Leaving the EU: Airbus Risk Assessment

John Redwood Excerpts

Monday 25th June 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Given that there is a further urgent question to come, thereafter to be followed by a ministerial statement and subsequently a debate on the Heathrow motion, which I can tell colleagues is extremely heavily subscribed, the Chair’s accommodation of the extensive interest in this matter will require brevity from Back and Front Benchers alike—to be demonstrated in the first instance by a co-author of the short questions textbook, Mr John Redwood.

[John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)]

Does not Boeing’s decision to make a major manufacturing investment in this country show that a complex supply chain can be run with a lot coming in from outside the EU perfectly well and give the lie to the idea that we will not be able to supply the wings to Airbus?

[Greg Clark]

I want Britain to be the best place in the world to produce advanced manufacturing products, and that means we should be tenacious in looking at every way to make the supply chain competitive. Given that our parts go backwards and forwards between the UK and the continent, if we can avoid frictions, as I am certain we can, that enhances our ability to compete, which is to the advantage of Boeing as well as any other company in the industry.

Nuclear Power

John Redwood Excerpts

Monday 4th June 2018 Commons Chamber

[Greg Clark]

I am disappointed that the hon. Lady did not continue in the spirit in which she opened her contribution. This is an important moment, and we are beginning a negotiation on a project that will supply energy to this country for the next 60 years, until towards the end of the century, which will create jobs and reduce our carbon emissions. She said that her party supported the proposal and that there was cross-party consensus—one could be forgiven for missing that in her tone—and it is important to establish that, because it is evident that any 60-year project will take place over the life of successive Governments. This country has given nuclear investors confidence over time that there is a strong commitment to such major infrastructure projects, so I hope that she will back the commitments that she and her party made in their manifesto last year to support new nuclear and recognise the considerable opportunities, as she put it, for nuclear power internationally and domestically.

The hon. Lady asked about the financing model. She urged me in a letter to reflect on the recommendations of the National Audit Office and the Public Accounts Committee to explore alternative financing models that can reduce the price of the electricity that is generated. That is exactly what I have set out—I have followed the recommendations of the NAO and the PAC. We are entering a negotiation—I think somewhere in her remarks there was a welcome for that—but the essence of doing so is that a deal has not been agreed. We need to explore that, and it is subject to the very tests that she set out and that the NAO and the PAC observed are required, including on value for money.

On safety, the hon. Lady should be reassured—there are many hon. Members who are familiar with the nuclear industry in this country—that the safety standards operated through our independent nuclear inspectorate are the highest in the world, and that the generic design assessment is the most exacting in the world. We always abide by the rulings and requirements of the independent regulators so that we can have full confidence in the safety of this important industry.

Finally, the hon. Lady mentioned other potential investments, including the proposal for renewable power in Swansea. She knows—we have had exchanges about it across the Dispatch Boxes—that I believe in a diversity of energy supply, but we need to make sure that value for money is offered for taxpayers and bill payers. A rigorous assessment is required and, as I have done today, I will update the House when the process is concluded.

[John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)]

How will the Government ensure, if they have a stake in the proposed investment, that when it comes to buying power they are fair between that investment and other people in the market?

Nuclear Safeguards Bill

John Redwood Excerpts

Ping Pong: House of Commons
Tuesday 8th May 2018 Commons Chamber

[Richard Harrington]

The best example I can give is the ratification of the agreement with the US—and this will also explain the difference between signing and ratification. Now that it has been signed, it needs to be approved in accordance with the relevant constitutional requirements of the UK and the US, just as will be the case with the other bilateral agreements, but we have built into our timetable sufficient time to allow for the necessary processes in both the UK Parliament—it will come before Parliament this year—and the US Congress, which has a slightly different arrangement involving several days of congressional business. I am very confident, however, that the process will be completed. In both cases, it is unprecedented for this to be anything other than a formality. Both countries will then exchange notes to bring the agreement into force when required, which we fully expect to be at the end of the implementation period, but we have built plenty of time into the process.

[John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)]

This all sounds like very good progress. Is it true that the other four agreements the Minister says are necessary will be similarly available and ready by March 2019?

[Richard Harrington]

I have every confidence that those agreements will be ready, signed and ratified. I have no reason to believe anything other than that.

If the relevant agreements or arrangements are not in place 28 days before exit day, the amendment in lieu would impose a requirement on the Secretary of State to make a request to the European Council to continue to be covered by the corresponding Euratom agreements—the trilateral agreements between the IAEA, Euratom and the UK and the bilateral agreements between the countries I have mentioned. That request would cover only those areas for which the UK had not signed a relevant agreement or made arrangements for the corresponding Euratom agreement to continue to apply to the UK after exit. I think that answers the questions about process.

I have not mentioned the IAEA itself. We have made very good progress in negotiating with the IAEA, having held several productive rounds of discussions, and it has shared with us the draft voluntary offer agreement and additional protocol. Negotiations on these documents have made good progress, and we expect to conclude a final draft in time for them to be put to the June meeting of the board of governors. The UK has a very strong relationship with the IAEA and continues to support it across a range of nuclear non-proliferation issues—something I was able to reinforce in my meeting last week with the director general, Mr Amano.

Lords amendments 1, 2 and 7 were Government amendments placing the definition of “civil activities” in the Bill. The Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee recommended that a definition of “civil activities” be placed in the Bill, so far as is possible, supplemented by a power to develop, where necessary, its meaning in regulations. The definition we inserted takes into account the continuing work on the draft regulations that will underpin the Bill, on which we are intending to consult in July. Although the Committee accepted that it might still be necessary to supplement this definition with a power to embellish its meaning in regulations, I have not found that to be necessary, so the amendments remove the existing power to specify in regulations activities that are or are not to be treated as “civil activities” and replace it with a definition in the Bill without creating another power. They therefore reduce the number of powers created by the Bill.

The sunset clause discussed by the Opposition Front-Bench team places a time limit—colloquially known as a “sunset”—on the use of the power in clause 2. Hon. Members may recall that clause 2 contains the power to amend three pieces of legislation in consequence of a relevant safeguards agreement—an agreement relating to nuclear safeguards to which the UK and the agency are parties. That legislation makes detailed references to specific provisions of international safeguards agreements. Those references, including references to specific articles, are likely to change as a result of any amendment of, or change in, the agreements. We therefore believe that the power in the Bill is necessary to make the changes in the relevant legislation to update the references when the new agreements are in place. The Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee recommended preventing the use of the power after a period of two years had expired. The amendment addresses the principle of the Committee’s recommendation, but provides for a “sunset” period of five years to ensure that the provision can function effectively in all scenarios, including that of an implementation period with the EU.

Lords amendments 5 and 6 deal with statutory reporting. As I have said, I took very seriously the cross-party requests from parliamentarians for regular detailed updates about nuclear safeguards arrangements in this country. The amendments, as amended by the Opposition, would place a statutory duty on the Secretary of State to provide quarterly reports on nuclear safeguards, covering both domestic and international matters, for the first year after the Bill receives Royal Assent.

Domestic Gas and Electricity (Tariff Cap) Bill

John Redwood Excerpts

3rd reading: House of Commons & Report stage: House of Commons
Monday 30th April 2018 Commons Chamber

[Dr Whitehead]

We have to bear in mind that people will be introduced to a new tariff. Indeed, we hope that by the time the market returns, the issue of people remaining on SVTs for years and not switching will be a thing of the past and there will not be SVTs in the system, but also that there will be other tariff arrangements that effectively prevent SVTs from playing the role they have played before.

[John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)]

In amendment 6, the hon. Gentleman is trying to ensure that people get money off, which we would all like to see, but would it not be necessary to include some kind of rider so that it applies only if people are burning the same amount of energy year after year? If we went from a warm winter to a very cold one, presumably he would not think we could guarantee the same amount.

[Dr Whitehead]

Amendment 6, as I recall, would simply place the Prime Minister’s words into legislation. It was estimated that a saving of at least £100 would result from the measures, and one aim of the legislation was to bring that saving about. It does not mean that the amount would be exactly £100—indeed, had the Prime Minister not reported that to The Sun, we might have got a rather more complex version of that price promise. We are merely reflecting what was heard on that occasion, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman will take the amendment in the spirit in which it is intended.

--- Later in debate ---

[John Penrose]

As my right hon. Friend says, he and I have had many conversations about this over many months. I can only say to him that if his argument is that Ofgem might come up with a version of an absolute cap that is a bit less absolute and a bit closer to what I am proposing—in effect, one that caps the gap: a relative cap—I would agree with him that that is a good thing, but if that is the case, as a source of advantage for the cap, why would it not be even better to go the whole hog and have a relative cap in the first place?

[John Redwood]

Does my hon. Friend think that a relative cap is more likely to deliver a better deal for the customer than an absolute cap?

[John Penrose]

Yes, absolutely. We heard from the hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Dr Whitehead) what I thought was actually rather a good explanation about why such a cap is so wonderful. The Opposition disagree about the purpose, but the fundamental reason why we are all in the Chamber is that we agree about the injustice in the way the energy market works at the moment, which is that people can start off on one tariff and then get secretively pushed on to a much higher one. It is the clandestine mark-up that riles everybody and really upsets people. By definition, a relative cap would affect what is hacking everybody off, and it would be precisely targeted on dealing with the mischief that is the reason behind the Bill in the first place.

Domestic Gas and Electricity (Tariff Cap) Bill

John Redwood Excerpts

2nd reading: House of Commons
Tuesday 6th March 2018 Commons Chamber

[Greg Clark]

It is true that Ofgem has said that it might be challenged in the courts. I do not think we should be afraid of testing arguments in the courts, and I would have preferred to see that happen. The statute that the right hon. Lady mentions would not enable the gap to be closed in a way that would allow competition to continue in the other part of the market—other Members have raised that matter. It would require a closing of the gap, but that could take place by means of the deletion of other tariffs, which is not what we want.

[John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)]

I fully support the effort to lower energy prices, and competitive markets should be able to do that. Last week we were very short of both gas and electricity. There seems to be a capacity problem, and we are going to close a load of coal power stations. What action is being taken to expand capacity to increase the chance of competitive prices?

[Greg Clark]

The capacity auction arrangements that have been pursued over the last few years have been very successful. We have had a higher margin this winter than last, and the prices of securing that capacity for future years have fallen in successive auctions. My right hon. Friend is right to raise the question, but the framework is actually delivering more resilience than has been delivered in the past.

Nuclear Safeguards Bill

John Redwood Excerpts

2nd reading: House of Commons
Monday 16th October 2017 Commons Chamber

[Greg Clark]

Let me say two things. First, we want to see maximum continuity of the standards—we do not want any reduction in them, as they have served us well and they give confidence to the industry. Secondly, the hon. Gentleman knows, from his many years in this House, that successive Governments have taken forward our long-term disposal of nuclear waste, and work on a long-term repository is being conducted, but that is a domestic responsibility, as it always has been.

[John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)]

I welcome the Secretary of State’s approach. Will he confirm it will mean that all the operational work that happens in the relevant plants will continue as if nothing had changed? It is done to a high standard and we wish to preserve those standards.

[Greg Clark]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. As I say, I do not think anyone regards the arrangements that have prevailed as deficient, so it makes sense to replicate them as we can. We are being orderly in making sure that we have the right domestic framework in place in good time.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rebecca Long Bailey]

It certainly would be helpful for the House to hear about the discussions that have been taking place between the Government’s legal advisers and the Government. The Library has helpfully provided a number of solicitors who have disputed the point that the Secretary of State puts forward. There is legal discourse going on that disputes the fact that Euratom and the EU are intrinsically linked.

[John Redwood]

Does the hon. Lady remember the long debates on the article 50 letter and the legislation to approve it? It was made very clear in those debates that we would probably have to leave Euratom at the same time and that we would therefore plan on that basis. She and many of her right hon. and hon. Friends voted for the European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Bill knowing that.

[Rebecca Long Bailey]

I earlier urged the Secretary of State to display a little bit of patience. If the right hon. Member for Wokingham (John Redwood) did the same, he might hear some of the answers he requires in the remainder of my contribution.

Subject to legal debate, it certainly may have been possible—had the Prime Minister not taken the unnecessary step of specifically including Euratom in her letter to the Commission—to retain the UK’s membership of Euratom. At worst, we could have secured a close association with Euratom that was good enough to allow the continuation of nuclear safeguarding within that amended framework.

The Opposition believe that continued membership of Euratom or a close associated status with it is possible and necessary for the efficient, continued working of a whole raft of procedures relating to the nuclear industry, not just safeguarding. We see this procedure of starting to set up identical but separate processes, instead of a relationship with Euratom, very much as a last resort or a back-up measure. We are frankly disappointed that the Government seem to be putting rather more effort into this than into seeking to maintain an arrangement with a body that does all this perfectly well, although the effort put into this Bill is also questionable. I will come to that in due course.

European Union (Approvals) Bill

John Redwood Excerpts

2nd reading: House of Commons
Tuesday 4th July 2017 Commons Chamber

[Margot James]

I welcome my hon. Friend’s intervention. I remember his excellent work when he was a trade representative to Canada and I assure him that the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement negotiations, completed between the EU and Canada, will cover the United Kingdom for as long as we are members of the EU. After that point, it will be up to us to decide the terms of any future trading relationship with Canada, bearing in mind the—I won’t go any further on that.

[John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)]

Will the Minister give way?

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

Will the Minister give way?

--- Later in debate ---

[John Redwood]

Surely the Minister would confirm that the Canadian trade agreement, along with all the others the EU will have in place when we leave, will novate to us, assuming that both we and Canada wish it to do so? That will clearly be the case, so it will carry on.

[Margot James]

I accept the first part of what my right hon. Friend says, but I do not wish to predict what the UK and Canada may find it important to discuss in their trade relationship in the years to come.

--- Later in debate ---

[Margot James]

I have explained that the purpose of the decision is primarily to support our role as a continuing member of the EU until the negotiations are complete, in two years’ time. Until then we will be covered by it, but after that date we shall have to see what has been agreed during the negotiations. The existing competition agreement with Canada does not allow the sharing of confidential information, but the new one does. I shall return to that point in a few minutes.

The absence of the possibility of exchanging information with the Canadian Competition Bureau is regarded as a major impediment to effective co-operation. The proposed changes in the existing agreement will allow the European Commission and the Competition Bureau to exchange evidence that both sides have obtained in their investigations. That will be particularly useful in all cases in which the alleged anti-competitive behaviour affects transatlantic or world markets. Many worldwide or transatlantic cartels include Canada and, via Canada, the Commission will gain a good opportunity to have access to additional information concerning those cartels.

Co-operation with third-country competition authorities is now standard practice in international competition investigations. In addition to the agreement with Canada, the EU has concluded dedicated co-operation agreements with the United States, Japan, Korea and Switzerland.

I now return to the intervention by the hon. Member for Carmarthen East and Dinefwr (Jonathan Edwards). I omitted to say that even after the Brexit negotiations have been completed, the competition agreement with Canada will continue to apply to British companies if they are trading with the single market of the European Union.

The most advanced agreement is the one with Switzerland, which already contains provisions on the exchange of evidence, and the proposed update would bring the agreement with Canada to the same level as the one concluded with Switzerland.

I am sure Members will agree that the ability to share information is increasingly important for effective and efficient international competition enforcement. Access to information from other jurisdictions can be important to the reaching of a robust enforcement decision. Co-operation and information sharing between jurisdictions can help to ensure that enforcement bodies do not reach different decisions based on different sets of information.

The agreement contains general safeguards for the transfer of information, and additional safeguards for the transfer of personal data. Personal data can be shared only with the express written consent of the person or company to whom they relate. In the absence of consent, such data can be shared only when both competition authorities are investigating the same related conduct or transaction. Furthermore, the transfer of the data will be subject to independent oversight. The agreement also contains safeguards for information provided by a company under the EU cartel immunity or leniency programme. Such information cannot be shared without the express written consent of the individual or company that provided it.

As I have noted, the decisions will have no financial implications for the UK. I confirm that I do not consider that any of the Bill’s provisions interfere with the rights set out in the European convention on human rights, so no issues arise in connection with its compatibility with those rights.

[John Redwood]

I wonder why there is no cost. Surely, if there is to be an added layer of complexity in the sharing of information—which may be a good thing—there must be a cost in respect of the time of the officials involved.

[Margot James]

I am assured that no costs are associated with these decisions, other than those that arise in the normal course of Government business.

It is intended that the Bill will come into force on the day of Royal Assent. For the reasons that I have outlined, I commend it to the House.

Energy Price Cap

John Redwood Excerpts

Monday 3rd July 2017 Commons Chamber

[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.

The Government’s Productivity Plan

John Redwood Excerpts

Tuesday 28th February 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Iain Wright (Hartlepool) (Lab)]

I welcome the opportunity for the House to debate the supplementary estimates affecting the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy. It is a real honour and pleasure to chair the Select Committee and I am particularly fortunate to lead a Committee with excellent hon. Members—I see some of them in the Chamber: the hon. Members for Cannock Chase (Amanda Milling), for Derby North (Amanda Solloway), for Edinburgh West (Michelle Thomson), for Bedford (Richard Fuller) and for Warwick and Leamington (Chris White). We try to work hard together to put in place policies that ensure workers in this country have higher skills and wages and greater protection, in firms that are productive, competitive, profitable and have barriers to scale up removed.

The title of today’s debate references the Government’s productivity plan, and I shall come on to that in a moment. However, given that this debate is about the estimates, I want to mention a couple of points regarding them. On a broader point, in my time in the House, it has always struck me as odd, even concerning, that billions of pounds of taxpayers’ money are voted through on the nod without any real debate, scrutiny or challenge. This debate will be about the Government’s productivity plan, and most of the contributions, including my own, will be on that document, which already seems to be becoming rapidly obsolete. At the end of it we will be asked to approve billions of pounds. The manner in which estimates are presented is opaque and often downright unhelpful. It is difficult to follow the money.

Of course, Departments produce annual reports, which are more helpful. They are scrutinised by Select Committees such as our own, and the National Audit Office conducts its own work, but the basic point of this place is to scrutinise and to challenge the Executive and then legitimately to permit the Government’s wish to tax the general public. I am far from convinced that the current system allows that to happen in an effective manner. Therefore, I look forward to the Procedure Committee coming up with some more radical improvements in this area.

The supplementary estimates reflect the machinery of government changes, with two Departments, the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills and the Department of Energy and Climate Change, coming together and losing responsibilities for further and higher education and for exports. BIS and DECC had resource savings targets of 16% and 17% respectively by 2020. The BIS Department had the “BIS 2020” publication, which contained a number of proposals to make budget cuts in this period, including, for a Department tasked with regional growth and pushing the northern powerhouse, the closure of the Sheffield office. A large part of the savings for the BIS Department was to be achieved through changing the way further education and higher education were to be funded. However, given the machinery of government changes, that option is no longer available to BEIS. Therefore—this relates to the point I made on the opaqueness of the estimates—it is impossible to tell, based on the information in front of us, what the planned savings of the new Department are and whether the “BIS 2020” programme is continuing.

When the Secretary of State came before the Select Committee before Christmas, I asked him whether similar savings of 16% to 17% would be required. He confirmed that. He said that the “BIS 2020” programme was no longer available, because it was a new Department, but he did not offer any alternative. When I asked what things the Department would stop doing in order to make the necessary cuts to the resource budget, the Secretary of State said:

“We are going to set out the proposals to the Department and I am sure the Committee will want to see that. I am very happy to send them to the Committee to look at. We want to take the opportunity of the two Departments coming together to, as it were, re-engineer the way that the Department is run to make sure that we take advantage of a big opportunity to tie things up here internally.”

That is very clear. However, no such proposals have been brought forward. I would be grateful if the Minister could outline what specific savings the new Department has to make and precisely how he intends to make those savings, including what activities will be stopped. That is in the context of the supplementary estimates before us, which state that the administration costs of the Department are rising from £425.6 million this year to £528.5 million next year. There is no explanation for that in the memorandum. Could the Minister provide one?

On the Government’s productivity plan, the factors regarding the UK’s productivity performance are well rehearsed but worth reiterating. At a national level, productivity has stalled. GDP per hour stands at 17% below its 35-year long-term trend and has only just exceeded the peak it had reached prior to the global financial crash. We as a nation are falling further behind our major competitors. Output per hour in the G7 excluding the UK was 18% above that of the UK, the widest gap in productivity since records began in 1991. That statistic shows the marked differences in performance between ourselves and our competitors. When it comes to productivity, we are above Japan by about 16 percentage points. Italy, however, is 10 % more productive than we are. The US and France are 30% more productive than we are, and Germany is 36% more productive than the UK. Of course, productivity in all developed countries was badly jolted as a result of the 2008 global crash, but the gap between our long-term productivity trend and that of our competitors in the G7 is about twice as big. Productivity and pay are intimately linked. Productivity gains are the way in which real wage growth—and, hence, living standards—can rise.

[John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)]

Does the hon. Gentleman accept that some countries with very high levels of unemployment can have a higher productivity figure, whereas we put the people to work in lower value activities, which is surely better than them being out of work, because the best way to get a job is to start off in a job that is not so good?

[Mr Wright]

I will respond to the right hon. Gentleman in a moment when I talk about the structure of our employment market and how I do not think it deals with living standards, helps our constituents, or improves the long-term competitiveness of our nation.

It is little wonder, given the intimate link between productivity and pay, that Paul Krugman said:

“Productivity isn’t everything, but in the long run it is almost everything.”

Reflecting this, wage growth has been anaemic. In the period between 2007 and 2015, British workers suffered a bigger fall in wages than those in any other advanced country with the exception of Greece. Average pay fell in real terms by more than 10%. In the same period, real wages grew in France by 11% and in Germany by 14%. Median pay for workers in this country is still around 5% below its pre-crisis peak. There has been a lost decade of wage growth for our constituents, the British workers.

However, the headline nationwide figures for productivity, worrying though they are, mask the stark differences in regional productivity. Gross value added per hour in London is 32% above the UK average. The only other region with productivity above the UK average is the south-east of England, which is 9% above the average. The regions of the north and the midlands—including my own region of the north-east, and those of my fellow Select Committee members, the hon. Members for Cannock Chase, for Derby North and for Warwick and Leamington—have productivity levels between 10% and 15% below the UK average. In the nations of the United Kingdom, productivity in Scotland, which includes the constituency of the hon. Member for Edinburgh West, is 2% below the national average, while in Wales it is 19% below the average. Were it not for the performance of London and the south-east, the gap between ourselves and our major economic rivals, with whom we are competing for orders, trade and market share, would be even more dire.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Wright]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for reminding me about that intervention. Employment is crucial and having record levels of employment is a good thing. However, we want good, full-time employment on permanent contracts. We want people to be secure in their jobs and able to invest in their own lives and communities with some confidence. Over the past 20 or 30 years, we have moved towards insecurity and precarious forms of employment, such as bogus self-employment, zero-hours contracts or agency work. We have to think about our vision for the economy. Is it about everybody in work being paid pitiful wages or ensuring that we can pull the activities of Government and industry together to upskill people and move them up the value chain so that, ultimately, they have higher living standards?

[John Redwood]

I think the hon. Gentleman and I agree on this. My point is that it is easier to get to higher pay, more skills and smarter working if we start from a base of many more people being in work, which is the good news about Britain. None of us is happy with people in low-paid jobs without skills or machine power at their back.

[Mr Wright]

The right hon. Gentleman must accept that although the best position to be in to get a job over the past five or 10 years was to be in employment, people are stuck on low-paid, zero-hours contracts in precarious types of employment. They are not moving on. There is no social mobility or economic progress. We seem to be stuck at the bottom floor when it comes to getting people into employment and that is not the model that we should be using.

I hope that the industrial strategy learns the lessons of the productivity plan. The Select Committee will publish our report into the Government’s industrial strategy later this week, and we hope that it will address some of the matters that the productivity plan does not: a longer-term focus providing more policy certainty; greater collaboration and co-ordination across Government to mitigate the problem of a silo-based approach across Whitehall Departments, as mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Hove (Peter Kyle); and the lack of meaningful metrics, milestones and measurements of success. If it is to work and succeed, the industrial strategy cannot just be this year’s model; it needs to be a thoughtful and well-established cornerstone of an economic and business policy framework, and an economic and business mindset, to increase productivity, compete with the rest of the world, and improve living standards for all in this country.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris White]

We are sometimes in danger of thinking that Germany is so far ahead and advanced that we should try to do our own thing. Germany has a number of ideas that we can borrow and from which we can learn a great deal, meaning that we can advance significantly in manufacturing.

[John Redwood]

Does my hon. Friend also agree that quite a bit of the problem resides in the public sector, not the private sector? Our best car plants are world beaters and have world-leading standards of productivity, but publicly owned Network Rail is way behind the continental railways in terms of productivity. We have the solution in our own hands in the public sector.

[Chris White]

I agree with my right hon. Friend about our automotive plants. However, I will not criticise Network Rail today because it has just announced that it will be installing lifts in my local railway stations, on which I congratulate it most profusely.

The Catapult network is a good example of what can be achieved through innovation. Some £15 of benefit is returned for every £1 of investment, and we should remember the advantages of the Catapult centres as we come towards the Budget. Some 69% of business R and D can be found in the manufacturing sector, which highlights its importance to the wider economy. The UK is also championing the idea of horizontal innovation, whereby intelligence and technologies can be shared across industries, which could have a significant impact on how sectors such as shipbuilding and construction could learn from the best practice of industries such as the automotive sector.

Through-life engineering services—TES—are increasingly on the agenda, with manufacturers going beyond production to retain responsibility for maintaining systems throughout a product’s life. I particularly commend Cranfield University for its work in that area, and I am pleased to co-chair the TES Council, which brings together industry leaders to discuss how best to develop such services. One area in which the UK leads its international counterparts is additive manufacturing, or 3D printing, which we can see at the high-value manufacturing technology centre in Ansty.

We are starting to see a recovery, but productivity in the services sector is outstripping that of the manufacturing sector. It is well documented that UK productivity is weak—stubbornly so, as the hon. Member for Hartlepool said. Job quality, whether through wages, skills and training or employment security, must continually improve for us to reverse poor productivity growth.

As a midlands MP, I take particular interest in the midlands engine initiative and look forward to the publication of the regional strategy—I hope that the Minister will shed more light on that. The midlands has a rich tradition of manufacturing and can be at the forefront of a manufacturing renaissance in this country. However, as has been noted, productivity in the west midlands has been consistently falling against the UK average. The midlands engine is a welcome initiative that can define our priorities and develop the skills we need in key industries such as the automotive sector on which we so heavily rely.

At today’s Treasury questions, I asked the Chancellor about the provision of an adequate energy supply as electric vehicles become more prevalent. Companies such as Jaguar Land Rover are developing technologies that will shape the future of the sector, but they cannot do so without the necessary infrastructure. Electric cars will be the future, and it is important that we provide the necessary power so that we can build their batteries in the vicinity of those car plants. That is the kind of joined-up approach that will be so important.

The final point of the 15 in the productivity plan emphasises rebalancing the economy and regional empowerment. London and the south-east contribute an enormous amount to the national economy, but economic growth should be powered from every corner of the UK.

--- Later in debate ---

[Roger Mullin]

I quite agree with my hon. Friend. Today I asked a question of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, which once again attracted the typical non-answer. I asked whether, given what has happened to businesses over the past few years, with things such as the RBS “dash for cash” and the like, there was not a case for having banks accept their duty of care towards the business community, and small and medium-sized enterprises. We need to look more widely at how we create a context that will really support innovation and risk taking.

[John Redwood]

What study have the Scottish Government made of the big impact on Scottish productivity of the pronounced decline in output from the North sea as the fields mature? What can they do to offset that?

[Roger Mullin]

The best thing I can do is leave that to my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen South (Callum McCaig), who is an expert in these matters. He will be summing up for our party and is from that part of the country. I am aware that the Scottish Government have been undertaking considerable work on this matter. Our growth commission is under way, and part of its work deals with looking at precisely the matter the right hon. Gentleman raises. The commission is yet to report.

Vauxhall/Opel: Proposed Takeover

John Redwood Excerpts

Monday 20th February 2017 Commons Chamber

[Greg Clark]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his kind words. I thought it was important to have discussions immediately with both parties to the negotiations. It is fair to say that, as a deal has not been concluded and discussions are continuing, the prospective purchaser is clearly not in a position to give contractual guarantees. One of the important reasons for meeting was to have a clear understanding of the prospective purchaser’s purpose and to commit to having further meetings as the discussions continue—I will be having a further meeting later in the week. Of course, the conditions for workers and pensioners are uppermost in the discussions.

In the context of Brexit, I made it clear, as the Prime Minister did in her speech at Lancaster House, that we want to negotiate the best possible access to the single market, free of tariffs and bureaucratic impediments. It is also important to reflect on the fact that we have a very strong and successful domestic market, with Vauxhall having a particularly strong share of it. That was mentioned to me by both parties, GM and PSA; they are very aware of that, and we will emphasise it in the days and weeks ahead.

[John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)]

Are the Government considering their policy on when, why and how to intervene in mergers that could be damaging to British jobs and the public interest?

[Greg Clark]

In the context of the Hinkley Point C decision, we said that we would come forward with measures to govern the critical national infrastructure regime. In addition, we have proposed some changes to our corporate governance regime, and we will be making suggestions as to how we can keep our merger regime up to date.