UK Trade Performance

John Redwood Excerpts

Wednesday 1st May 2024 Commons Chamber

[Kemi Badenoch]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his questions. I could see that it was very difficult for him to find things to pick at in the statement, so I broadly welcome some of what he said, which implied that the good news is true.

The hon. Gentleman started with the OBR. He picked that statistic very selectively. Of course exports fell during covid; exports overall have grown. Many Opposition Members will say, “Oh, it’s just services.” That is because they do not understand the UK economy. The UK economy is 80% services, so it is good that services exports are going up. That is what we mainly do in this country.

The hon. Gentleman asked about Stellantis, and talked about U-turns. I remind him that the whole House voted for the net zero by 2050 target. It happened under a previous Conservative Government, but with the consent of the whole House. When business talks, we listen. The Opposition criticised us for making the changes that Stellantis asked for, so why is he now raising those comments? The Transport Secretary, the Prime Minister and I had a discussion—we do have discussions—and we extended the zero-emission vehicle mandate to ensure that we were not imposing undue costs on people if they were not ready to take up electric vehicles. We listen; the Opposition do not. Look at their plans for net zero. I assure the hon. Gentleman that businesses are absolutely terrified about what Labour would do with its new green deal, and all the measures that would just put costs on businesses and consumers.

The hon. Gentleman asked about steel. I am afraid that I need to correct several points. We saved jobs in Port Talbot—8,000 jobs were going to be lost, and we saved 5,000. If we want a net zero transition, we will have to move to electric arc furnaces, which require fewer staff. The Opposition cannot blame the Government for that while demanding a transition to net zero. We saved 5,000 jobs in Port Talbot. We invested £500 million out of a total £2 billion investment made with Tata. It is wrong to say that the Government are not saving steel; we are the only ones who have a plan for steel. The Opposition have no plan. We have a great plan, which will transform and regenerate south Wales.

The other thing that the hon. Gentleman said that was incorrect was about us having no primary steel production. We still have British Steel in Scunthorpe. There may be changes in Port Talbot around moving to electric arc furnaces, but he needs to remember that even the steel production that we have there relies on imports. We do not have iron ore here, so I recommend that he gets a briefing on exactly what is going on with steel production in the UK.

On India, the hon. Gentleman is right that a deal was promised by Diwali under a previous Prime Minister, but as soon as I became Trade Secretary, I said in this House over and over that it is about the deal, not the day. We do not sign trade deals that will not make businesses happy. We are keen to ensure that whatever we do will do right by our farmers. The Opposition laughed when I paused the FTA discussions with Canada. That was because what the Canadians were offering was not going to be good. The industry there is complaining that the UK got too good a deal from the CPTPP, but the Opposition do not talk about that. We are negotiating great deals for this country. I am very proud of the work that my Ministers and my Department are doing. I thank the hon. Gentleman for his questions.

[Sir John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)]

I am grateful for the statement. It is wonderful news on exports; it shows that all the pessimism at the time of the referendum was completely wrong. I fully support the approach of the Secretary of State in delaying the target for battery vehicles, because people are not buying them in enough quantities, but will she add to that by adopting the advice of Stellantis not to fine motor manufacturers here for producing good petrol and diesel cars before people are ready to buy electric ones, because that is putting off investors?

[Kemi Badenoch]

I understand the point that my right hon. Friend makes. This is something that we have heard from some bodies in industry. The auto sector is giving us two different messages. Some people want us to bring the mandate forward and make the change faster; others want us to delay it. It is a very tricky balance. We understand the concerns. We do not want to put additional burdens on business, so he is right to make that point. I have made representations to the Transport Secretary, but this is his policy area, and he will make the ultimate decision.

Budget Resolutions

John Redwood Excerpts

Wednesday 6th March 2024 Commons Chamber

[John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)]

I have declared my business interests in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.

I am pleased that the Chancellor started by reminding the nation that, under Conservative leadership, Governments since 2010 have presided over the creation of 800 new jobs every day, every week, every month and every year, and have halved unemployment. The scourge of worklessness, which was inherited, has been banished. We now have the less worrying problem that we cannot get enough people to fill all the jobs, rather than the other way around of not having enough jobs for the people.

I am pleased that the Chancellor reminded the House that, in growth, we have outperformed all the major European nations, although I am sure he would agree with me that that is a feeble target to set ourselves; we are now free to do so much better. The question we need to ask is: why has the United States of America outperformed Europe so comprehensively for so long, and what can we learn?

The first thing we can learn from the United States is a better system of economic policy guidance and control. The requirements on the Federal Reserve Board, the US central bank, are a balanced mandate: not just 2% inflation, which is a necessary target that we share, but the promotion of growth and of growth in employment, so the board understands the trade-offs and can adjust policy accordingly. As our way of steering the economy, I would love us to get rid of fanciful, made-up figures by the OBR for five years’ time, which are always wrong, and to have two main aims: that 2% inflation target binding not merely on the Bank but on the whole Government, because Government have a big impact on prices and wages; and a 2% growth rate target, or a considerably higher growth rate than European countries have been achieving in the past decade. That is achievable if we take the right actions.

To do that, we need the Bank of England to work in sympathy with the Government’s policy. I remind the House that there is a dual mandate on the bond portfolio, the so-called APF or asset purchase facility. The Bank of England, having bought far too many bonds at ridiculously high prices on very low yields and run a very loose policy that gave us inflation, has now lurched too far the other way and is running too tight a policy, selling far too many bonds at much lower prices—prices it deliberately lowered in the market—and saddling us with losses. The Budget documents confirm that the accumulated losses paid so far, which taxpayers and the Treasury have to pay, amount to £49 billion since the thing flipped over in 2022. The last figure I saw was £34 billion, year to date—unaffordable and unnecessary, quite the wrong policy, meaning that we have less growth and a far bigger bill.

I am glad that the Government have decided to major on productivity in general, and in particular on public sector productivity. Some months ago, I stumbled across a well-concealed Office for National Statistics figure saying that in the three years since covid, we had lost 7.5% productivity in our public services. I did a quick back-of-the-envelope calculation, and that is roughly £30 billion, which means that it costs £30 billion more today to produce the same level and range of public service as it did before covid, as well as the many tens of billions more on top of that we had to pay because of all the inflation. It was a £30 billion hit.

The Government now more or less agree. The Chancellor has costed the loss in his figures at 6% rather than 7.5%, but he has said that he wants to eliminate a 5% productivity shortfall out of the 6%, and he costs that at £20 billion, which is exactly the same as my £30 billion for 7.5%. That is felicitous indeed. The issue is, how will they go about doing that?

I hear that the scheme for the NHS is elaborate expenditure on wide-ranging centralised computerisation—good luck with that—but I would not rely on that alone for my productivity package for the public services. We do not actually need new investment to get ourselves back to the productivity level we were at in 2019. We do not need to use all today’s wonderful artificial intelligence; we just need to use what we already had, which we had in 2019. It is about management, personnel and giving the personnel the right tasks. We have seen a huge increase in managerial and administrative positions, but far from managing things better, they are being managed less well.

We had a shocking case in the press recently, where an awful lot of managers were presiding over a prison that had gone wrong. They were not able to do the more important day-by-day things that were needed in order to resolve the problem. If we look at the huge expansion in the civil service and other public administration during the covid period, we will see a big increase not only in numbers, but in those who have been promoted up the grades for whatever reason. We need enough people for someone to supervise, however, and we do not need all supervisors, because they are often too posh to do the work. We need to manage things better, and that is the productivity challenge before us.

I also urge the Government to abolish UK Government Investments. It is a very expensive body that has a completely dreadful track record. It presided over the Post Office and did nothing to deal with the sub-postmasters; it presided over £1.4 billion-worth of accumulated losses, bankrupting the corporation; and it presides over Network Rail, and the whole rail industry, Network rail and High Speed 2 are absorbing £33 billion of public money this year. I do not think we are getting value for money for that.

My time is up. I urge the Government to redouble efforts on productivity, to understand that it is mainly about whom we hire and what we ask them to do, and to get rid of UKGI, and I ask Ministers to take responsibility for the dreadfully badly performing nationalised industries.

Post Office Horizon: Compensation and Legislation

John Redwood Excerpts

Monday 26th February 2024 Commons Chamber

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I thank the hon. Member for her collaborative comments. I am keen to work with her going forward, as we have every step of the way on this issue. I do not accept that we have made little progress. Let us be clear that 78% of all full claims that have been submitted have been settled—that is 2,700 claims that have been settled. Nor do I accept that there have been delays at every turn. That is not a correct characterisation of the situation.

With regard to our next steps, as I said, we expect the legislation to be tabled next month, which is as quickly as possible. I am working on this on very much a daily basis. On the differences between Post Office and CPS cases—those we are seeking to overturn with this legislation—and DWP cases, I think it is fair to say there was a different standard of evidence. Those DWP cases relied on evidence independent of Horizon such as the surveillance of suspects, collation and examination of cashed orders from stolen benefit books and girocheques, handwriting comparisons and witness statements. Those cases were very much not simply relying on Horizon evidence.

My engagement with the Lord Chancellor has been extensive, and our engagement with other stakeholders—including the hon. Member’s shadow Front-Bench colleagues—has also been extensive. We decided that was the right thing to do. Having said that, these are unprecedented steps. I think that again speaks to the fact that we are keen to make as much progress as possible, rather than as little.

The hon. Lady mentioned safeguards. The standard of evidence is critical to get to this point. It is fair to say that the trailblazing 555, who successfully took their case to the courts in the first place, set a high bar for anyone to emulate or replicate. We will be clear in the legislation that convictions will be overturned based on objective criteria, as another way to deal with this. That speaks to the hon. Lady’s last point on Capture, which I am very aware of and I have discussed with the right hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) on several occasions, including immediately prior to this statement. We need to ensure that we have the right evidence base. I am happy to continue the dialogue on that, but it is important that we do not include cohorts where we do not have the evidence base, as we have for the cohorts that we have set out—where the CPS and the Post Office prosecuted cases. We are taking very serious measures to overturn the convictions. We should never resort to this kind of approach lightly.

[John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)]

Will the Minister take UK Government Investments out of its role of controlling and supervising the Post Office? It has allowed these gross injustices to go on for too long, allowed the Post Office senior managers to rack up huge losses of £1,391 million to last March, with more to come this year, and given the executives bonuses for losing us that much money. It has left the Government with a great financial black hole. Would it not be better to change the Post Office management, to have it report directly to the Minister, and to make its No. 1 task giving justice to the sub-postmasters?

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I thank my right hon. Friend for his question. He and I have had serious conversations about the future of the Post Office, which I am keen to continue to engage on. The current UKGI representative who sits on the Post Office board is Lorna Gratton, for whom I have a great deal of time and respect. Clearly it is important that the inquiry does its work to determine who did what in the past. As we look to the future, there are different opinions on how the Post Office should be governed. I am happy to keep those discussions ongoing with my right hon. Friend.

Post Office Governance and Horizon Compensation Schemes

John Redwood Excerpts

Monday 19th February 2024 Commons Chamber

[Kemi Badenoch]

The hon. Lady asks multiple questions. The first is about a letter written by Nick Read, Post Office’s chief executive, to the Justice Secretary. What I can say is that UKGI and Post Office Ltd have both vehemently denied that Nick Read was put under any pressure to write the letter she refers to.

On the risks of making a decision on blanket exoneration, the postal affairs Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake), has said repeatedly that we have been faced with a dilemma: either to accept the present problem of many people carrying the unjustified slur of conviction, or to accept that an unknown number of people who have genuinely stolen from their post offices will be exonerated and perhaps even compensated. That is the case, and it is certainly what the Government believe. What she says about people being put under pressure to write a letter is something that UKGI and Post Office Ltd have both vehemently denied.

The hon. Lady repeats Mr Staunton’s allegations, but I have already given a statement saying that they are completely false. She asks about individual cases of people who have been paid. I cannot comment on individual cases, but I would like to clarify that the main scheme in place under Henry Staunton’s watch was the Horizon shortfall scheme. Some 2,417 people were made offers within the original deadline. One hundred per cent have received offers, but 84% have accepted offers. I just wanted to clarify my previous comments.

On the 40 prosecutors still working for Post Office, I have had multiple people giving different bits of information. The inquiry is looking at that and will get to the bottom of it.

[John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)]

Will the Secretary of State review the governance of UKGI? How did it manage to preside over the Post Office with its dreadful treatment of sub-postmasters? How did UKGI allow senior Post Office managers to rack up and accumulate losses of £1,390 million, effectively bankrupting the Post Office so that it can now trade only if it has the reassurance of massive cash infusions from the Treasury on a continuing basis? Surely this body has done very badly, and we need a better answer.

[Kemi Badenoch]

That is one of the reasons why we have been making personnel changes in this area. It goes back to the point I was making in the statement: Post Office needs an effective chair. Until the day I had the conversation dismissing him, I never had any correspondence from Mr Staunton about difficulties that he was having with UKGI. If he was having difficulties, he should have told me, rather than give an interview to The Sunday Times effectively stating that he had no control over the organisation that he had been appointed to run.

Horizon: Compensation and Convictions

John Redwood Excerpts

Monday 8th January 2024 Commons Chamber

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his work as Chair of the Select Committee, and I am very happy to be appearing before it next week to answer more detailed questions on these matters. He is right to say that most convictions have not come forward, which is precisely why we are making this statement today—so that more people with convictions have them overturned. One difficulty is that some of them have not come forward. Also, about 50 people who have come forward have not had their convictions overturned. We are looking at both those particular issues and I am happy to talk to the right hon. Gentleman about any of his recommendations.

Yes, we absolutely want to see these issues resolved this year. As we have said before, we want to see all compensation payments done by August, which was the original timeframe. Not all these matters are within our gift: we require victims and their representatives to bring forward claims and, in the current process, those seeking to overturn convictions to bring forward applications for that. That is a process that we are trying to expedite, and I hope to have some very good news for the right hon. Gentleman in the coming days.

[John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)]

As one who for all too many years has urged faster compensation and redress for those who have suffered in this scandal, I welcome the new sense of urgency and united purpose across the Floor of the House. When my hon. Friend is looking at the Post Office’s right to bring private prosecutions, will he understand that it was the fact that it was 100% Government owned and accountable through this House to the Government that gave it so much more seriousness and weight against the innocent who were trying to defend themselves?

[Kevin Hollinrake]

My right hon. Friend makes a good point, and that definitely played a part in the Post Office’s ability to take forward prosecutions. That is something that my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor is looking at across the piece, not least in connection with the Post Office, although, as I said in my statement, it has not taken forward any prosecutions since 2015 and I think it is highly unlikely that it would try to, even before things might be changed.

Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Bill

John Redwood Excerpts

2nd reading
Wednesday 17th May 2023 Commons Chamber

[Kevin Hollinrake]

My right hon. Friend makes a strong point, and it is one reason why we are reviewing the economic regulators. The work has been ongoing for 18 months, and we are due to produce our thoughts this spring. It is important that regulators focus on consumer outcomes and, as others have said, a more competitive environment produces the best outcomes, so he is right to draw attention to that issue.

[John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)]

Briefly, what will be the direct impact of the Bill on the cost to the state and to business?

[Kevin Hollinrake]

The annual cost to business is £178 million, which we must consider carefully when we bring forward new regulatory burdens, but most people will think that the measures are needed because there is a huge consumer benefit of roughly £1 billion a year over 10 years, so it is important that we strike that balance. I am not aware that the cost to the state has been calculated, but my right hon. Friend and I are probably most concerned about the cost to business.

--- Later in debate ---

[John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)]

Competition is by far and away the best regulator, and I pay tribute to all those in the House, including my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (John Penrose), who have pointed that out; I am delighted there is cross-party agreement. The point he made needs stressing: we are dealing with a limited number of regulators here today, but there are many other regulators and much of their task could be better done by following competition as the prime means of enforcing choice. I should say that I have declared my business interests in the register and none of my comments relate to financial services as a result.

The regulators would be well advised to heed that advice and, instead of intervening in detail and trying to make very difficult distinctions and definitions that affect a complex marketplace, with the interplay of so many different consumers and suppliers, just stress that if there is effective choice and challenge in the market, normally there can be no harm.

Labour has said that it could be that an online supplier of goods and services was not offering a good deal, but I am less worried about that if there are shops in my local high street, because I do not have to use the offer by the online provider. The online provider themselves will anyway be subject to the challenge of other online providers. One advantage that the online retailer has is that the cost of entry is so much less than that required by those who wish to set up a formal shop with a property. If an online retailer, however large they might become, starts to offer very poor deals or offers, there will be plenty of challenge to that emerging in the marketplace.

In a fast-changing world where the market is extremely good at challenging, developing and changing offers overnight, we need to be careful about becoming too prescriptive. We may come up with a perfect solution to perceived problems of some suppliers at the moment only to find that, tomorrow, there are very different problems from different suppliers and that much of it can be taken care of by that pursuit of competition.

My main concern about all of this for our country is that competition only works, in the benign way that we know it can, if we have sufficient capacity. There is a danger, encouraged by the Opposition and pursued by the Government, that today we are so keen to regulate, to intervene and to tax anybody who makes a good profit; to provide a subsidy to anybody who has a failing business; and to decide that the Government know best about what consumers ought to buy and ought to want, that we end up with too little capacity in a number of crucial areas. That means that, instead of helping the consumer, we hinder them. Instead of having moderate prices with few rises, we have even higher price rises because there is insufficient capacity to meet the market demand. Instead of providing that perfect background for entrepreneurial businesses, which Labour and Conservatives are united in wanting, we send a hostile message to businesses. Those businesses then find other places with greater freedoms and lower taxes as the ideal place in which to experiment, to set up and to seek to export from, rather than from the United Kingdom.

[Bim Afolami (Hitchin and Harpenden) (Con)]

I thank my right hon. Friend for giving way. In relation to his very good point about capacity, what is his view about the need to ensure that we remain open for business internationally and remain an attractive place? Moreover, what is his view about the role of the regulators in that context, particularly the CMA, because of course capacity can come from other countries into our own market?

[John Redwood]

Indeed. I do not wish to go into the details of a recent case, because I have not studied all the documents, which would be necessary to do justice to both sides of the argument. Thinking back to when I was competition Minister—a good while ago now—when I was acting for the then Secretary of State, there was a difficult issue that arose over media challenge to the then existing limited number of media players where two of the new services wanted to merge together. I recommended, and we decided, that the two should be allowed to merge because they made a more effective competitor to what was already there, rather than taking the narrow pro-competition view that we needed to have two new challengers. The danger was that they would both fight each other to the death and leave the main media institutions—ITV and the BBC—unchallenged by alternative services.

The regulator has to understand that competition is not always furthered by blocking something; sometimes it can actually be furthered by encouraging the new. The main issue in competition law is often the definition of what is the market. I have already mentioned retail. If the market is online retail, we might want to stop a successful online retailer growing by acquisition, but if the market is retail, we might want a strong online competitor in order to challenge the previously dominant shop retailers. However, it is now coming to the point where it may be the other way around—where we need to be worried about the adequacy of the conventional retailer response.

Let me illustrate the importance of the central issue of capacity to the debate. One thing that has been extremely scarce—this has been blamed by many for the worst part of the inflation we have been experiencing—is energy. If the United Kingdom persists in saying that we do not want to get our own gas out of the North sea, we will not automatically transfer to green electricity; we will import gas from somewhere else. By doing so, not only will we damage our economy, as we forgo the jobs in the North sea and the cheaper gas, because the imported gas will be dearer; it will also be much worse for the environment, because by delaying or blocking the gas that we could get out, we will automatically import more liquefied natural gas. LNG generates at least twice as much CO₂ as burning our own gas down a pipe because of all the energy entailed in compressing a gas, liquefying it, transporting it and then converting it back to the gas that we need to use. It is therefore a doubly foolish policy.

We need to expand our capacity in energy where it is available and we need to understand that there are huge economic gains to producing our own. We also need to be worried about national resilience. If we wish to say that we can defend our country and its allies, it is terribly important that we produce enough for ourselves. Having energy self-sufficiency is always critical to having a country with resilience and strong defences.

The electrical revolution seems to be popular in most parts of the House of Commons, with people urging the Government to achieve a faster electrical revolution, switching more and more people from being predominantly users of fossil fuel—most of us predominantly use fossil fuel with a petrol or diesel car and a gas boiler—to using electrical means for our main energy uses. If we are to pursue that electrical revolution, there needs to be a massive expansion in grid capacity and in cable capacity into everybody’s homes, offices and shops. It is simply not possible at the moment to generate the competition that we want for electricity against fossil fuels, and within electricity for renewables against more traditional ways of producing electricity, because the new renewable ways are so grid intensive and need so much more grid and cable capacity—we have to time shift them because they are often not available—that we are not going to get very far.

Already, I have helped with a major investment in my constituency, which was very welcome. One possible stumbling block was that the electricity companies could not offer enough power for the particular business development. There had to be an agreement over how much power the development could have available, because there was not limitless power for it to buy. The issue was to do with grid capacity. We will find that that becomes more and more common if we do not get on with dealing with this particular issue.

A very topical issue today is capacity in motor vehicles. If we are to have a full range of choice and enough domestic production, it is not a good idea to ban the sale and therefore the manufacture of petrol and diesel cars as early as 2030, when no other major country in the world is doing so and when there will still be quite a lot of buyers who want petrol and diesel cars. I urge the Government to understand what competition choice means. It means that people will buy electric cars when they want to buy them. They will buy electric cars when they are cheaper and better, and when they believe that the range is right and that the necessary back-up facilities are in place. I have no doubt that electric vehicle sales will grow, but it would be quite wrong to have an artificial injection of policy to ban older cars and prevent capacity and choice.

If the UK does not have battery production capacity, all we will do by banning petrol and diesel cars is destroy the successful industry that we have, which makes extremely good petrol and diesel cars, without having the replacement industry in place. It is not a simple matter of switching the production line from a diesel car one day to an electric car the next; it is a totally different product, built in a totally different way. An electric car needs a battery, which may be 40% of its value, and currently we cannot produce those batteries in any numbers to replace the capacity that we wish to cancel. I urge the Government to think again about consumer choice, competition and investment flows, because there is no way that people will want to invest serious money in the UK motor industry if its regulatory environment is more hostile than those elsewhere.

I was pleased to see my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister take a great personal interest in food production. I believe he held a very successful seminar yesterday and asked the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to go away and work up a series of measures. I do not doubt the enthusiasm of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, which I fully share and have often promoted, for us to grow much more of our own food in this country and to offer that much more choice to people in our supermarkets. However, when I look at the package of measures the Department has brought forward, there is hardly anything in it that would carry that ambition through.

The Department still intends to spend most of its subsidy money, most of its exhortation and a great deal of its regulation on encouraging farmers not to produce food, to wild their land and to achieve great things on managing the landscape for us all. That is all very nice, but it is possible to have perfectly attractive fields growing food, and that is clearly what we need rather more of.

We need to back the new robotics, artificial intelligence and electromechanical technologies that could transform the production of fruit and vegetables and other market garden products, as they used to be called, where we have allowed our market share to fall dramatically in the last 30 or 40 years. We are now reliant on imports, which limits choice, drives up prices and puts our national food resilience more in doubt because, were there to be problems with the supply from our normal suppliers abroad, I am sure we would be towards the back of the queue when it came to getting to what we needed.

I am conscious that others wish to speak in the debate, so I will not go into every sector, but the Government need to review sector by sector what they are doing that could help to increase capacity. Can they not reposition their subsidies, grants and direct investments, which they are making around the place on a pretty colossal scale, in a way that promotes that capacity and thus eases the position for competition? There is a particularly worrying trend at the moment—one that is bad for public spending and bad for business—that we make so many confused interventions that we need another intervention to deal with the previous intervention.

I will finish on the issue of high energy usage industries—steel, ceramics and other similar industries—which are gravely at risk. We have lost colossal capacity and market share under Governments of all parties since I have been around watching such things. The danger is that that loss will accelerate from here because we decide to impose the highest carbon taxes of any advanced-world country, as far as I can see—another major problem for the cost base of industries that are struggling to compete—and we then draw back in horror when we see that there could be closures and job losses, so the Government put some subsidies back in and we have a subsidy trying to countervail the tax. However, the subsidy is usually not as much as all the taxes combined, because when we add the 31% corporation tax—should there be any profits, and unfortunately there often are not—on top of the windfall taxes on the energy companies and on top of the carbon taxes on the steel and ceramics businesses, the tax burden is colossal and would be punitive were businesses to succeed and start making money. The demand for subsidy then becomes greater.

To have a competitive market would be extremely welcome. We have a market that is not nearly competitive enough. I ask the Government to look at what they are doing, because I think they are in danger of doing counterproductive and contradictory things: taxing too much, subsidising not quite enough and then inventing rules that stop people doing business.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

I call the SNP spokesperson.

--- Later in debate ---

[John Redwood]

I think we are all united in wanting to stop fake and damaging reviews, which are so unfair, but has the hon. Gentleman thought about how we would actually do it? Defining them, and deciding who judges that they are such, is not easy.

[Richard Thomson]

The right hon. Member is absolutely right that it is not easy, but that does not mean it is something that we should avoid trying to tackle, or that we should not try to come up with a way of improving the competitive environment. I am certainly more than happy to engage on an open and constructive basis with anyone about how we might do so.

--- Later in debate ---

[Darren Jones]

If I answered shortly with the word “Yes” it would ruin the rest of my speech, so I am going to keep reading through my notes. However, the hon. Member, having asked that question, will understand the direction of travel.

The Minister was pointing at himself, I think noting for the House that he of course has responsibility for all those organisations. He will know, from our Committee perspective and the role that Parliament has in the oversight and scrutiny of the Minister’s performance and that of his Department, that we can have capacity challenges. Other Committees have the same problem: the Culture, Media and Sport Committee covers 42 agencies and public bodies, while the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee covers 33, and so on. The Bill before the House, which I welcome, is a great example of an agency being given new powers, a wider remit, more work to do and the job of taking ever more wide-ranging decisions, but there is nothing in the Bill about enhanced accountability and oversight of the CMA. The challenge there is that we have to get the balance right.

Parliament will want the CMA to be effective in its core duty of promoting and delivering competition. In our evidence session yesterday, there was an interesting tension about whether we deliver effective competition by regulation and intervention, or by deregulation and getting out of the way. I think that illustrated the interesting tension between oversight of the Competition and Markets Authority and its independence. While the regulator must take clear decisions based on its legal duties and the required technical assessments, what will Parliament think if, over time, a number of interventions taken together paint a picture of the UK as not being a good place to start, scale up or exit a business? How will we know in this House if that is the case, and how can regulators be held to account for the impact of their decisions over time?

This friction came up again only today. We took evidence yesterday on the Microsoft and Activision case, which is a major intervention by the Competition and Markets Authority, and I understand the Chancellor has said this afternoon, about the Competition and Markets Authority, that

“I do think it’s important all our regulators understand their wider responsibilities for economic growth.”

If the regulator does not already understand that and if the Chancellor does not have confidence in the regulator, we have a problem. What view should Parliament therefore take in the context of this Bill going through the House?

Clearly, independent regulators should not be interfered with by Parliament in making their day-to-day decisions. Parliament should be crystal clear that it is not our job to take those decisions. Expert regulators should not be told what they should do or think by, with the greatest respect to many colleagues in the House, generalist Members of the House of Commons. However, with increased powers and responsibilities—not least following our exit from the European Union, where there was inbuilt enhanced scrutiny in the European Parliament of these decisions—it is crucial that this Parliament steps up to provide the enhanced accountability required.

In short, the right to exercise independence and the requirement to be accountable are not mutually exclusive. As we have heard, there is a certain cross-party support for this position and an increased demand for reform, but there is not much in the Bill or from the Government that I have heard to facilitate that. There have been suggestions, which I generally support, that either we have enhanced capacity and resources for existing Select Committees to do more work in holding regulators and arm’s length bodies to account for their day-to-day work, or that we set up a new specialist Select Committee that takes on the job of having oversight of regulators across Whitehall. Some people will be concerned by the suggestion of additional Committees, either because of the perceived need for regulators to have to engage, inform and appease parliamentarians on a day-to-day basis and the amount of time that may take, or because of the influence that lobbyists may have on a fixed number of parliamentarians on the Committee tasked with oversight of the regulator.

[John Redwood]

Is there not a clear distinction? We and the Government should not intervene in individual decisions that under the law are in the regulators’ remit, but Parliament and Ministers should take a timely and regular interest in the overall achievement—the cost, whether they need more resource or less resource, and whether we need to change the legal framework under which they operate—which should be a regular review item.

[Darren Jones]

I find myself in the unusual situation of being in complete agreement with the right hon. Gentleman, and perhaps that shows the cross-party support for the points I am making about the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology (Paul Scully)]

It is a pleasure to follow what has been an excellent debate. We have had some great contributions from the hon. Member for Feltham and Heston (Seema Malhotra), my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (John Redwood), the hon. Member for Gordon (Richard Thomson), my hon. Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Damian Collins), the hon. Member for Bristol North West (Darren Jones), my right hon. Friend the Member for Calder Valley (Craig Whittaker)—he made an important intervention, which I will come back to in a minute—my hon. Friend the Member for Boston and Skegness (Matt Warman), the hon. Member for Washington and Sunderland West (Mrs Hodgson), my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington South (Andy Carter), the hon. Member for Salford and Eccles (Rebecca Long Bailey), my hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Bim Afolami), the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney), my hon. Friend the Member for North West Norfolk (James Wild), the right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) and, of course, the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Alex Davies-Jones).

I will cover some of the issues, but I just want to say that it is great that we are holding this debate on the 100-day anniversary of the formation of the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology—and indeed on the Secretary of State’s birthday. That gives us the sharp focus we need as we bring in this important legislation, which I am glad to say has been welcomed right across the House. It is no exaggeration to say that the world is looking on at us in this forum. Yes, the European Union has the Digital Markets Act, but we have a less prescriptive, more flexible approach that other countries are looking at. If we get this right—it is important that we get it right, but also that we bring the Bill in quickly so that we get its effects quickly—hopefully there will be fewer regulatory environments around the world and we will give businesses certainty, rather than having 120 different regulatory environments, which makes it even more confusing for companies in adhering to them.

We heard Labour’s position on subscription traps, and my hon. Friend the Member for North West Norfolk gave the other side of the argument in saying that our approach to subscription traps was a little too prescriptive. The Government analysed consultation responses from last year, and we believe we are implementing measures that best balance the benefits to consumers and the associated cost to businesses. We have drawn the delegated powers as tightly as possible, and any broad or major change to the law will be subject to the draft affirmative procedure and must be laid before Parliament and approved by both Houses—we have been careful about that.

The hon. Member for Gordon raised a couple of measures including the right to redress. A range of consumer-related measures come under the scope of the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill, but the core protections in the Consumer Rights Act 2015 continue to apply. We have been careful and clear that we maintain measures that are necessary to fulfil our international commitments, and that will definitely apply to consumer protection. We have always set the highest standards for consumer protection.

The hon. Gentleman also talked about greenwashing and drip pricing. Under current legislation, the CMA is able to tackle those harms, and it is committed to doing so. For example, it has issued guidance to help businesses comply with their existing obligations under consumer protection law when making environmental claims, and in recent years it has acted on drip pricing, particularly in the holiday and travel sectors. The Government are undertaking research to understand the prevalence of drip pricing and its impact on UK consumers. The power to add to the list of banned commercial practices in the Bill will allow us to act swiftly to tackle specific online harms should there be sufficient evidence to warrant further action on specific practices in future.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Calder Valley, who is not in his place, intervened to ask about charity lotteries. In that instance, because a consumer donates regularly to a charity but does not have receipt of a good, a product or digital content in return, that will not meet the definition of a subscription contract. Therefore, those charitable donations do not need to be included in the exclusions set out in schedule 19, as they are not in scope in the first place.

The hon. Member for Bristol North West spoke about growth duties. Driving innovation, investment and growth should be at the heart of what our regulators do. The growth duty does not currently apply to Ofwat, Ofgem and Ofcom, which regulate sectors that account for 13% of annual private UK investment. As I announced on 10 May, in the coming months the Government intend to consult on reforms to regulation with economic regulators, and on how best to promote growth with utilities regulators. That might include consideration of a growth duty, or it may be done via other routes. The hon. Gentleman also asked about the digital regulation cooperation forum, and regulators that comprise the DRCF are already accountable to the Government and Parliament on an individual basis. We engage closely with them at every level through official channels to understand and inform its strategic priorities and identify opportunities for collaboration and knowledge sharing.

My hon. Friend the Member for Boston and Skegness spoke about the possibility for mission creep at the CMA and about interoperability. I agree that interoperability is important for making digital markets more competitive. Conduct requirements in the Bill could be used by the DMU to set clear expectations about interoperability and to prevent an SMS firm from restricting it between designated digital activities and products offered by other firms. If there is evidence of a specific competition problem, pro-competitive interventions will allow the DMU to design targeted interventions. It could, for example, require an SMS firm to allow app stores other than its own to be downloaded and used on its mobile devices.

[John Redwood]

Do Ministers as a matter of course invite in leading regulators for at least annual reviews of corporate plans, budgets and performance?

[Paul Scully]

Many of the regulators will be under the remit of the Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade, my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake). Indeed, that is something that I did—