Multiannual Financial Framework

Debate between Greg Clark and Wayne David

Wednesday 31st October 2012 Commons Chamber

[Greg Clark]

I will not give way, because I want to make progress.

We have touched on a number of themes in the debate already—shamelessness, wastefulness, hypocrisy and betrayal—which leads us neatly to the position of the Labour party. Those sitting on the Opposition Front Bench are the same men who gave away so much of our rebate and who would surely surrender the rest on demand to curry favour with Europe. It is the party that, the last time it was in power and had the opportunity to negotiate an MFF, agreed not to a cut or a freeze, but to an 8% real-terms increase. It is a party whose socialist comrades in the European Parliament declared that the Commission’s proposed 10% increase was

“not sufficient to finance all the EU’s objectives”.

It is a party that nearly bankrupted our country but now claims conversion to the rigours of fiscal rectitude. It is a party whose last act in office was to sign Britain up to the EU stabilisation mechanism when it did not ever have a mandate to govern. It is a party that is so caught up in its cynical political games that it calls for a cut in the budget but at the same time says we should not deploy our veto to secure Britain’s interests. It is not a party that deserves to be taken seriously, as its opportunistic posturing this week shows.

[Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab)]

The previous Labour Government argued for the repatriation of regional policy to save money. Do this Government stand by that?

[Greg Clark]

One of the issues that I hope unites Members of this House is a reflection that the structural funds need to be cut. They are one aspect of the budget that is recycling money from one set of taxpayers to another, often the same taxpayers. If there is no reason for it, it should be cut, and that is part of our negotiations.