Future of Harland & Wolff
Jonathan Reynolds Excerpts(4 days, 12 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Jonathan Reynolds)
National security is the foundation of our plan for change—without it we cannot deliver on our milestones to raise living standards across the UK, with good, skilled, productive jobs.
I am pleased to announce that a commercial deal has been reached, subject to approvals, that will see Navantia UK—a specialist in shipbuilding—purchase Harland & Wolff’s shipyards in Belfast, Arnish and Methil in Scotland, and Appledore in Devon. This industry-led deal will secure the future of all four of Harland & Wolff’s shipyards and protect around 1,000 jobs across the UK.
The deal will ensure the delivery of the Ministry of Defence’s fleet solid support (FSS) contract. The Government have worked closely with Navantia UK on the future of the FSS programme. We have agreed with Navantia UK on the absolute minimum of changes to the contract, ensuring its continued delivery.
Defence is at the heart of the industrial strategy, where we have identified it as one of eight growth-driving sectors for the UK economy. Our industrial strategy is unreservedly pro-business, engaging on complex issues that are barriers to growth and investment.
Navantia UK has committed to invest significantly on commercial terms into Harland & Wolff’s shipyards, a major investment into the UK’s industrial base. This is a good deal for Harland & Wolff, its employees, and the British shipbuilding sector more broadly, as it provides the best opportunity to sustain essential sovereign shipbuilding capacity and capability for future naval work, safeguarding both current and future jobs in the UK.
We are committed to supporting vibrant and successful shipbuilding and offshore fabrication industries, and our skilled workforces who deliver them, in all parts of the UK, in which Harland & Wolff has an important role to play.
[HCWS344]
Harland & Wolff
Jonathan Reynolds Excerpts(4 days, 12 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Jonathan Reynolds)
With your permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I shall make a statement on the UK shipbuilding firm Harland & Wolff. I am pleased to inform the House that, subject to approvals, a commercial deal has been reached that will protect jobs, drive investment and secure the future of the workforce. The deal will see Navantia UK, a specialist in shipbuilding, purchase all of Harland & Wolff’s shipyards.
As right hon. and hon. Members will know, Harland & Wolff is a major employer in Belfast, with additional important yards at Arnish and Methil in Scotland and Appledore in Devon. For more than 150 years, the firm has built famous vessels for notable shipping organisations and companies, including the Royal Navy, the Royal Mail and the White Star Line. This industry-led deal, which we expect to complete shortly, will secure all four of Harland & Wolff’s shipyards, protecting around 1,000 jobs right across the UK. I hope that this announcement will come as some relief to Harland & Wolff’s employees. I realise that this has been a deeply worrying time for them, and for everyone affected by the continued speculation over the firm’s future. I welcome Navantia UK’s intention to work closely with the relevant unions to protect workers’ existing terms and conditions. That is important for the hard-working employees and communities who have served the firm over many years.
I was first informed that Harland & Wolff was in serious financial difficulty on day one of the new Government. As the previous Government had open-book arrangements with the company, it was clear that the firm had significant and unsustainable debts. Members will be aware that, at that point, Harland & Wolff was seeking a Government guarantee or liquidity loan. Had that occurred, the British taxpayer would have been put at significant risk of losing millions of pounds, without the safeguarding of any yards, jobs or ships. I believe that the possibility of the Government providing such a guarantee or loan, which was much speculated on in the press, was preventing a market-based solution. The former Government’s inability to make a decision left the yards and the workforce in limbo. That is why I made it clear in my first weeks in this job that no taxpayer guarantee or loan would be provided. I was dismayed that when I did so Conservative Members opposed that, knowing as they did that with a guarantee or loan there stood a significant risk of losing an eye-watering amount of taxpayers’ money. That was deeply irresponsible.
Crucially, the deal that has been agreed will secure the delivery of the fleet solid support contract of the Ministry of Defence. The Government have worked closely with Navantia UK on the future of the FSS programme. We have agreed the absolute minimum of changes to the contract to ensure its continued delivery. Navantia UK is the prime contractor of the Team Resolute consortium, which is charged with building three logistics support vessels for the Royal Navy, and it will maintain the required portion of UK-only build as part of this deal. It is also worth saying that FSS is a vital component of the UK carrier strike capability, providing munitions, spares and stores. At a time when strategic alignment with our NATO allies is more critical than ever, the Government fully endorse this deal, which will also see Navantia UK invest significantly on commercial terms in Harland & Wolff shipyards.
Anyone familiar with Navantia UK will know that the firm boasts strong expertise in naval shipbuilding. I am pleased that, thanks to this agreement, it will continue to bring the next generation of technology to its operations here in the UK. This is quite simply a good deal for the Harland & Wolff shipyards, a good deal for its employees, and a good deal for British shipbuilding. It provides the best opportunity to sustain our essential sovereign shipbuilding capacity and capability, now and over the long term. Defence is at the heart of the industrial strategy that we have identified. Defence is one of our eight growth-driving sectors of the UK economy. That industrial strategy is unreservedly and unashamedly pro-business, engaging on complex issues that are currently barriers to growth and investment. National security is one of the foundations of our plan for change. Without it, we cannot deliver on our milestones to raise living standards across the UK, with good, skilled, productive jobs like those at Harland & Wolff.
UK shipbuilding alone supports some 42,500 jobs nationwide and adds £2.4 billion to the economy every single year. We recognise how important it is, as a vital pillar of our civil and defence industrial base. That is why my Department, together with the Ministry of Defence and the National Shipbuilding Office, is doing everything that we can to bolster our world-class shipbuilding industry. That includes the significant progress that we are making on key procurement programmes. We have a major contract with BAE Systems, which has increased the order from three to eight Type 26 anti-submarine warfare frigates on the Clyde, and a contract with Babcock for five Type 31 general purpose frigates at Rosyth. Those projects have already brought significant recapitalisation investment to shipyards throughout the UK, and there are further procurements to be won, ranging from Border Force and local councils to marine in-port service vessels at His Majesty’s naval bases.
The Government are absolutely committed to supporting vibrant, growing and successful shipbuilding and fabrication industries across the country, and I pay tribute to the skilled, diligent workforces who have made these industries what they are today. Thanks to the deal that has been announced, workers in Belfast, Arnish, Methil, Appledore and right across the country can be confident that the Government are squarely behind them, that UK ship- building is secure, and that together, as a United Kingdom, we will lead the sector into a better future. I hope that all workers in all four yards are now able to enjoy this Christmas with their families, as they should. I commend this statement to the House.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I call the shadow Secretary of State.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I call the Secretary of State. Having served in his Department, I too will be paying close attention to the answer.
Jonathan Reynolds
I agree with the shadow Secretary of State on the iconic nature of this business; its role in British history and in the community, particularly in Belfast; and the esteem in which it is held. I do feel he could have thanked us for cleaning up another mess that the previous Government left us, although perhaps that is too much to ask. After all, they could have made the decisions to allow the market-based solution with support from Government that we have been able to achieve. Despite those caveats, I welcome the fact that he welcomed the news and recognised it as a substantial good news story for many workers as we go into Christmas and for the next years.
I turn to the hon. Gentleman’s specific questions. On the delivery of the fleet solid support contract, the issues that the previous Government left us may have some material impact, although there is no large, foreseen delay to the delivery of the project at this stage. On the support to the business, there is no support going directly from Government to the business to subsidise the transaction. There have been amendments to the contracts supported by my Department and the Ministry of Defence. He asked for the details. I will not reveal it in the House because of the commercial sensitivity, but I will find out whether there is a way to share that with him. On whether the deal is compliant with the Windsor framework and our commitments as a country under those arrangements, I am satisfied with all that. Despite the fact that we will always respect those arrangements, we are the UK Government and we make decisions for every part of the UK, with the regulatory approvals, and I seek no one’s permission to be the Secretary of State for Business and Trade across all the UK.
On additional work packages, there are no additional promises from the Government, although he will know that there is a 30-year supply pipeline for shipbuilding in the UK and many opportunities, particularly in sectors such as energy, maintenance and fabrication, and a whole range of functions where Members across the House would want to have a strong, diverse and competitive shipbuilding and maintenance sector.
Finally, on defence spending, the hon. Gentleman had a bit of a try-on. He asked what assurances the sector can have. The biggest assurance I can give is that we only ever hit that 2.5% under Labour Governments. The fact is that we have a Labour Government with that commitment to the defence sector and its role—the ability to deliver maximum economic benefits for the UK, as well as that vibrant and important defence role—and we will continue to deliver on the way to that.
Liam Byrne (Birmingham Hodge Hill and Solihull North) (Lab)
Congratulations to the Secretary of State. This is excellent news for the people of Appledore and of Northern Ireland and for workers across the Harland & Wolff supply chain. He might want to confirm that the peril of providing a Government guarantee was the possibility of entailing a huge payout to a US-based hedge fund, which was the largest creditor for Harland & Wolff. What is happening to the contract value for the FSS deal? It was priced at about £1.6 billion. Has that contract value now gone up? Crucially, what does the Secretary of State envisage for Harland & Wolff after that enormous contract is safely and soundly delivered?
Jonathan Reynolds
I thank the Select Committee Chair for his kind words. I am delighted that we have been able to secure this future for Harland & Wolff. His assessment is right that the largest creditor to Harland & Wolff when we took office was Riverstone, a significant US hedge fund. He is right to say that had we gone ahead with that Government guarantee or loan, there would likely have been no real return to the taxpayer—no guarantee of jobs, shipyards or ships being built. That money would have gone to the creditors. Actually, in the commercial market-based solution that we have been able to broker, all creditors have behaved responsibly, but, understandably, if anyone thinks the Government will come along and give them free money, they will hold out for that option. That was why it was so important to make that decision early on to secure this far better outcome.
On the specific question, and I should have directed my answer to the shadow Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Andrew Griffith), there is no change to the UK-based content of the contract. As I said in the statement, there have been some changes on commercial terms, although they are relatively minor based on the overall value of the contract.
On the future, I can tell the right hon. Member for Birmingham Hodge Hill and Solihull North (Liam Byrne) that the deal we have brokered guarantees not only all four yards, but the jobs in the Belfast yard for three years and jobs in the three other yards for two years. We therefore have a chance not just for new investment coming into those yards, but for the long-term future to be secured for a pipeline of work and energy and defence contracts, which is a vibrant and successful opportunity for the future.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, who has up to two minutes.
Steve Darling (Torbay) (LD)
This is an outstanding Christmas present for the 1,000 employees from Devon to the Isle of Lewis who will benefit from this decision and the deal that has been pulled off by the Government. In the west country, we have a low-wage economy, and in the Appledore dockyard, which is not too far from my constituency of Torbay, this will go down extremely well, so congratulations are in order. That is in sharp contrast with the failure of the previous Administration on implementing an industrial strategy, supporting our shipping industry and growing our economy over many years. The position that the Conservatives are taking now is utterly shameful. How can we hardwire that long-term support for our shipping industry so that we see growth in this area and support for industries such as steel manufacturing?
Jonathan Reynolds
I am extremely grateful to be able to deliver that outcome for the hon. Gentleman’s constituents as a result of the announcement. He is right to say that successful UK Government policy must be about more than one-off solutions to specific problems such as this. That is why we have adopted an ambitious industrial strategy that covers key sectors of the economy and delivers exactly what he has asked for: consistency, long termism, and policy that covers every aspect of government rather than being seen as led by one Department. When we get it right, good long-term and effective public policy—working hand in hand with the private sector—delivers tremendous outcomes for the country, and that is what we are seeking. Ultimately, any strategy is only as good as its delivery, and this statement is evidence that the Government will deliver.
Mrs Emma Lewell-Buck (South Shields) (Lab)
Today’s news is welcome. My right hon. Friend knows how vital the FSS ships are to our Royal Navy. RFA Fort Victoria, our only remaining solid store support ship, is due to be decommissioned in 2028, yet even before this rescue deal, new FSS ships were not due to enter service until 2032. Is there any scope at all to accelerate that and close the capability gap?
Jonathan Reynolds
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her expertise and insight on this matter. I understand the point that she makes, but it is perhaps one for my colleagues in the Ministry of Defence. I will ask them to engage with her on those ambitions to remedy the absence of capability, but I believe that that would be challenging.
Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)
I welcome the statement, and particularly the protection of the fleet solid support programme, but I join my Front-Bench colleague, my hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs (Andrew Griffith), in saying that we will have to wait to see the details. In principle, however, the deal sounds very encouraging indeed, and I congratulate the Secretary of State and all his team and officials for getting it over the line. He mentions world-class shipbuilding in the UK. He said from the Dispatch Box that national security is the foundation of the plan for change, and his Department’s online statement talked about sovereign capability, but does he accept that without steel, ships cannot be built? Will he take this opportunity to say what more can be done, in a dangerous world, to reduce the UK’s increasing reliance on imports from elsewhere, including from Sweden and Asia, so that ships can be delivered in times of conflict or war?
Jonathan Reynolds
I very much share the right hon. Gentleman’s aspirations. He will know that most defence steels are higher end—they are specialised and tend to come from electric arc furnaces—and one challenge that we have inherited relates to the two remaining blast furnace sites in the UK. We have improved the situation in Port Talbot, but we could not change direction, with the blast furnaces going offline before the arc furnace was installed. We have inherited an even more challenging position in relation to Scunthorpe, but we are working closely with the company to find a solution.
I believe that we are missing real capabilities in the UK. I can see the economic and business case for plate mill, for instance, and for the long-term question of direct reduced iron in steel production. The steel strategy is part of delivering on that. A whole range of horizontal policies, particularly on energy prices, would have to be in a corresponding position for us to do that. The fact that the UK has such a small steel sector relative to the size of our economy makes us an outlier among developed nations and suggests that there is a real evidence base for improving it, and I will work with any Member of the House to deliver that.
Richard Baker (Glenrothes and Mid Fife) (Lab)
Merry Christmas, Madam Deputy Speaker. This is a great Christmas for Methil. I thank the Secretary of State for Business and Trade, the Secretary of State for Scotland, and all those in Government who have worked so hard to secure this deal, which has saved 200 skilled jobs and apprenticeships at the Methil yard in my constituency, and 150 jobs at Arnish in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Torcuil Crichton). Does the Secretary of State agree that it is vital that all levels of Government, trade unions and stakeholders in the future of the Methil yard continue to work together so that, with GB Energy headquartered in Scotland, the yard can fulfil its huge potential in contributing to our ambitions for growth in the renewables industry in Scotland and the UK?
Jonathan Reynolds
I thank my hon. Friend for all his support and repeated submissions to the Department. I know how significant this matter is for his community, and he has fulfilled his role as a Member of Parliament in articulating it at every level of Government. I say the same for our hon. Friend the Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Torcuil Crichton)—I visited the Arnish shipyard during the election campaign. It is so important in a job such as mine, and in a Department such as mine, to recognise that we must deliver for the whole United Kingdom. The diverse challenges we face do not detract from the fact that we must deliver for every part of the UK, and that is what we plan to do.
I also thank my hon. Friend for his comments about my officials, who worked very hard to deliver this outcome. I agree with him about the huge potential out there not just for shipbuilding, fabrication and maintenance, but for energy in particular. There is real optimism for the future, but it requires the kinds of foundations that we have put in place through this agreement.
Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)
I add my congratulations to the Government for getting this agreement over the line, but when will we get their defence industrial strategy? So far we have had only a rather lengthy statement of intent. We need to reindustrialise our defence industrial base in order to face modern challenges, and that is particularly essential given the threats we face from the east of Europe at this time. That is very difficult to do in government, because the Treasury hates his stuff, as the Secretary of State may already have discovered, but we will hold him to account on what he described as leading this sector into future growth, and indeed on reindustrialising our steel industrial base and so on, so that we have the self-sufficiency that is vital for the defence of the country.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I encourage the Secretary of State to be brave in responding to the point about the Treasury.
Jonathan Reynolds
Absolutely, Madam Deputy Speaker. I very much welcome the question and would like to put on the record that I have only good things to say about His Majesty’s Treasury at all times. [Laughter.] It is true; I mean that. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to say that there is great imperative—with a particular degree of responsibility in the defence part of the industrial strategy—in the challenges we face. It is imperative not just that we work closely with colleagues in the Ministry of Defence on procurement issues and Government-to-Government sales, in which my Department plays a major role, but that we address wider regulatory issues.
As the hon. Gentleman may know, the Department recently did work on environmental, social and governance criteria to ensure that they do not prevent investment into defence companies. There are issues with small and medium-sized enterprises in the defence sector struggling to access bank accounts—not through a prohibition on defence, but perhaps because of a lack of understanding about such commercial contracts being different from those in other parts of the economy. There are a whole range of issues that we must get right, but I think that, in the main, Members across the House share his aspirations and objectives. He has been a voice of expertise and authority on these issues throughout my time in Parliament, and I am grateful for his engagement on them.
Amanda Martin (Portsmouth North) (Lab)
Today’s announcement will surely be well received by the House, the country, the Royal Navy and the workers directly affected, especially given the previous Government’s lack of industrial strategy. Alongside the fantastic announcement for seafarer and worker conditions and protections, the agreement shows the Government’s commitment to the vital maritime and industrial sector. Shipbuilding was once a proud industry and the backbone of the community in my city of Portsmouth, but it was decimated by the previous Government. What assessment has the Secretary of State made of the deal’s wider implications for the UK economy, and specifically for the shipbuilding and defence sectors?
Jonathan Reynolds
I recognise the role that shipbuilding has played in my hon. Friend’s city. I grew up in Sunderland —part of what was once one of the major civil shipbuilding locations in the world—and I recognise the identity and pride that comes with that industrial heritage. In many cases, people feel that it is something of the past, but in this statement we are stressing exactly what she said about the contemporary contribution and the opportunities for the future, about which we should be excited. There are a whole range of increasing needs to shipbuilding expertise, particularly in the energy sector—offshore wind, for example, creates a range of demand for different types of maintenance and supply vessels—so this should be an optimistic story for the future. Sometimes I feel that the wider British public perhaps do not understand the number of jobs or the economic benefit that come from such a sector, so it is always good to make that case from the Dispatch Box—as my hon. Friend does every day from the Back Benches.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I call John Cooper, a member of the Business and Trade Committee.
John Cooper (Dumfries and Galloway) (Con)
I congratulate this Front-Bench team and the wider Government on landing this deal in the face of what the Secretary of State has euphemistically called the “headwinds” —I would call them a full-force gale—created by the Budget. Did Navantia raise concerns about the forthcoming Employment Rights Bill? It swings the pendulum very much in favour of trade unions, which, as we know, are very often red in tooth and claw. Was that an issue in landing the deal?
Jonathan Reynolds
No, it was not—it is a good try, but no. First, the employment rights framework in most parts of continental Europe is very different from our own. Secondly, as I have repeatedly said, the changes in the Employment Rights Bill do raise terms and conditions for some of the lowest-paid workers in the country, but many companies in the UK—particularly larger ones—already operate to a significantly higher level. Shipbuilding is historically a fairly unionised sector, so I do not think there are any concerns or worries in that field—to be frank, the trade unions in that sector often fought harder for the industry than former Conservative Governments. I understand the try-on point that the hon. Gentleman is making, but no, the Employment Rights Bill has not been a problem. In terms of wider UK Government policy, this has been a great endorsement of our EU reset and our willingness not to revisit the arguments of Brexit, but to work more closely with friends and allies in Europe, to ensure that we are getting the maximum opportunities for the UK and always working in our national interest.
Mr Mark Sewards (Leeds South West and Morley) (Lab)
I congratulate the Government on this announcement, which is incredibly welcome news for all those workers who get to keep their jobs as a result. It is a shame that the Conservative Front-Bench spokesman chose to attack the Government over the 2.5% target while responding to the statement, and asked for a timeline for when we are going to deliver 2.5%. Fourteen years is a timeline, and the Conservatives did not meet that target even once. If we are to avoid situations like this in the future, we need to have a modern industrial strategy. What progress have we made towards that strategy? How does it feed into our wider growth mission, and how will it support the UK economy to grow over the next Parliament?
Jonathan Reynolds
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his comments on the deal and for his observations about the questions from the Opposition Front-Bench spokesman about the 2.5% target. On the modern industrial strategy that we are creating, we have had an incredible response to our Green Paper—some 22,000 individual answers to the questions it asked—showing that there is a huge appetite from industry across the board, both in the UK and abroad, to engage with what the Government are seeking to do. Again, I stress that that should always be on a cross-party basis; there is nothing in that Green Paper that anyone of any political stripe should be able to oppose. It is based on our national interest and the goal of being more competitive and business-friendly, succeeding to a greater degree on the world stage.
This week, we had our first meeting of the Industrial Strategy Advisory Council, with some tremendous representatives with expertise across the board—UK industry, academics and business figures. It is an incredibly exciting time. This is just one component of our growth mission, but clearly an important one, alongside areas of work for me such as the small business plan that we are putting together. I genuinely believe that everyone should be excited about the future.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I call Alison Griffiths, a member of the Select Committee.
Jonathan Reynolds
I am sorry if the hon. Lady missed it, but I was clear that what we have announced today does not change the provisions in the original contract agreed by the former Conservative Government. What has changed is that we have saved all four of these yards, at a time when we could have lost them all through the inability of the previous Government to take the action required, so it is an incredibly positive story. We have saved the position of those yards and guaranteed those jobs, and not for months but for years to come.
Chris Law (Dundee Central) (SNP)
I take this opportunity to wish you a merry Christmas, Madam Deputy Speaker.
I thank the Secretary of State very much for what is wonderful news for all four sites across the UK. Obviously, I am going to be slightly biased towards the two in Scotland, one in Arnish on the Isle of Lewis and the other in Methil in Fife—that is very welcome news in the week before Christmas. I also thank the Government for their co-operation with the Scottish Government over the past months, particularly in the early days when UK Labour had come into government, and I put on record the work that the Deputy First Minister of Scotland, Kate Forbes, has contributed.
I have a couple of questions. First, given that we are moving forward, are the workers’ current terms and conditions going to continue as they are? Secondly, I have listened to what has been said about future contracts. We know that both yards in Scotland will be protected for the next two years, but can the Secretary of State tell us a little bit more about the longer-term sustainable footing, not least because this company has changed hands three times in the past four years?
Jonathan Reynolds
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his observations and questions. It was really important to us that we keep all four yards together—there had been an assessment that, for understandable reasons, the Belfast yard was more commercially valuable, so there was a real chance that any unstructured rescue package could have lost the two Scottish yards. There were question marks about those yards in particular, so keeping the business together and protecting the future of those workers was hugely important to us, and I am delighted that we have been able to achieve that.
The job guarantees for the non-Belfast yards will last for two years. The guarantee is for 90% of the overall job numbers, simply to provide the usual degree of flexibility in running that business, but that guarantee covers the majority of the workforce and keeps them in place. The deal also comes with investment in those Scottish yards, so whatever the future holds, those yards will be even more competitive and more able to bid for the kinds of contracts that will secure the long-term prosperity we are all seeking. I am always genuinely willing to work with colleagues across any part of the UK to secure the kind of outcome we have achieved today, and I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for recognising that.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
As someone who has consistently and regularly called for more shipbuilding to take place in the UK rather than be exported, today’s statement is good news, and I congratulate the Secretary of State on announcing this decision. He has clearly said that further orders have been added as a result of this deal. What further defence and—much more importantly—commercial opportunities are there for Harland & Wolff to acquire contracts from across the world, rather than building elsewhere?
Jonathan Reynolds
I share the hon. Gentleman’s aspirations and recognise his calls for UK shipbuilding to have a higher priority in future than it has in the past. To be specific on what I was saying in the statement, there has been a revision to the value of the fleet solid support contract; it has required a little bit of additional support—but not greatly and on commercial terms—in order to deliver it. There are not promises of additional work packages on top of the contractual agreements made by the previous Government, but because Navantia UK is such a world-renowned expert builder of shipping of all sizes, as well as the investment that comes with this deal and the more competitive nature of the yards in future, there are genuine grounds for optimism. I see real opportunities in fabrication and maintenance, but particularly in energy. I also think that a little bit of competitive diversification in the military shipbuilding sector’s supply chain is welcome, creating better value for money in procurement. Across the board, this is a positive story for Harland & Wolff and its employees, but as the hon. Gentleman has described, it is also a positive story for UK shipbuilding.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
This announcement is really good news, and everybody across the House will welcome it. It is probably time to break out the Christmas cake and the mince pies early, because there is good news coming and the Secretary of State has delivered it today. This morning I spoke to my right hon. Friend the Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson), who has worked tirelessly with the company to secure this progress. We all agree that it is great news, particularly for the 1,000-strong workforce in Belfast, and especially in the run-up to Christmas—well done. My right hon. Friend will be at the yard with the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland this afternoon, probably in about an hour’s time.
If the national shipbuilding strategy is to mean anything, it must be that the Government invest in skills and capacity throughout the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Does the Secretary of State agree that more could be done to increase research and innovation support across the United Kingdom and, in particular, in Northern Ireland?
Jonathan Reynolds
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for asking what I think will be my last question of the year. I would particularly like to recognise what he said about his colleague, the right hon. Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson). Obviously, he has a constituency interest and a leading role in Northern Ireland, and I think he understood the decisions we had to make. We had to explain in confidence to all colleagues affected why the initial decision on the guarantee alone was not the right way forward, but that we were committed to the kind of solution we have announced today. I am extremely grateful for being able to work with the right hon. Gentleman on that. It is great news that he is going to the yard today; my colleagues the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and the Minister for Industry are also in Belfast today, and I understand that the Secretary of State for Scotland will be at one of the yards in Scotland too.
On the hon. Gentleman’s point about innovation and research and development, that is the basis on which we have to compete. Whether in the sectors of aerospace, automotive or shipbuilding, what we need is high-end, sophisticated R&D, innovation and world-leading products. That is what we have in many of our advanced manufacturing sectors, but it is such a competitive world that we have to maintain that edge. In particular, R&D is an area where core support and core funding between Government and industry has real benefits. We have seen that in lots of sectors—maybe not to the degree we have needed in shipbuilding, but let us look at that for the future and approach the next year with some real positivity.
Progress Towards a Modern Industrial Strategy
Jonathan Reynolds Excerpts(6 days, 12 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Jonathan Reynolds)
I am delighted to confirm today that the Chancellor and I have appointed a diverse group of the UK’s top business leaders, policy experts and trade union leaders to the Industrial Strategy Advisory Council. The Chancellor and I will join the council for the first meeting later today. This is a key milestone on the path to delivering our new, modern industrial strategy—a key pillar in the growth mission of the Government. The Council will hardwire stability and long-termism into our plan from the start.
Members will use the first meeting to discuss investment, innovation and breaking down barriers to growth as well as emerging themes in response to the industrial strategy Green Paper. This comes shortly after the end of the industrial strategy consultation period, where we received responses from businesses, international investors, unions and others up and down the country to help shape the strategy.
The Government announced the appointment of Clare Barclay as chair of the Industrial Strategy Advisory Council on 13 October 2024. As the president, enterprise and industry, EMEA at Microsoft, Clare is well placed to lead the work of the council, bringing a wealth of leadership experience from the top flight of business.
The Chancellor and I are delighted that 15 of the UK’s business leaders, academics, policy experts and trade union leaders have joined the council to support Clare in this vital work. I have also asked Professor Dame Nancy Rothwell to be the deputy chair of the council. The interim chair of Skills England and the chair of the national wealth fund will be ex-officio members of the council, to ensure close working between these bodies.
The full list of Industrial Strategy Advisory Council members is:
Clare Barclay, President, Enterprise and Industry, EMEA, Microsoft (chair).
Professor Dame Nancy Rothwell DBE, former Vice-Chancellor of the University of Manchester (deputy chair).
Kate Bell, Assistant General Secretary of the Trades Union Congress.
Right hon. Greg Clark, former Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy.
Professor Dame Diane Coyle DBE, Bennett Professor of Public Policy, University of Cambridge.
Dame Anita Frew DBE, Chair, Rolls-Royce Holdings.
Greg Jackson CBE, CEO, Octopus Energy.
Sir John Kingman, Chair, Legal & General and Chair, Barclays UK.
Tunde Olanrewaju, Senior Partner, McKinsey.
Professor Henry Overman, Professor of Economic Geography, LSE.
Henrik L. Pedersen, CEO, Associated British Ports.
Aislinn Rice, Non-Executive Director of Analytics Engines.
Roy Rickhuss, General Secretary, Community.
Baroness Vadera (Shriti Vadera), Chair, Prudential pic and Chair of The Royal Shakespeare Company.
Chris Grigg CBE, Chair of the National Wealth Fund (ex-officio).
Richard Pennycook CBE, interim Chair of Skills England (ex-officio).
The council will make and publish recommendations on the development and implementation of the industrial strategy, a cross-Government strategy supported by engagement with stakeholders. This will include an annual report which will be laid before Parliament. My Cabinet colleagues and I will carefully consider these recommendations. Focusing on growth-driving sectors and how the pro-business environment can help them thrive, the Council will also monitor and evaluate the impact of policies, with data and analysis central to this mission.
The council will initially focus on supporting development of the industrial strategy, including proposals to break down barriers to growth. To achieve this, I have asked the Ccuncil to make initial recommendations for consideration by the Chancellor and me to inform discussions at the Growth Mission Board.
The Government have committed to work in partnership with the devolved governments to make this strategy a UK-wide effort.
To underline our commitment to build the long-term certainty and stability that businesses need to invest, we will legislate to place the Council on a statutory footing as soon as parliamentary time allows.
On 14 October, the Chancellor of the Exchequer and I published a consultation on our new, modern industrial strategy: a credible 10-year plan to deliver the certainty and stability businesses need to invest in the high-growth sectors that will drive our growth mission.
We also set out our vision to create a pro-business environment, support high-potential clusters across the country and deliver growth that is supportive of net zero, regional growth, and economic security and resilience. I continue to work closely with the Chancellor and my Cabinet colleagues to ensure we make it simpler and easier for business to invest, thrive and grow.
The consultation underscores our intention across Government, and through the council, to design and implement the strategy in lockstep with local leaders, mayors, and devolved leaders across all corners of the UK.
The consultation closed on 25 November 2024. The Department for Business and Trade and HM Treasury will now consider responses in partnership with teams across Government. The response to the consultation will be integrated into the final industrial strategy and growth-driving sector plans, to be published alongside the spending review in 2025.
[HCWS319]
Oral Answers to Questions
Jonathan Reynolds Excerpts(1 week, 4 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Dr Neil Shastri-Hurst (Solihull West and Shirley) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Jonathan Reynolds)
The Government were forced to make difficult choices in the Budget, but the fundamentals of doing business in the UK remain strong. The Government’s agenda of creating an industrial strategy, getting people back to work, reforming our planning system, rebuilding our relationship with the EU, pensions reform and more, is entirely focused on improving the long-term business environment across the UK.
Dr Shastri-Hurst
In the aftermath of the Budget, I spoke with many business leaders in my constituency of Solihull West and Shirley. Invariably, they told me that they are pausing recruitment and freezing their growth plans as a direct consequence of the decisions made around taxation and the Employment Rights Bill. What does the Secretary of State say to those businesses in my constituency that no longer have confidence in the Government and feel abandoned by their policies?
Jonathan Reynolds
I say that the Budget was seven weeks ago, so if the Conservative party, which did not tell us how it would pay for the promises it made when it was in government, now has a plan to pay for those promises, I would welcome receiving it in writing, or hearing it here at oral questions or in a statement. The raw reality is that the Conservative party made promises that it had no intention of keeping. We are not going to do that; we will fix the foundations and do what we say. The reason this Government will succeed on growth and business investment in a way that the previous Government did not has to do with the fundamentals: the return to political stability in the UK; an openness to the rest of the world, including the EU—a difficult subject for Conservative Members, I know—which is still our major trading partner; and the willingness of this Government to use their mandate to improve the business and investor environment. Those fundamentals mean that the future of the UK is very promising.
Sarah Coombes (West Bromwich) (Lab)
Steel manufacturing is a vital west midlands industry, but business confidence is being dented by retrospective charging of steel safeguarding duties by His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs. Companies that are affected in my constituency and elsewhere feel that such duties were unfairly and wrongly imposed on them during the chaotic Brexit transition period. They tried to work with the last Government, but got nowhere. Given the importance of the steel sector to British industry, will the Minister work with the Treasury to resolve the issue, and ensure that these vital businesses are protected from hefty bills that they should never have been sent in the first place?
Jonathan Reynolds
I thank my hon. Friend for raising that important matter. Given the sums of money involved, I can understand why that is a substantial issue for businesses in her constituency. It relates to the duties that were charged at a time of significant political uncertainty. This is a Treasury issue relating to taxation, but I promise we will get her the meeting she needs, and work with her to ensure that she gets the answers she requests for her constituents.
Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)
There is no clearer pointer on business confidence than the Bank of England’s recent survey on employers’ responses to the Budget. Some 59% expect lower profit margins; 54% expect to raise prices; 54% expect lower employment; and 38% expect to pay lower wages than they otherwise would have. Now City AM reports that Labour has carelessly lost all its business backers. Will the Secretary of State show any contrition, admit that business confidence is through the floor, and start standing up for business, rather than the Treasury?
Jonathan Reynolds
Well, what can I say? Was it the Conservative party that increased corporation tax from 19% to 25% in one Budget, and that crashed business investment and confidence because of the way it mishandled Brexit, failing to prepare for either outcome of a yes/no referendum? And which Opposition Front Benchers played a role in the mini-Budget? Frankly, it was all of them. With respect to the hon. Gentleman, I will not take advice from him. Since the Budget, I have heard repeatedly from Conservative colleagues that they want to lower taxes and increase spending, even though they cannot account for the promises that they made when in government. That is not credible unless they engage with reality, as this Government are doing. Whether it is the response to the Chancellor’s speech at Mansion House or finally sorting out Marks & Spencer this week, this Government are getting on with the job and looking to the future.
Greg Smith
Sorry seems to be the hardest word. [Interruption.] I am talking about the Government’s Budget. Further proof of how low business confidence is getting under this Government was given in evidence to the Employment Rights Bill Committee. Jane Gratton of the British Chamber of Commerce predicted
“a reduced hiring appetite were this legislation to come in, and that”
their members
“would be less likely to recruit new employees due to the risk and difficulty, particularly under the day one rights”.––[Official Report, Employment Rights Public Bill Committee, 26 November 2024; c. 8, Q2.]
If business confidence is low, employment goes down. We already know that every Labour Government leave unemployment higher than when they took office, but is it not a bit extreme for this Labour Government to legislate for that outcome?
Jonathan Reynolds
If the hon. Gentleman googles that statistic, he will find that it is not actually true, but I appreciate that it is demanding being in opposition, and that there may not always be the capacity and resources required. As we heard on the excellent Second Reading of that legislation, the vast majority of employers in the UK already operate to a higher standard than the level to which the floor is being raised in the Employment Rights Bill. I do not in any way pull back from saying that some of the most vulnerable, insecure and low paid members of our society will benefit from the Bill; that is exactly what it is about. Those people may have given up on politics or think that the mainstream political system will not deliver for them. I reject the claim that certain industries require a supply of labour from jobs that do not give people the security and dignity that they need. This is a set of proportionate, reasonable reforms that will make a difference—
Darren Paffey (Southampton Itchen) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Jonathan Reynolds)
Small businesses are the beating heart of our high streets and communities, and are essential to our economic success. That is why, on Small Business Saturday, I announced the business growth service, which will ensure that businesses across the UK get quicker and easier support and advice from Government. Further announcements include the disability finance code for entrepreneurship to improve access to capital and tackle inequality for disabled entrepreneurs. A new fair payment code was launched by the Office of the Small Business Commissioner to help address late payments. Next year, as my hon. Friend has said, the small business strategy will be published to create thriving high streets, easier access to finance, open overseas and domestic markets and enhanced business capability.
Alice Macdonald
Small and medium-sized businesses come in many forms, from microbusinesses to community interest companies and co-operatives. Often, co-operative and mutual business models are overlooked. Norwich has a proud history of co-operatives. Will the Secretary of State reassure me that co-operative and mutual business models will be properly included in this Government’s much-needed push to support small and medium-sized businesses?
Jonathan Reynolds
I very much welcome my hon. Friend’s question. My area on the eastern side of Greater Manchester has, like hers, a huge history of co-operatives and mutuals. The diversity in business models that they bring is a huge strength; they bring different things to the market and different ways of doing business. The resilience in co-operative models is particularly attractive. I can assure her that they form part of the Government’s wider strategy. Our ambition is to double mutuals’ size in the economy. The Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade, my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow West (Gareth Thomas), the small business Minister, is leading on that work, and I would love my hon. Friend and businesses from her area to be involved in it.
Darren Paffey
Last week, I had the pleasure of visiting the winners of my first Small Business Saturday awards in Southampton Itchen. They were Riann Care, The Bunker, Miss Ellie’s Café and Julie’s Dance Studio. Will the Secretary of State join me in congratulating them on their role in ensuring a thriving local economy? What assurances he can offer them that this Government have the back of small businesses?
Jonathan Reynolds
I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend for his question. I certainly join him in congratulating those local businesses on their work and, indeed, all Members of Parliament on the work that they do on their constituency days to champion and support local businesses. The Government’s agenda includes long-term reform of business rates to create permanently low business rates for retail, hospitality and leisure. The launch of high-street rental auctions, getting rid of derelict property in town centres, is also hugely exciting. The business growth service is predominantly about recognising that although the Government do a lot, businesses can often find it hard to access exactly what they need. I have looked around the world—to the US and its Small Business Administration, and to Singapore and its Enterprise Singapore, for example—to discover the best models. That is what we will take forward in 2025, and I find it a hugely exciting agenda.
Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)
Last Saturday was indeed Small Business Saturday. It was an opportunity for us to celebrate and support the many small businesses in our constituencies. However, too many of them are really worried about the increase in national insurance contributions—the £25 billion jobs tax—and there is simply no easy answer for them. They cannot just put up their prices, so they are looking at staffing levels. Why are the Government so against aspiration, and how do they think they will improve productivity and deliver growth in the economy?
Jonathan Reynolds
Conservative Members know what they left behind, and I have not heard any of them offer an alternative. The specific answer to the right hon. Member’s question is that employment allowance was doubled in the Budget and the threshold was taken off. That is why 1 million, mainly smaller, businesses are paying less or the same in national insurance contributions as they were before the Budget. She should tell the House how the Conservative party would pay for the infected blood scandal—the victims of which we are all committed to compensating—Post Office compensation, support for the steel industry, and the advanced manufacturing plan that we inherited, because none of that was in our departmental budget. We are fixing the foundations with long-term public investment and an agenda based on higher business investment and better, stronger economic growth in every part of the UK.
Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)
The Government have raised national insurance charges on employers and introduced a family farm and a family business tax. The Employment Rights Bill will raise business costs by £5 billion, predominantly for small businesses. As a result of those changes, does the Secretary of State believe that SMEs will employer more or fewer people?
Jonathan Reynolds
I have absolutely no doubt that the Government’s agenda is one for employment, business investment and growth. Some of the things that this country needs the most could only have been delivered by a change of Government. I simply do not believe that the Conservative party is capable of reforming the planning system or having a long-term industrial strategy, fixing our relationship with the European Union, and all the rest of it. Yes, there have been challenges, but the Conservatives know what they left behind. They knew what they were doing. There is a reason the Conservative party had no spending plans for the next financial year. We have had to confront that reality, but we cannot have the kind of success that this country needs unless we are willing to fix the foundations and focus on the long term. The Chancellor did that in the Budget, and the agenda of the Department for Business and Trade is extremely attractive for the future.
Dame Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)
Some of the most successful small and medium-sized businesses, which truly think long term, are owned by families, so why does the Secretary of State think that it will help his long-term growth mission for the Government to start taxing those businesses when they get passed on to the next generation?
Jonathan Reynolds
With respect, I hear a lot of calls from the Conservatives to cut taxes and increase spending, but still no account of how they would do that. I appreciate that sometimes the initial transfer into opposition can feel exhilarating, but there is a responsibility that comes with it. I would like to see an account from the Conservatives of how they would pay for it.
For all tax changes across the board, we can still say with real confidence that the UK has a competitive tax system—benchmark our corporation tax, and the allowances on it, our capital gains taxes and, in this case, our inheritance taxes. The mistake that the Conservatives make is that they forget that the adjustments to specific reliefs for businesses and agricultural property are on top of the existing inheritance tax thresholds. Frankly, a little less scaremongering from the Opposition and a bit of focus on what is really at stake would be welcome.
Sarah Gibson (Chippenham) (LD)
Small businesses are at the heart of our local communities. Firms such as Carbon ThreeSixty in my constituency are cutting-edge manufacturers of carbon fibre products. However, its growth as a small business is seriously affected by its ability to attract and retain quality staff, predominantly because of the poor public transport and completely non-existent cycle routes. These issues cut right across Departments. I would therefore be grateful if the Secretary of State could confirm what discussions he has had with ministerial colleagues in other Departments about how rural transport infrastructure would greatly support small and medium-sized businesses.
Jonathan Reynolds
I welcome the hon. Member’s question. She is right that some of the issues that most affect businesses in our constituencies often sit in other Departments. The role of my Department is to focus on and champion those issues across all of Government, whether they sit neatly in the Department or not. She correctly highlights the incredible and important role that rural businesses play, and their social as well as economic benefits. Her points about transport were well made. One of the big changes in the Budget was the ability to focus on long-term investments, which was recognised by the Office for Budget Responsibility in its assessment that the productive potential of the UK will grow significantly over the next decade because of that increased focus—investment, investment, investment. Transport is a great element of that, whether in my constituency or in hers. I assure her that the needs that she articulates are considered at the highest levels of Government.
Callum Anderson (Buckingham and Bletchley) (Lab)
Alex Baker (Aldershot) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Jonathan Reynolds)
It has been a hugely significant six months for the Department for Business and Trade. After our record-breaking international investment summit and our industrial strategy Green Paper publication, my Department has been engaging with businesses big and small to drive growth. Just this week we have helped to land a £500 million train-building deal with Hitachi, securing hundreds of jobs in the north-east—another promise fulfilled from the election campaign. For smaller businesses we are reforming business rates to breathe new life into our high streets, while launching a new fair payment code, tackling late payments to SMEs, and supporting new high street rental auctions to improve town centres. As we have heard, our brand new business growth service will streamline SME support on everything from finance to exports.
We are also tackling the challenges that we inherited, negotiating a better deal for Tata Steel employees in Port Talbot, while progressing a UK-wide steel strategy. Our Horizon convictions redress scheme shows that we are righting the wrongs of the past for victims of the Post Office scandal. I look forward to working with all hon. Members in the new year, delivering on our plan for change, going for growth, and realising a decade of national renewal. In addition, Mr Speaker, I would like to wish you, all hon. Members, and businesses across the UK a very merry Christmas.
Alex Baker
My constituents still mourn the loss of our M&S outlet in 2015, but we are delighted that Superbowl UK has just opened in Aldershot. These anchor retail and leisure tenants are so vital for our town centres, so what can the Government do to assist communities such as mine to ensure that we can encourage businesses to be the cornerstone and footfall drivers of our town centres?
Jonathan Reynolds
I very much agree and welcome the question from my hon. Friend. I certainly recognise that high streets are going through a transition from being primarily retail centres to now having much more of a mix of retail, hospitality and leisure, and I am delighted to hear about Superbowl’s investment in Aldershot. I am not nostalgic for a town centre or a high street that has passed; it is about how we do that transition into the future. There is great practice around the country, whether in Aldershot or in Walthamstow, where I was recently, and the Government’s agenda is committed to delivering that.
Mr Speaker
I remind the Secretary of State that these are topical questions, and contributions should be short. I come to the shadow Secretary of State for a good example.
Andrew Griffith (Arundel and South Downs) (Con)
One of the great British innovations is the gift of free trade, lifting billions out of poverty abroad and increasing prosperity at home. Thanks to the Conservatives, this week the UK proudly joined the comprehensive and progressive agreement for trans-Pacific partnership, a bloc that includes some of the world’s fastest-growing economies, as well as major trading partners and investors, such as Japan and Canada. With the Government having precious little else to show on growth so far, will the Secretary of State update the House on when he expects to conclude free trade deals with the Gulf, with India and with the US?
Jonathan Reynolds
At least we have some things we can agree on there, which is a nice start to the Christmas period. I agree that the UK has always been and must be a champion of free trade in a world where trade issues will be politically significant in 2025. We can work together on that future. We believe that we have progressed the Gulf Co-operation Council trade deal significantly. The shadow Secretary of State will know that there were some problems between the previous Government and some countries in the GCC, particularly the UAE, where the relationship had unfortunately got into a difficult place. We have repaired that and the talks are going well. It is always a mistake to put a deadline on those, because it can limit our negotiating potential. When it comes to the US, we will see what happens with the President-elect, but I am looking forward to negotiation and discussion about that.
Andrew Griffith
The Secretary of State can count on our support to bring those deals forward. It pains me to say it, but as we have heard today, business confidence is at an all-time low, bar the pandemic. Hiring is collapsing and companies are fleeing. Labour has talked growth, but it has delivered decline. The one game changer now would be a US trade deal. Will the Secretary of State urge the Prime Minister to stop obsessing about going backwards into the EU and agree with me at this Christmas time that the best gift for British business would be for the Prime Minister to get on a plane to Washington and talk trade with President Trump?
Jonathan Reynolds
I am afraid that the shadow Secretary of State’s analysis is too simplistic. The US is a major trade partner and always will be, but he will know that so is the European Union and another area is our trade with China. The future for the UK is being positioned to get the maximum benefit from all those key markets. The kind of agreement that he puts forward would have major ramifications for British agriculture in particular, and he knows the issues associated with that. We cannot consider one of those trade negotiations without considering the impact on all those key trading relationships. I ask him to consider the issue in a more holistic and complete way.
Mr Alex Barros-Curtis (Cardiff West) (Lab)
Jonathan Reynolds
I might be biased, but I thought that the international investment summit that we held was the best day of this year. That was not just because of the investment and the real tangible jobs that came from it, but because of the clear, simple message that we could put out there: stability, openness and improving the investment environment. I am delighted to hear the news from Wales. Not only will we support that, but I appreciate the strong working relationship we have on such issues as Port Talbot and getting a better deal for that community and the workforce. We have worked hand in glove with the Welsh Labour Government, and it strengthens the things we are able to do together.
Perran Moon (Camborne and Redruth) (Lab)
Jonathan Reynolds
I welcome my hon. Friend’s question, and I welcomed the time we spent together at South Crofty tin mine, which was also one of my favourite visits of the year. This is a hugely exciting area, and the opportunities for his area are particularly exciting. What we need is an open, transparent trading system where these products will have the certainty of access to markets, which will unlock the ability to use those deposits to our and our allies’ mutual interests.
Calum Miller (Bicester and Woodstock) (LD)
Jonathan Reynolds
I recognise what my hon. Friend is saying in her question, which is that skills will be one of the biggest, if not the biggest issue for businesses going forward. Of course, that sits in the Department for Education and we work closely with colleagues on that. We have the creation of Skills England and the reforms to the apprenticeship levy to create the growth and skills levy. Indeed, I think that my CEO call next week—I do those regularly—will be with the Secretary of State for education, where we will discuss this problem. Businesses from her constituency would be welcome to join that.
Alison Bennett (Mid Sussex) (LD)
Jonathan Reynolds
The hon. Member’s question is perhaps more for the Secretary of State for Transport, but she skilfully put that to me. I assure her that I will work with the Secretary of State for Transport to do that. How we assemble investment sites is a huge issue, and how we can work better across Government with local partners is also a key issue for us.
Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central and West) (Lab)
Alison Griffiths (Bognor Regis and Littlehampton) (Con)
Businesses in Bognor Regis and Littlehampton are at the sharp end of the Bank of England’s business confidence survey. Unlike the Chancellor and the Secretary of State, they know that her Budget and the Employment Rights Bill are a recipe for higher prices, higher inflation, higher interest rates and higher unemployment. Is that the growth that the Secretary of State had in mind?
Jonathan Reynolds
We have had seven or eight of the same question from the Opposition Benches, and not a single answer to how they would pay for the promises that they make. We are getting on with fixing the foundations, looking to the future and improving the business environment across the board. That is why businesses in the hon. Lady’s area and mine should look to 2025 with real confidence.
Euan Stainbank (Falkirk) (Lab)
I declare an interest as co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on British buses. The Secretary of State will be aware of the consultation on 160 jobs at Alexander Dennis in my constituency. In September, it cited an increasingly unlevel playing field over a number of years for domestic bus manufacturers. That shows the requirement for a clear industrial strategy. What assurances can the Minister give me, as part of implementing the industrial strategy, that the Labour Government are working to level the playing field for domestic manufacturers?
Jonathan Reynolds
I recognise the issue and I welcome my hon. Friend’s raising it at the annual dinner of the Society for Motor Manufacturers and Traders. It matters to this Government that we make these products in the UK. There have been specific procurement issues, mainly with local areas. I promise him the meeting that he needs to take that forward, but I assure him that the industrial strategy will cover this issue.
Business Growth Service
Jonathan Reynolds Excerpts(2 weeks ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Jonathan Reynolds)
Small businesses are the beating heart of our high streets and our communities and are essential to our economic success. There are 5.5 million small businesses in the UK—99.8% of all businesses—accounting for 16.6 million jobs and £2.8 trillion annual turnover. Small businesses exported £107.9 billion of goods in 2023. They are also fundamental to regional development and our ability to secure growth and good jobs.
That is why I am delighted to announce that my Department will launch the Business Growth Service in 2025. The Business Growth Service will make it simpler for businesses across the UK to get the help they need to grow and thrive in today’s economy and into the future.
Inspired by successful international examples, the Business Growth Service will simplify a fragmented array of SME support under a single, trusted banner to give firms an easy path to the help they need.
This Government were elected on a promise to restore economic stability and deliver the change people need in their local communities. Working in partnership with local and devolved governments across the UK, and partners such as the Growth Hubs network, Innovate UK, and the British Business Bank, the Business Growth Service will provide direct support and introduce SMEs to other relevant services and providers they need to grow.
The Business Growth Service will work with the Government’s international network to support and advise companies on how to grow overseas.
My aim is for the service to be up and running in the first half of 2025.
There is a wide range of support available for businesses across the UK, but all too often small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) are faced with barriers when they try to access it. The Business Growth Service will remove these barriers, providing businesses with the help and support they need to unlock their potential for future growth.
In the coming months, my Department will be consulting widely with businesses, representative bodies, experts, the devolved governments and local government in the design, development and implementation of the Business Growth Service.
I will update Parliament on progress again in due course.
[HCWS287]
Stellantis Luton
Jonathan Reynolds Excerpts(3 weeks, 5 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Jonathan Reynolds)
With permission, Mr Speaker, I wish to make a statement on the announcement by Stellantis yesterday on the future of its manufacturing sites in the United Kingdom.
I know that yesterday was a dark day for Luton. This is an iconic plant powered by a talented workforce. There are very few people in the town who do not know someone who works at the site. I wish to outline the steps that the Government have taken to try to prevent this outcome, and how we are going to support the industry and the area going forward.
The Transport Secretary and I found out about the challenges of this site just 10 days after the election. The global chief executive officer told us that he felt extremely frustrated by the lack of action from the previous Government, which meant that his desire was to close the Luton plant. Since then, we have been involved in intense negotiations with the company to try to find a way to keep the site open. Following these initial meetings, in July of this year the company announced its intention to conduct a review of its operations in response to the significant pressures that it was facing in key markets. Following the review, the company set out plans on Tuesday, which will see manufacturing at the two current Stellantis plants consolidated into a single location.
We were, and are, aware that Stellantis has significant excess capacity across Europe. The company’s talk of efficiency and investment elsewhere will of course be positive for its bottom line, but that will come as no comfort to the workers affected.
For more than a century, Vauxhall as a brand has been synonymous with Luton, and we are bitterly disappointed to hear that this relationship looks likely to end. Our No. 1 priority is the people of Luton, who will of course be devastated by this decision. News such as this rips through the heart of communities, sending shock waves beyond those immediately impacted—through their families, their communities and the businesses that they support. I grew up in a car community and know what it is like when half the street work at the same site.
We have asked the company to urgently share its full plans with us and to work with the Government, so that every single worker who is impacted receives the support they deserve. The Department for Work and Pensions stands ready to help anyone affected with a rapid response service designed exactly for these kinds of scenarios. It provides vital support and advice to both employers and their employees facing redundancy.
I want the House to be aware that we have done everything we possibly can to prevent this closure. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport and I met Stellantis many times over the summer and again on Tuesday morning to discuss the situation and the acute pressures that the company is facing. We have worked hard to find a solution that would support the business and ensure that people kept their jobs, and we confirmed in writing that we were willing to consider any solution put forward.
However, despite our best efforts, we have been forced to accept that this is ultimately a commercial decision by Stellantis as it responds to wider challenges within the sector. And I will be frank with hon. Members: these challenges are not confined to any one company. Car manufacturers around the world are battling with increased costs, supply chain issues and changing consumer demand in a highly competitive, fast-evolving market. Hon. Members will know that last week Ford also announced 800 job losses in the UK over the next three years as part of a major restructuring programme across the whole of Europe. Many of the challenges faced by our car manufacturers are global in nature and they cannot be resolved by UK Government intervention alone.
Although this announcement is not what we wanted or what we worked towards, we must not mischaracterise this. It categorically does not signal a retreat by Stellantis from the UK. The plans announced by the company will also see it investing £50 million as it consolidates manufacturing at its Ellesmere Port plant in Cheshire. Hon. Members will know that Ellesmere Port is the UK’s first all-battery electric vehicle plant, and Stellantis’s decision to bring production of the Vivaro electric van to there is welcome. We will of course continue to work closely with the company on next steps of the consolidation process, including the proposal to offer affected workers a relocation package to take up roles at Ellesmere Port. The investments being made at Ellesmere Port and elsewhere demonstrate that there are real opportunities for UK manufacturing as part of the move to zero emission vehicles, but the transition has to be properly managed. That requires a Government who are on the pitch—something that the car industry finally has in this Government.
The Government are determined to support automotive companies as they revamp their production lines, adjust their business plans, and develop the technology needed for the next generation of zero emission vehicles. These cars and vans are greener, cleaner and essential to our net zero ambitions. Roughly 30% of the UK’s greenhouse gas emissions come from cars, vans and lorries. To tackle that, and wean our country off imported fossil fuels, we need zero emission vehicles, but the Government are resolute that the transition must be done in partnership between Government, industry and of course consumers. That is why the Secretary of State for Transport and I are listening closely to the concerns of the automotive industry and the wider sector about the transition to electric vehicles, and about the Conservative party’s zero emission vehicle mandate.
We held a roundtable earlier this month to hear directly from major automotive companies, the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders and the charging sector, and in response we will shortly fast-track a consultation on our manifesto commitment to ending the sales of new pure petrol and diesel cars by 2030. We will use that consultation to engage with industry on the previous Government’s ZEV transition mandate, and the flexibilities in it, and we will welcome the industry’s feedback as we move forwards. We want to do everything that we can, together with industry, to secure further investment in the British automotive sector, now and over the long term. That is why in the Budget the Chancellor committed £2 billion to research and development and capital funding to support the zero emission vehicle manufacturing sector and supply chain.
Also, our industrial strategy will give the automotive sector the certainty that it deserves, and will send a clear signal to global boardrooms that the Government are in this for the long term. We want to invest alongside them, create a policy environment that allows them to prosper, and help them to do what they do best: bringing good jobs to every part of this country. Through the national wealth fund, we are unlocking billions in private investment in new green infrastructure, including gigafactories, and supporting growth and job creation—not just in the automotive sector, but in the wider economy. We are working with investors to build a globally competitive electric vehicle supply chain in the UK, and so are laying the foundations for growth over the long term.
The closure of the Luton plant by Stellantis is a bitter blow to our car industry, to Luton, and to the workers who made Vauxhall a world-class brand, producing world-class cars and vans, but we must not lose sight of the fact that those vehicles will continue to be designed and built here in the UK, at Ellesmere Port. That matters to me, and it matters to the Government. When I say that decarbonisation must not mean deindustrialisation, I mean it. Winning the race to net zero and having a world-leading automotive sector must go hand in hand. We must never undermine the transition, as the previous Government did, but we will be pragmatic in ensuring that regulation and incentives are working as they should. Contrived cultures wars are not what the industry needs; instead, it needs a partner in Government ready to look at the practical solutions that are necessary. We stand ready to do that, and I commend this statement to the House.
Andrew Griffith (Arundel and South Downs) (Con)
I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of his statement. This is a sad day for the 1,100 workers at the Luton Vauxhall factory, and our thoughts are first and foremost with them and their families. They are the most recent custodians in a long history that goes back to 1905, when their factory opened its doors for the first time. Luton-built white vans are icons of British business, representing to many the hard graft and skill of millions of traders, the self-employed and small businesses across this country.
The Opposition stand by those hard-working people. We are on the side of the plant workers, because we know the value of skilled work and the transformative power of British business. The closure of the Luton plant, I fear, is just a down payment on the jobs that will be lost through this Government’s relentless attacks on industry, their neglect of the realities of business, and their failure to meet their promise not to raise taxes. The Government owe it to the plant’s workers to at least be honest. This decision is the direct result of a Government policy that is simply unworkable for industry. Stellantis told us as much when it said that the decision was
“made within the context of the… ZEV mandate”.
The Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders said,
“the UK situation is particularly acute with arguably the toughest targets and most accelerated timeline in the world,”
and that
“unsustainable business costs undermine UK industry”.
The Government’s policy on zero emission vehicles is a jobs killer. They say they have been talking since July, so why this panicked U-turn today, when it is already too late? The last Government acknowledged that the previous vehicle mandate was too stringent. We took the decision to push it back, recognising the impact that it would have on industry. We listened to Unite the union on this. The Secretary of State’s party unilaterally reversed those changes and brought the deadline forward to 2030. Instead of listening to Unite, he listened to the Member for climate central, the right hon. Member for Doncaster North (Ed Miliband).
Even today, the Secretary of State speaks of ending the sale of new purely petrol and diesel cars by 2030. He tried to slip a subtle change in there, the consequences of which are significant. I welcome the fact that, for once, this Government have listened to business, but he appears to be misleading business at the same time. Can he explain exactly what his policy is? As we see today, there are real costs to these targets. Instead of having the courage to recognise that he was wrong, his solution appears to be yet another consultation, which is yet to take place. How many automotive businesses has the Secretary of State spoken to about the targets? In any of his conversations with Stellantis, did it ask him at any point to remove the fines? Has he met the right hon. Member for Doncaster North to entreat him to row back from his ideological pursuit of domestic targets, which ignores the fact British jobs are being exported to more carbon-intensive economies?
Most of all, we must not ignore the elephant in the room: the timing of the decision. It follows a Budget that declared war on business, with a triple whammy of tax rises that remove incentives for growth and investment; a £25 billion jobs tax, which has left boardrooms across the country putting recruitment and pay rises on hold; and an Employment Rights Bill that the Secretary of State wrote while hand in hand with his union paymasters, which is already deterring businesses from hiring in Britain.
Businesses are ringing the alarm bells. The CBI, the British Retail Consortium, UKHospitality and the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders have all said that the pressures on business are too much to swallow. In open letter after open letter, statement after statement, they say that Labour is not on their side. It lied about its plans. It is attacking working people, and now it is attacking the vans that they go to work in. The businessmen and women who gave Labour the benefit of the doubt are regretting it. When will the Secretary of State listen? When will his Government abandon their attack on British business? Will he lead the charge to change course? Why will he not suspend the fines and targets that have led to today’s tragedy?
Jonathan Reynolds
That is the single most dishonest statement I have ever heard in my time in this House.
Mr Speaker
Order. I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will withdraw that comment.
Jonathan Reynolds
Mr Speaker, I would like to clarify some of the points that the hon. Gentleman raised. The ZEV mandate policy is—[Interruption.]
Jonathan Reynolds
The ZEV mandate policy that the shadow Minister mentioned is a policy of the previous Government, as he is aware. The changes that the previous Government made were not to the ZEV mandate. They were not pragmatic about it. They changed the destination and kept the fines, the ramp-up and the threshold exactly the same. They allowed no flexibility or pragmatism in how the policy operated, but still undermined the transition, leading to a massive reduction in consumer confidence. He asks whether I have talked to industry. I was the guest speaker at the SMMT dinner last night; 1,000 people were there, from every bit of the automotive sector. They are absolutely clear: they support the destination; it is how the previous Conservative Government’s policy operates that is causing them the problems. As I said in the statement, as he would know if he was listening, or had read it in advance, 10 days into this Government, we were told that the plant was likely to close.
Labour has acted with pragmatism; we have been willing to look at any part of the policy to prevent this outcome. The simple truth was that it was too late, after 14 years of failure, to put this right. I say to the hon. Gentleman with all politeness that he is out of touch with industry, with workers, and even with what the previous Conservative Government did, and that speaks for itself.
Liam Byrne (Birmingham Hodge Hill and Solihull North) (Lab)
This is indeed a hard day for Luton. I welcome what the Secretary of State shared with the House, and the review of the zero emission mandate that he announced. In that review, I hope that he looks again at the perversities of the regime that he inherited, which could involve petrol engine makers in this country transferring credits to companies like Elon Musk’s Tesla, and to Chinese EV makers. If we really want to ensure a level playing field, why do we not reverse the decision of the last Secretary of State, follow the EU Commission and launch anti-subsidy investigations into Chinese EV makers? The Trade Remedies Authority is ready to go—it just needs the Secretary of State to give the green light.
Jonathan Reynolds
I am grateful to the Chair of the Select Committee, including for the exchanges that we had in the Committee evidence session yesterday. He is right that because of the position we inherited—the issues with the flexibilities in the policy and the fact that no domestic producer is on track—the transfer he described is effectively the problem. That is why I say that decarbonisation cannot mean deindustrialisation. It is precisely what we inherited that we are critiquing. We do not want to undermine the transition in the way the previous Prime Minister did—anyone in industry in the sector could tell Conservative Members how disastrous that was—but we need to give a breathing space, and ensure that the policy has none of the perverse incentives that he described.
On subsidies, the Trade Remedies Authority and the potential response from the UK, we have to bear in mind two things. First, under the system that we inherited, industry makes the application. I have powers to do that, as Secretary of State, but they have never been used, to my knowledge. Secondly, we must remember that the UK automotive sector is a world-class, export-led sector. If we were to go down any kind of protectionist route on principle, we would have to bear in mind what it would mean for the markets we sell vehicles into. If we sell 80% of our product abroad, we have to consider the international export position, alongside the domestic market position. If industry makes that request, of course that request will be followed up, in accordance with the way the system operates.
Clive Jones (Wokingham) (LD)
I thank the Secretary of State for advance copy of his statement. Yesterday, like the Secretary of State, I attended the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders annual dinner, and I greatly appreciated the opportunity to hear directly from such an important sector for the British economy. UK car manufacturing brings billions of pounds into our economy. It employs hundreds of thousands of people directly, and many more thousands across its supply chain. It is at the forefront of the green transition, and of making transport sustainable for the future via electric vehicles. Most importantly, the industry is always willing to be frank with me and with other politicians; it reaffirmed to me that it sees major hurdles on the horizon, and the closure of Vauxhall’s 100-year-old factory in Luton is a sign of great troubles ahead.
Inevitably, the Conservatives will play politics with the announcement, but there is still no apology from them for trashing the economy. There is not one moment of reflection that the previous Government’s policy on electric vehicles was a disaster. The policy simply did not do enough on infrastructure and incentives. The Government therefore need to fix the Tories’ mess. As a starting point, the Government urgently need to work with Vauxhall to mitigate this major shock for the area. The Government have said that they will fast-track a consultation, but it needs to be fast-tracked today. Urgency is the key, so when will that consultation start, and when does the Secretary of State expect it to report? The previous Government did not do enough to incentivise people to buy electric vehicles, nor did they provide the right infrastructure. What are the Government doing to increase sales of electric vehicles and increase the number of charging points in places such as my constituency?
Jonathan Reynolds
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his questions and observations, and apologise that he has had to hear me speak twice on this topic in the short period of time between last night and today. He has asked the Conservative party to apologise for its economic record. That case stands for itself, but I would also like to know, given how urgently this issue was presented to us as a new Government, what the last Government were doing at the end of their time in office. What did they know? What conversations were they aware of? Certainly, we inherited a position of extreme frustration from the company, and I cannot imagine that that frustration had not been conveyed in some way to our predecessors.
Turning to the hon. Gentleman’s specific questions, there were policies in the Budget relating to charging infrastructure—which I recognise is a key part of this issue—as well as £2 billion for research and development through the automotive transformation fund and the partnership with business that we use that fund for. Obviously, the consultation he asked about will come from the Department for Transport. The shadow Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Andrew Griffith), asked why that consultation is happening, but the previous Government set these policies out in primary legislation, so he knows that there are processes to follow. Any conversation about the thresholds in the existing policy would be for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport to have, but I refer back to my points about how the system works and the flexibilities and allowances in, and how we can make sure that we are giving automotive manufacturers in the UK a system that lets them get to the transition they and the consumer want, but in a way that works with industry to enable that transition to happen for the benefit of the United Kingdom.
Rachel Hopkins (Luton South and South Bedfordshire) (Lab)
I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests as a trade union member, as well as someone with friends who have heard that they have lost their jobs.
Closing the Luton site will damage our local economy, with 600 more jobs at risk in the supply chain and workers and families receiving this devastating news just before Christmas. I welcome the comments of the Secretary of State that decarbonisation must not mean deindustrialisation and the decimation of good, skilled jobs. Will his announcement today move the dial in discussions with Stellantis to help protect the Luton site? I also welcome his tone—he is taking this seriously, compared with Opposition Members—so will he join me in visiting workers and their trade union representatives at the Luton site to listen to their concerns?
Jonathan Reynolds
I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend for her question. I believe everyone in the House who cares about the automotive sector and working people in this country will share the sentiments she has expressed about the scale of what this decision will mean for Luton. I can absolutely promise her that I will take up her invitation to come with her to the site. I can also promise her the full deployment of my Department and, indeed, all of my colleagues across Government to provide whatever help is required. We are in conversations with Stellantis—as is the union, I believe—about the details of the package that will be presented to the workforce, but of course, I will engage closely with my hon. Friend and with my hon. Friend the Member for Luton North (Sarah Owen) to make sure that package is to the maximum benefit of her constituents and the wider area.
Blake Stephenson (Mid Bedfordshire) (Con)
As a Bedfordshire MP, I know how significant the Vauxhall plant is to our local economy and as a local employer. The Secretary of State has explained how devastating this decision will be for families locally, not just in Luton but in my constituency. Unfortunately, though, he has said very little about how he is going to support the people who are losing their jobs. Is the Secretary of State concerned that this Government’s tax on jobs will make it much more difficult to replace these 1,000 manufacturing jobs in Bedfordshire?
Jonathan Reynolds
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his sentiments, but the straightforward answer to that question is no. This is a skilled and talented workforce. These workers have not lost their jobs because of any deficiencies on their part; rather, they have been put in this position by a combination of factors, including the overcapacity in Europe. To be frank, from the minute we came into office, I think the company already intended this closure—it has nothing whatsoever to do with Government policy. I recognise the pressures arising from the existing policy we have inherited, hence the pragmatism on our part as a Government to make sure the policy is working for the transition, but I have no doubt that whether these workers choose to take advantage of the relocation offer or of demand elsewhere, they are brilliant, talented people who will be in demand.
Sarah Owen (Luton North) (Lab)
I refer Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. Before I start, I want to put on record that the 1,100 people who will be losing their jobs in Luton today deserved much better than the response from the Conservative Front-Bench representative. It was very far from factual, and very far from serious.
I thank the Secretary of State for his statement and welcome any support for Vauxhall workers and their families, who are understandably devastated by Stellantis’s decision, especially this close to Christmas. It follows the closure of the SKF plant in Luton North earlier this year after a century of manufacturing. Like SKF, Vauxhall is, or was, synonymous with Luton. Stellantis’s callous decision will impact our whole town—our whole region, even—so what support will be offered, not just to the skilled and dedicated Vauxhall workers who are losing their jobs but to our town as a whole, to cope with the loss of this manufacturing giant that Luton helped build?
Jonathan Reynolds
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her question as well, and echo the sentiments I expressed to her constituency neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Luton South and South Bedfordshire (Rachel Hopkins). This whole decision is regrettable, but its timing is particularly regrettable. As I said in my statement, since the new Government came into power on 5 July, we have done everything we can to try to avoid this decision. I reiterated the offers I have made throughout the negotiating process, both in policy flexibility and potential new Government investment in the site, but regrettably it was not possible to change the decision.
I have made clear the support that is available, and I reiterate that promise. I do not want to minimise the impact of this decision in any way, but I believe my hon. Friend’s area is a place of considerable economic strength, with firms in the engineering, aerospace and air travel sectors and in the creative industries. There is a lot to be optimistic about for the future, but I recognise that that does not take away the bitterness of this particular blow for Luton at this time.
John Cooper (Dumfries and Galloway) (Con)
I make it clear that Conservative Members regard this as a very grave matter. We are taking it seriously, and we are also dealing in facts. Turning to veracity, then, can we hear whether or not Stellantis raised the question of the eye-watering ZEV mandate fines and asked for them to be lifted?
Jonathan Reynolds
Yes. In the conversations we had with representatives of Stellantis, they raised every aspect of the previous Government’s policy, including the flexibilities, the ability to cap and trade and some of the allowances, and what they would mean for the bottom line. I take those concerns seriously, which is why I am willing—in a way that does not undermine the destination —to consult on how this policy works alongside my colleague the Secretary of State for Transport. Although I understand the previous Government’s aspiration and why they introduced this policy, I do not think that when that decision was made, they considered the kind of falling demand that we have seen in Europe. We have to work pragmatically across all bits of Government to make sure this policy does not lead to the kinds of outcomes that many of us who are aware of how exactly this sector works are concerned about.
Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)
I refer Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I welcome the Secretary of State’s statement and am greatly saddened by Stellantis’s decision. May I suggest that plant and platform rationalisation would have been a major factor? Let us be honest: the industry wanted certainty, but automotive manufacturers faced the challenge of meeting the ZEV mandate introduced by the last Government, which was more stringent than that in Europe and most other markets. Put simply, consumer uncertainty was introduced by the last Government, so I find the remarks of the shadow Secretary of State disingenuous.
Matt Western
I withdraw it, Mr Speaker. Thank you.
I urge the Government to introduce more flexibility in the annual targets from 2024 to 2029, introduce consumer incentives, and consider redirecting any penalties towards EV charging infrastructure, not to Chinese Government car companies.
Jonathan Reynolds
My hon. Friend makes some very good points about the fact that while nearly every major market has policies of this kind, ours operates in a different way from how the French, for example, proceeded with theirs. I agree that the major failing of the former Prime Minister’s speech was to keep this policy in place, but change the destination—that makes no coherent sense whatsoever. Logically, he should have done one or the other; doing both undermines confidence while still not providing the pragmatic flexibilities we are talking about today. The specific points that my hon. Friend has mentioned will all be part of the consultation that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport will lead on.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
I assure the Secretary of State that I would have put the question I am about to ask to a Conservative Minister equally. If all British car manufacturers came together and told the Government that they could not possibly meet this 2030 goal, would the Government nevertheless persevere in maintaining it as an immovable target?
Jonathan Reynolds
I would recognise the right hon. Gentleman’s fairness and equity whichever side of the House he was sitting on, and I have no doubts about that.
We do listen to those in industry and we have a very close relationship with them, which is why we understand that the destination they want is 2030. The pressures on the system in the next few years are because of this situation, but—I say this in good faith to Conservative Members—I do not believe that the Ministers at the time considered the full set of European and global economic factors when making these decisions. That is why we have to get the balance right. Given that we are an export-led automotive producer, we should also recognise that if we were not ambitious about the transition, we would lose our export markets—we would not have anything to sell, because other countries have such policies and that is where the consumer is going. This is about how we support the transition, and we are working closely with they industry on that.
Antonia Bance (Tipton and Wednesbury) (Lab)
I draw attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests as a member of Unite the union.
I thank the Secretary of State for coming to the House on such a difficult day for the car industry, and all our thoughts are with the workers in Luton today. I thank him for the work he is doing in engaging with the industry and with unions on a better way forward on electric vehicle targets. This news is really disappointing, but does he agree that we can and should be positive about the future of the automotive industry in this country? It matters to me locally as the MP for many businesses in the automotive supply chain, as I know it also matters to many Members across the House.
Jonathan Reynolds
I thoroughly agree with the content and sentiment of my hon. Friend’s question. The support this Government are committed to is about that transition, but we should be excited by what British manufacturers such as Jaguar Land Rover, Nissan and Toyota are doing, and at the luxury end of the market, about McLaren and Rolls-Royce supercars. I could mention all of our iconic brands, and there are a lot of exciting things going on. If hon. Members are not aware of that, all those manufacturers are more than happy to host Members of Parliament coming to visit, so I encourage people to do so. However, they will explain the pressures they are under in the short term, and they will endorse the change of policy this Government are putting forward.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
The Electric Vehicle Association says that 14 non-governmental organisations, think-tanks and campaign groups are advocating for upholding the ZEV mandate. We have just seen the most devastating storms, which have been dangerously accelerated by climate change. I know that the Government know that net zero is not negotiable. The previous Government persistently undermined the motor manufacturing industry. Will this Government listen to the Electric Vehicle Association, which, after all, is supporting this Government in their ambition to get to net zero?
Jonathan Reynolds
I genuinely appreciate the question coming from that perspective, but this is not just about NGOs. We have been in close contact with big business about charging infrastructure, and I understand the importance of that. I want to make it clear that that is why we are not undermining transition, but are ambitious with the industry about where we will get to. Nothing we propose as a Government will itself reduce or limit the deployment of electric vehicles. What I am talking about, and what we are talking about as a Government, is looking at how, for instance, the flexibilities in the system operate. We are doing everything we can, alongside industry, to get to that destination.
I want nothing to do with the approach of the previous Government, which had a really detrimental effect on the industry, as it will tell any hon. Member very clearly. I am listening to what it means to have this change in economic circumstances in relation to private demand for electric vehicles, and I want to work with industry to get to the place or the destination that I think we both strongly support.
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)
The previous Government were warned before the election, including multiple times in this Chamber, about the damage they were doing to the car industry. The constant changes of policy on net zero, missing targets on the roll-out of charge points and the failure to even allocate the rapid charging fund have all undermined consumer confidence. Will my right hon. Friend make sure that, as soon as possible after his review, he balances the needs of manufacturers of cars and vans with the needs of consumers?
Jonathan Reynolds
I believe my hon. Friend’s analysis is absolutely right, and he and I were in the Chamber on several occasions when that case was made to the previous Government. The intervention from the former Prime Minister was not based on any kind of business or economic logic, but was an attempt to create some sort of wedge issue before the election. Frankly, that did them absolutely no good, because people saw straight through it. I say again that to change the deadline, but keep the existing thresholds in place up until 2030 was the worst of all worlds—it really did have a negative impact on consumer confidence—and we will never repeat those mistakes.
Jerome Mayhew (Broadland and Fakenham) (Con)
The Secretary of State said in his statement that, at the time of the election, Stellantis was minded to close the plant. However, since the election we have had the Budget, which has imposed £25 billion of increased taxes on business, and the Employment Rights Bill, which will also increase costs on business enormously. Both have led directly to a collapse in business confidence. Does the Secretary of State think that those decisions helped Stellantis to stay or go?
Jonathan Reynolds
I can tell the hon. Member categorically that those decisions had no impact whatsoever. This is the crucial point. I hear Conservative Members say this, but do they have any idea about employment conditions in the automotive sector? Those conditions are well above the floor that the Employment Rights Bill will raise them to in the United Kingdom. They should get out and talk to industry and have such conversations—please.
To be clear, on the wider point the hon. Member makes about business confidence, I recognise that the outrageous inheritance this Government walked in on, with Conservative Ministers not even planning to say how they would pay for the promises they had made, created speculation about where the revenue would come from. I regret the fact that we had to make difficult decisions. Ideally, we would not have wanted to make those decisions, but we are the people fixing the foundations and clearing up the mess the Conservative party left behind. There can be no long-term prosperity unless we have a serious Government willing to do that.
Paula Barker (Liverpool Wavertree) (Lab)
I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.
I am sure the whole House will want to join me in paying tribute to my good friend, my hon. Friend the Member for Luton South and South Bedfordshire (Rachel Hopkins), who is a fierce champion for her constituents. Does the Secretary of State agree that the news yesterday only highlights further the urgent need for a UK industrial strategy, and demonstrates the challenges that UK industry faced under the last Government without such a strategy in place?
Jonathan Reynolds
I absolutely echo my hon. Friend’s sentiments about my hon. Friend the Member for Luton South and South Bedfordshire, and I very much agree with her statement about a UK industrial strategy. There have been and are policies relevant to the automotive sector, but what we have lacked for a long time, across a range of key sectors in the UK, are confidence and certainty that those plans will remain. People have talked during this statement about the actions of the previous Prime Minister in that intervention, but that is exactly the opposite of what is required for long-term policy. The advanced manufacturing sector is one of the eight sectors in our industrial strategy. It is a sector of tremendous strengths in the United Kingdom, and our intention is to build on that and grow it to deliver even more success in future, which is why it is such a fundamental part of our plans.
Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)
I commiserate with the workers in Luton who will lose their jobs. If Vauxhall is synonymous with Luton, Ford is synonymous with Essex. The Secretary of State referred to 800 Ford job losses, including at its research centre at Dunton, where many of my Rayleigh and Wickford constituents work.
On electric vehicles specifically, I am a free trader by instinct, but what China is doing in that area is way beyond normal competitive practice. It is dumping electric vehicles very cheaply on world markets, a point highlighted by the Chairman of the Select Committee, the right hon. Member for Birmingham Hodge Hill and Solihull North (Liam Byrne). What specifically do the Government intend to do about that to maintain fair competition and give British companies, including Ford and Vauxhall, a fair chance to compete?
Jonathan Reynolds
First, let me reiterate my words about the right hon. Member’s constituents and the situation at Ford. I have faced this accusation before, but if anyone thinks the Government are somehow only listening to one part of industry or are responding to special pleading, the announcement by Ford followed by what we have had from Stellantis this week is proof that we do need to move, to listen and to look at some of the policies we inherited and make sure they are working as they should.
I reiterate my earlier comments to the Chair of the Select Committee. We have not changed the Trade Remedies Authority and the system we inherited. If Ford or any other company wants to make a referral against unfair competitive practices, it can do that, but such a request has not come from any part of the industry to date. I would not for a second describe the Chinese economy as one that operates on the market principles with which we are familiar, but we have to be aware that the fundamental threat from China comes from its commitment to research and development, innovation, high-tech solutions and being able to manufacture at scale. We are kidding ourselves if we think the threat is just unfair competition. That economy has an incredible level of ambition for the future, which is why we have to raise our game as well.
Chris Hinchliff (North East Hertfordshire) (Lab)
Many of my constituents will be impacted by this deeply worrying announcement, so can the Secretary of State confirm what discussions he is having with trade unions on this specific subject and what plans he has to mitigate the job losses for residents of North East Hertfordshire?
Jonathan Reynolds
Again, I recognise the situation facing my hon. Friend’s constituents, and there will be support on offer from the Government. He asks specifically about conversations with trade unions. I can confirm that I had several conversations just yesterday—for instance, with Sharon Graham, the general secretary of Unite—to ensure that what the Government are doing and what is being negotiated by the recognised union on behalf of the workforce are consistent. I recognise that for many people in the local area, the offer of relocation as part of the deal will not be attractive, as people have links, families and other situations. However, as the details emerge, I promise that I will keep the House and Members of Parliament updated, and work closely with them to ensure that it is everything it can be.
Richard Tice (Boston and Skegness) (Reform)
Let us be honest: these job losses are a direct result of net zero and the previous Government’s electric vehicle targets. Is the Secretary of State aware that car manufacturers across Europe are losing fortunes on EV production? They are trying to delay targets, and what we are witnessing is just the beginning of the slow, agonising, painful and tragic destruction of hundreds of thousands of direct and indirect jobs in the UK automotive industry.
Jonathan Reynolds
I certainly agree that we should be honest, and the hon. Gentleman’s characterisation of the UK automotive sector is simply not correct. All I ask him to do is this: do not listen to the Government or even the Opposition, but go and speak to the industry and the firms involved. He should ask them about their investment plans, and find out why he is so out of touch with industry sentiment. Many of the problems in some other European countries have come from a lack of ambition on transition. Fundamentally, if we are selling 80% of what we make in the UK to other markets, there is no long-term market for internal combustion engines and we must recognise that. Again, the hon. Gentleman should not take it from the Government; he should take it from industry. I am afraid that on this one, as with our exchange on steel a few months ago, he is just out of touch with what consumers and business want.
John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)
Does my right hon. Friend agree that unlike the Conservative party, this Labour Government do not regard the words “industrial strategy” as anathema? Does he agree that UK industry in general, and the automotive sector specifically, suffered under the previous Government due to their laissez-faire stand-aside approach?
Jonathan Reynolds
I very much believe that industrial strategy is essential to the future of the United Kingdom. I hoped that this would be supported on a cross-party basis, and I see no reason why Conservative Members, or anyone else, would not support an industrial strategy. Indeed, some Conservative Members, or their predecessors, held positions similar to the one I hold. They got this and believed in it, and did quite a good job in some difficult circumstances within the Conservative party. Yes, an industrial strategy is essential to this Government, and I hope the whole House will get behind our plans for Invest 2035. The response from industry has been superb. It is what we need as a country, and we should all get behind that.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
It is clearly a sad day for Luton and workers there, but the Secretary of State must remember that this is not just about Luton but about the whole car manufacturing industry, and workers up and down the country in that industry will be saying, “Am I going to be next?” Will the Secretary of State set out his position on conversations that he is having with other car manufacturers to ensure that the same thing does not happen to them?
Jonathan Reynolds
I reiterate the points I made in my statement: this is about the whole sector, and while we walked in to find a certain position with this plant when we formed the Government on 5 July, we recognise that there are also sector-wide issues. That is why we have been having these conversations, and why we are willing to show pragmatism and change some of the policies we have inherited to ensure that they are working for British industry.
The hon. Gentleman asked about specific conversations. As I said in my statement, just last week we had a meeting with all the major UK-based original equipment manufacturers and wider representatives of the sector to talk about the flexibilities that might be required to make this policy work in a way that does not undermine British industry, but gets us to a common destination for industry, Government and consumers together. That is exactly what we are doing, and whatever Conservative Members feel about the previous Government’s policy, I ask them to get behind that ambition.
Tessa Munt (Wells and Mendip Hills) (LD)
Success in the transition to electrical vehicles is vital for the west country and Somerset in particular, with the new Agratas battery plant that is coming to Somerset and the port of Bristol, through which go 500,000 vehicles a year. Will the Secretary of State please act to support consumers and consumer confidence by restoring the plug-in grant?
Jonathan Reynolds
I assure the hon. Member that I will do everything I can to bolster consumer confidence. I say all the time that products made in the United Kingdom are great. If people are unaware of just how great they are, they should book themselves a test drive, or visit the production lines and see how brilliant they are. The Agratas factory is an incredible investment and will be significant. I have always said that for the long-term future of this sector we must make batteries in the United Kingdom. Over the long term, vehicles will be made where the batteries are made, and that is a key part of the industrial strategy for the sector.
I cannot make an announcement on the plug-in grant as that is not covered by the Department for Business and Trade, but I confirm to the hon. Member that across the Government, whether in the Treasury, the Department for Transport or the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero, we are all united in wanting to make the transition a success, and we are willing to listen to hon. Members like herself and to industry about the policies that are necessary to do that.
Mr Richard Holden (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)
In his statement, the Secretary of State mentioned the job losses at Ford in Dunton in my constituency, and I thank the Minister for Industry for speaking to me on the phone earlier this week about that. I welcome the fast track of the review that the Secretary of State is putting forward. I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois) and the Chair of the Business and Trade Committee, and I have spoken to manufacturers about potential Chinese electric car dumping in the UK. Will the Secretary of State comment on that? Concerns have also been raised with me by local car manufacturers about the increase in vehicle excise duty on some models in the Budget. Is there any possibility that some of those measures could be looked at again, as they are having an impact on the demand for such vehicles in the UK?
Jonathan Reynolds
I am grateful that we have been able to get the right hon. Gentleman some time with Ministers regarding the serious situation affecting his constituents. Members of this Government will always take that seriously, as I believe Ministers did under the previous Administration. Vehicle excise duty is a question for the Treasury and the Chancellor, but the differential that exists from changes in the Budget between internal combustion engines and electric vehicles is one of the demand incentives that now exist within the system. Everyone would recognise that the Government should do everything they can to support industry during the transition, and such measures are part of the answer. If the right hon. Gentleman has specific concerns, we will always be willing to listen to those.
Saqib Bhatti (Meriden and Solihull East) (Con)
The Secretary of State was robust in his criticism of the previous Government and their approach to the zero emission vehicle mandate, but was he one of the 141 Labour MPs who voted for the ZEV mandate?
Jonathan Reynolds
Let me be clear: we worked constructively on the ZEV mandate that the previous Conservative Government put forward. I believe in incentives towards the transition. I am not arguing against that—I reacted to the sheer brass neck of those on the Opposition Front Bench, who somehow did not even recognise that it was their policy that we were willing to change, and presented the argument as if it was the other way round. I will be robust in saying that the facts are as they are when those on the Opposition Front Bench are not willing to accept them.
We want this transition to work. This is not about the destination or even the thresholds; this is about the flexibilities, how the policy operates, and what that means for market conditions in the United Kingdom. That is an entirely reasonable and proper response to what we found walking through the door as a new Government, and I see no reason why people cannot pragmatically get on board and support that.
Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)
One thing stopping some of my constituents from transitioning to electric vehicles is a lack of access to charging points. As a constituency neighbour, the Secretary of State will know that some of the housing stock in my patch lends itself more easily to personalised charging points than other parts. What more can the Government do to ensure that everyone can access charging points to make the transition to EVs?
Jonathan Reynolds
I agree that that is one concern that consumers have. The principal concern for consumers on EV take-up is the cost of the vehicle. The hon. Member will know from our constituencies that in some places, it is difficult to envisage the kind of infrastructure that people take for granted in areas that have more capacity to have it built into properties and driveways. There are about 70,000 public EV chargers in the United Kingdom, and there is not always equity across different parts of the country. A lot of people are surprised to learn that we have more public chargers than Norway, for instance, which is very much the leader in electric vehicle roll-out. There was money in the Budget to expand the roll-out of charge points and build on the 70,000 already in place, but the hon. Member is right to say that that is a key concern. We must consider not just the overall number of charging points, but the equity of those around the country, and I promise that the Department for Transport is interested in that.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Secretary of State for his statement, and in particular for his honesty. It is important to have that when we look at the bleak things we have before us.
The Secretary of State will understand that with the cost of living crisis that our constituents are struggling through, the last thing on their minds is to afford—forgive me—an all-singing, all-dancing electric car; they are clearly struggling to pay their electric bills. The closure of the plant, which highlights the lack of passion for electric cars, can come as no surprise. What can the Government do to make electric cars affordable for everyone, which would enhance the need for car manufacturers once again?
Jonathan Reynolds
I am grateful to the hon. Member for his question and the way in which he put it. He is right that cost of living concerns are paramount. We have also got to recognise that the cost of petrol and diesel is often a key consideration in overall household finances.
The hon. Member asked specifically about what we can do to bring down the cost. It is about co-investing with industry in the most efficient forms of production. He mentioned an all-singing, all-dancing EV, but there is a whole range of vehicles available. Many of our producers have led on family cars. The Nissan Leaf is a great example of that, made by some of my former school friends in Sunderland. We should get behind that and talk about how great those products are. But, fundamentally, we need now to bring down not just the cost of the charging infrastructure but the unit cost. That can be done only by investment in efficient production and scale production. That is why the destination is so important. Working with industry on that destination is key to delivering the outcomes that I think he and I want.
Budget Resolutions
Jonathan Reynolds Excerpts(1 month, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Jonathan Reynolds)
It is a pleasure to open this final day of the debate on the Chancellor’s growth Budget. Can I welcome the new shadow team? It is lovely to see them in place. I think many of us on this side would admit that we were shadow Ministers for longer than we ideally would have been, and I know that it is a tough and thankless job at times. On a personal level, I wish them well for the future.
As the Chancellor rightly stated, growth is our only path to prosperity, to increasing living standards and to delivering the change that the British people voted for so decisively over the summer, and we on these Benches recognise that we cannot have growth without investment. Growth demands investment in our infrastructure, into our public services, into the cities and regions that have gone overlooked and under-invested in by past Administrations, and that is what this Budget chooses. It chooses investment over decline, with more than £100 billion of public investment into our roads and our railways, our parks and our playgrounds, our schools and our surgeries—all the things upon which a successful economy and a healthy society depend.
This was a Budget for affordable homes, for the NHS, for the school rebuilding programme and—a personal priority for me as MP for Stalybridge and Hyde—for the trans-Pennine route upgrade, including a new station at Mossley, which is something I am sure the whole House can be excited about and get behind. This is literally rebuilding Britain in action, and make no mistake, businesses need that public investment too, because it creates the right environment for them to thrive now and long into the future. That is why the Office for Budget Responsibility says that our increases in spending will drive up the long-term increase in GDP by up to 1.4%.
Kit Malthouse (North West Hampshire) (Con)
The Secretary of State makes much of growth. Of course we all want growth, but the OBR report actually says that growth in real GDP will start to slow over the next three years and that in years four and five of the Parliament it will go negative. It is telling us that the Government’s Budget is actually going to result in a smaller private sector, not a larger one. How is he going to explain that to business?
Jonathan Reynolds
That is not what it says. First, on the figures, we cannot make a like-for-like comparison because we know that the information provided by the previous Government in their financial information was erroneous. They did not square their own spending pledges with what was in those documents. The analysis by the OBR shows that long-term improvement in GDP growth is vital, but the right hon. Gentleman will recognise that it cannot model some of the wider parts of the Government’s agenda. It cannot model those changes in the planning system that are so important to the Government. It cannot model the changes involved in having a long-term industrial strategy. It cannot model our changes to trade policy.
I recognise that there is more to do to prove the case of the Government’s overall commitment, but I can tell the right hon. Gentleman that fundamentally fixing the foundations, honesty and stability in the public finances, and a focus on long-term public investment are essential to the long-term growth of the country. Also, one thing that has not had sufficient recognition is that many of the real benefits of greater public investment do not accrue in this Parliament; they accrue beyond it, and it is about time we had some long-term focus again in this country. Not before time, if I may say so.
Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)
The right hon. Gentleman will, I hope, be aware that the long-term economic growth of this country relies not primarily on public investment or indeed public infrastructure, but on a healthy private sector—the wealth creators from whom we can take the funding to deliver into those goods that he talks about and that are part of a balanced and successful society. This Budget does not help them. It does the opposite.
Jonathan Reynolds
I am sorry but, again, the right hon. Gentleman is wrong. I agree with part of his assessment, such as that a strong and thriving private sector is crucial to growth, but I find his analysis a little simplistic. Private firms will say that they also need skilled workers, and that they need a decent transport system so they can get to work.
Under the last Government, I would often get up in the morning and check my phone for updates from people using the trans-Pennine line I just mentioned—the one we are upgrading—and it would be full of people saying, “I cannot get to work.” I need the right hon. Gentleman to make a slightly broader analysis.
Despite the previous Government leaving us with a raging skip fire in many areas—we have to raise money, not to deliver our pledges but to deliver their pledges that they did not properly fund—we have had a regard and a heed for the level of competitiveness in the UK economy. For instance, on the rise in employers’ national insurance contributions, over half of all firms with national insurance liabilities will actually pay less or the same, not only because of the changes to the employment allowance but because of how we have removed the threshold so that all firms now qualify.
Despite the frankly terrible inheritance bequeathed to us, we have done our best to meet those needs and to deliver a long-term focus on the future.
Jim Shannon
I hope the Minister will not be disappointed.
There are many good things in what the Government have brought forward, but what is missing, unfortunately, is support for farmers on inheritance tax. Farmers are the backbone of Britain, and they produce almost all the food we eat across this United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Farmers will be impacted greatly.
I declare an interest as a member of the Ulster Farmers Union and the National Farmers’ Union, and all the farmers I talk to in Northern Ireland have indicated that every farmer in Northern Ireland will be affected by inheritance tax. If the Government want to get it right, the threshold needs to be raised, and it is not too late. Raise the threshold to £4 million or £5 million so that family farms, the backbone of Britain, can continue.
Jonathan Reynolds
I always listen to the hon. Gentleman because he is genuine and conscientious in representing his constituency’s interests. I will always listen to what he has to say. We can judge the exact impact of these changes by looking at the value of claims to date. The Conservative party’s analysis has forgotten to aggregate the impact of the changes to those allowances, such as agricultural property relief, alongside the existing nil-rate band and the ability to transfer the allowances between spouses in all cases. The total number of farms across the UK that will be affected by this change is actually only 500 for the 2026-27 financial year. That has been missed, and I remind colleagues that any inheritance tax liability has a 10-year, interest-free payment period. To be frank, there has been some scaremongering from the Opposition, and we have to be clear with people.
We have had to restore economic stability to deliver that investment, and we should not shy away from explaining why this has been so necessary. The previous Government’s scattergun approach to growth left our country starved of investment, economically divided and struggling to maintain a competitive edge in the global economy.
The previous Government’s claim to have delivered the fastest-growing economy in the G7, based on its performance in the first half of this year, is laughably false. I believe that The Sunday Times likened it to someone walking a marathon in six hours but, because they ran the last 100 yards, claiming to be the fastest runner in the world. The truth is that consistency and stability have been sorely lacking. We have had seven growth strategies since 2010 and 11 Business Secretaries in as many years, to say nothing of the UK’s revolving door of Prime Ministers.
Jonathan Reynolds
I have already given the right hon. Gentleman a go. I will make a little progress, and we will see whether he can do a better one next time.
The result was a protracted period of anaemic growth. Had our economy grown at the average rate of other OECD countries over this period, it would have been £171 billion larger. Imagine the difference that would have made to all of our communities and to today’s Budget debate. British firms, facing such uncertainty, have not seen investing domestically as a sufficiently attractive proposition. They have been reluctant to adopt new technology, to upskill their employees or to plough money into research and development. We have even heard that, in any given year, roughly 40% of UK firms choose not to invest at all. We want to change that for good. We want to give businesses certainty, confidence and stability so that they can make decisions for the long term.
That is why, at the Budget, the Chancellor reaffirmed our new modern industrial strategy. Invest 2035 will be a central pillar of our growth mission. The strategy will allow businesses to plan not just for the next 10 months, but for the next 10 years. It has already won the backing of Make UK, which has told us that businesses will no longer have to
“fear the constant chop and change in policy we have seen over the last decade.”
Instead, they can focus on the long term.
Our industrial strategy will create a strong pro-business environment, making it simpler and cheaper for companies to scale up and invest. It will unleash the potential of our high-productivity services and industries, because our recent economic history has taught us that we have to play to our strengths. Over the last 25 years, high-productivity sectors were responsible for roughly 60% of our economy’s entire productivity growth. Looking at the figures since 1990, over half of the UK economy’s GDP growth has come from just three sectors—information and communications technology, financial and professional services, and advanced manufacturing.
That is why our industrial strategy will channel support to eight key growth-driving sectors, those in which the UK services sector will excel both today and tomorrow—the services and industries that present the greatest opportunity for output and productivity growth over the long term.
Charlie Maynard (Witney) (LD)
How does that all gel with the fact that the OBR is saying that business investment will fall by 0.6%, as a share of GDP, by 2029? It sounds great, but it does not add up in the OBR’s eyes. Will the Minister please elaborate?
Jonathan Reynolds
We have a similar question. The Government’s wider pro-business changes cannot be modelled by the OBR, and we know that we have to prove them. There is simply no way that we will get to the higher business investment, the higher productivity growth and the stronger economic growth that we need in all parts of the country unless we are honest, robust and responsible with the public finances, as this Budget is and the previous Government were not. If the Budget does not set the trajectory for strong long-term public investment, to leverage in that degree of private investment, we will not have the foundations to succeed. I am so excited by this Budget because it gives us those strong foundations for the future.
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
The problem with our economy is that, too often, people build small businesses and then sell them off. They do not sit and develop them before potentially handing them on. Can the Minister explain how the proposed inheritance tax changes will encourage people to take risks in nurturing and growing their businesses in order to pass them on to succeeding generations? Plainly, his suggestion will have the reverse effect and will, therefore, make the situation worse, which will damage growth.
Jonathan Reynolds
I ask the right hon. Gentleman to look at the detail of our plans. From the data held by the Treasury, we can plan for how many firms will be affected, and it is a very small number. In most cases, given the existing inheritance tax nil-rate band, especially where property is involved or where there is a transfer from one spouse to another in the inheritance chain, the allowance is so great that it is already considerably in excess of the average claim for relief in this area.
The right hon. Gentleman is talking about a very small number of firms at the very large end. I think the revenue can be raised in a way that protects the kind of family firms he and I want to see continue to thrive. We all know there are cases where, for instance, people advertise the sale of agricultural land or certain types of investments specifically to avoid inheritance tax, which is not right. That is not good for business. We have to recognise that these fair and proportionate changes will pay for the last Government’s spending commitments. The changes will always have a benchmark for international competitiveness, in a way that the right hon. Gentleman should recognise rather than scaremonger.
At the Budget, as a statement of intent for our new industrial strategy, we saw the Chancellor make the first of many down payments with multi-year funding commitments for these areas of our economy. There will be significant tax relief for our world-leading creative industries, up to £0.5 billion for a brand-new life sciences innovative manufacturing fund, and nearly £1 billion for our aerospace sector to fund vital research and development into jet zero technology, which will boost industries in the east midlands, the south-west and Scotland. There is also £2 billion for our automotive sector, ensuring that the next generation of electric vehicles are designed, developed and built right here in the UK.
At the same time, we recognise that our industrial strategy’s success rests upon working in partnership with mayors and multinationals, councils and CEOs, unions and academics. That is why this Government are championing local growth plans—growth plans for the long term—to be delivered by strong local political leadership, which will work together with the Government to create the right conditions for success.
Crucially, our new industrial strategy will be international from the start, taking learnings from the best of what has been achieved globally so that we enable businesses of all sizes and sectors to thrive in our market. To that end, it will work in lockstep with our trade strategy and our twin-track approach to trade, acceding to the comprehensive and progressive agreement for trans-Pacific partnership and negotiating deals with the Gulf Co-operation Council and India, all to the benefit of British business.
Unlike the previous Administration, we are also making it much easier for UK firms to do business in and with Europe. Although the Opposition might not want to hear it, the EU is not just our closest trading partner but is still our largest trading partner, by quite some margin, yet the previous Government’s adversarial approach to working with the EU—all that incendiary rhetoric—was not conducive to good business. We are changing course, aiming to remove unnecessary barriers to trade, so that British companies will be able to operate more easily in France, Germany, Italy and across Europe.
We are making real progress. Earlier this month, the Prime Minister and the President of the European Commission issued a joint statement to deepen our co-operation on the economy, energy and security. We have agreed to regular EU-UK summits to strengthen our connections in all those areas, including the close business and investment ties that connect our economies.
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)
On the sectors that will benefit, does the Secretary of State agree that the hospitality sector would benefit more from some honesty and openness? The Government announced a 6% increase for people on the minimum wage, many of whom are employed in the private hospitality sector, but while our constituents will pay for that, the Treasury will benefit by hundreds of millions of pounds, because almost all those minimum wage earners will become taxpayers overnight.
Andrew Griffith
I will happily give way to the Secretary of State if he wants to explain why he no longer deems it important to invest in these crucial parts of the economy.
Jonathan Reynolds
Let us reflect on where we are today—the first day of the constructive Opposition. The new Leader of the Conservative party stood at the Dispatch Box two hours ago and called for both tax cuts and massive public spending on defence. How are you going to pay for projects that you promised but never delivered, and that you knew you could never pay for?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Order. The Secretary of State knows better than to say “you”.
Regulatory Partnership for Growth Fund
Jonathan Reynolds Excerpts(2 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Jonathan Reynolds)
Today I am announcing a new £2.3 million regulatory partnership for growth fund (RPGF), which will help to unlock export opportunities worth nearly £5 billion for UK companies over five years.
The RPGF will help UK regulators work with international partners to remove trade barriers and shape markets in various growing sectors. The Department for Business and Trade will offer grant funding agreements to UK regulators and standard setting bodies in order to undertake targeted, specific interventions to unlock regulatory market access barriers.
The fund builds on the Prime Minister’s call at the international investment summit last week for UK regulators to support the Government’s growth mission, keep pace with emerging industries and upgrade the regulatory regime to make it fit for the modern age.
This will see UK businesses, including in growth-driving sectors, benefit from almost £5 billion of new export opportunities over five years, with trade barriers worth £300 million being targeted within the first 12 months—equivalent to an average of £135 in exports per £1 invested.
For example, the fund will generate new opportunities for the UK offshore wind supply chain to export their products and services globally; enable the UK’s pharmaceutical industry to more easily sell medicines in markets around the world; and improve the process for accreditation of UK education providers to sell their services abroad.
List of organisations to receive funding
Architects Registration Board (ARB)
Operators of UK National Information Centre for global qualifications and skills (Ecctis)
The Food Standards Agency (FSA)
The Law Society of England and Wales
The National Institute of Health and Care Excellence (NICE)
Offshore Renewable Energy Catapult (OREC)
Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education (QAA)
[HCWS157]
Making Work Pay
Jonathan Reynolds Excerpts(2 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Jonathan Reynolds)
The Government’s plan to make work pay is a core part of our mission to grow the economy, raise living standards across the country and create opportunities for all. It will tackle the low pay, the poor working conditions and the poor job security that have been holding our economy back. The landmark Employment Rights Bill will benefit more than 10 million workers in every corner of the country.
We have committed to working with all stakeholders on how best to put these measures into practice. As trailed in the Government’s “Next Steps to Make Work Pay” document, published on 10 October, the Deputy Prime Minister, the Work and Pensions secretary and I are today launching four six-week consultations. Subject to the outcome of these consultations, we will consider whether there is a need for any Government amendments to the Employment Rights Bill.
Consultation 1: The application of zero-hours contracts measures to agency workers
The Employment Rights Bill includes measures to deliver our commitments to end exploitative zero-hours contracts by introducing:
A right to a contract with guaranteed hours that reflects the number of hours regularly worked, based on a 12-week reference period; and
a right to reasonable notice of shifts, and proportionate payment for short-notice shift cancellations and curtailment.
The Government believe that all workers, including agency workers, should have the right to guaranteed hours that reflect the hours they regularly work. The Government’s intention is that agency workers should also have a right to reasonable notice of shifts and receive payment for shifts that are cancelled or curtailed at short notice. The unique tripartite relationship between agency workers, employment agencies and hirers makes the application of these measures to them particularly complex. The zero-hours contract measures create new responsibilities for employers. For agency workers we need to decide whether these responsibilities sit with the employment agency, the end hirer or both. The first consultation being launched today seeks to understand how these measures can best apply to agency workers.
Consultation 2: Creating a modern framework for industrial relations
The Government are committed to a new partnership approach of co-operation and negotiation that sees employers and trade unions working with Government to tackle the challenges affecting our economy. Workplaces and working practices have changed significantly over the last decade and the trade union legislation that underpins industrial relations is in need of modernisation. Poor industrial relations have held the UK back from reaching its potential. In 2022, 2.5 million working days were lost due to strikes in the UK. In 2023 it was close to 2.7 million—the most in any year since 1989.
We are committed to developing a framework for industrial relations that will stand the test of time. This consultation is taking those first steps forward, to help us build a positive, modern framework for our industrial relations.
The Government are seeking views on a number of changes to modernise and hardwire negotiation, engagement and dispute resolution into industrial relations. The consultation includes proposals on: simplifying the amount of information that unions are required to provide in industrial action notices; strengthening provisions to prevent unfair practices during the trade union recognition process; securing a mandate for negotiation and dispute resolution; requirements on political funds; extending the expiry of the strike mandate; reducing the industrial action notice period; updating the law on repudiation and prior call; and seeking views on the enforcement mechanism for right of access.
Consultation 3: Strengthening remedies against abuse of rules on collective redundancy and fire and rehire
The Employment Rights Bill expands protections for employees in fire and rehire and collective redundancy scenarios. It does this by banning fire and rehire practices other than when the employer genuinely has no alternative and by ensuring that the right to collective consultation is determined by the number of people impacted across the entire business, rather than in one workplace.
The Government are also committed to reforming the law to provide effective remedies against abuse of the rules on fire and rehire and collective redundancy. The third consultation being launched today seeks views on doing that by increasing the maximum period for the protective award for scenarios where employers have not complied with their collective redundancy obligations, and adding interim relief to collective redundancies and unfair dismissals in fire and rehire scenarios.
Consultation 4: Strengthening statutory sick pay
The Employment Rights Bill includes measures to strengthen statutory sick pay for those who need it most, by removing the existing requirements to serve waiting days and extending eligibility to those earning below the lower earnings limit. The Department for Work and Pensions is therefore launching a consultation to support this ambition, and to ensure that the safety net of sick pay is available for those who need it most.
The changes introduced within the Bill will mean that for some lower earners, including those earning below the lower earnings limit, their rate of statutory sick pay will be calculated as a percentage of their earnings instead of the flat weekly rate. This consultation is seeking views on what this percentage should be, to ensure that it provides a fair earnings replacement when these employees need to take time off work. A copy of the relevant equality impact assessment will be deposited in the Library of the House once available.
Next steps for consultation
This package represents the first phase of formal consultations on how best to put our plans into practice.
As is typical with employment legislation, further detail on many of the policies in the Employment Rights Bill will be provided through regulations, and in some cases codes of practice, after Royal Assent. We expect to begin further consultations on these reforms in 2025, seeking significant input from all stakeholders, and anticipate that most reforms will take effect no earlier than 2026.
As outlined in “Next Steps to Make Work Pay”, there are also commitments in the plan to make work pay that we will deliver via existing powers and non-legislative routes, as well as those which will take longer to undertake and implement. We will begin consulting on some of these measures before the end of the year, including launching a call for evidence on tightening the ban on unpaid internships. The Government continue to work closely with stakeholders to ensure that they can plan their contributions to calls for evidence and consultations as they arise.
[HCWS146]
The UK’s Modern Industrial Strategy
Jonathan Reynolds Excerpts(2 months, 1 week ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Jonathan Reynolds)
I am pleased to announce that today, 14 October, I have published a Green Paper setting out our plans to deliver “Invest 2035: The UK’s Modern Industrial Strategy”.
Growth is the No. 1 mission of this Government. Our vision for a modern industrial strategy is for a credible, 10-year plan to drive sustainable, inclusive and resilient growth and deliver the certainty and stability businesses need to invest across the UK. This is the only way to boost our productivity, reinvest in our public services, create high-quality jobs and ensure tangible impact in communities right across the UK.
The industrial strategy will ensure we can build on our significant and historic strengths—which are the foundations of a vibrant, global economy and position us well to seize the economic opportunities of the coming decade.
To unlock this growth, the strategy will focus on tackling barriers in our highest potential growth-driving sectors. In doing so, the industrial strategy will create a pro-business environment and support high-potential clusters across the country. It will also support our net zero, regional, and economic resilience and security aims. We are prepared to tackle the critical issues head-on and make the choices required to kickstart investment.
We must create a strong pro-business environment that supports businesses to thrive and grow. This industrial strategy will bring forward co-ordinated, sector-specific and cross-cutting policies that support businesses to overcome barriers and make it simpler and cheaper for companies to scale up and invest. These will be founded on four principles: long-term stability, renewing our commitment to free and fair trade, easing the investor journey, and being a strategic, growth-focused state. By considering and listening to businesses and experts, we can identify the most effective levers for our sectors—and clusters—across the country. These policy areas include people and skills, innovation, energy and infrastructure, the regulatory environment, crowding in investment, and international partnerships and trade.
Jobs will also be at the heart of our modern industrial strategy, supporting growth sectors to create high-quality, well paid jobs across the country, backed by employment rights fit for a modern economy. We must also be clear-eyed about the sectors which offer the highest growth opportunity for the economy and businesses, including where the UK has existing and nascent strengths. Our strategy will be ambitious and targeted, taking advantage of the UK’s unique strengths and untapped potential, enabling our world-leading sectors to adapt and grow, and seizing opportunities to lead in new sectors.
Over the last 25 years, roughly 60% of our productivity growth was generated by just 30% of our most productive industries. That is why our industrial strategy has identified eight key growth-driving sectors—advanced manufacturing, creative industries, clean energy industries, defence, digital and technologies, financial services, life sciences, and professional and business services—in which the UK excels today and will excel tomorrow. In the next stage of development of the industrial strategy, we will prioritise sub-sectors within these broad sectors that meet our objectives.
We must also ensure our growth unlocks the economic potential of the UK’s cities and regions, by tailoring policy to specific place-based constraints and opportunities. We will give mayors in England the tools they need to grow their economies and develop ambitious 10-year local growth plans. We will also work in partnership with the devolved Governments to make this industrial strategy a UK-wide effort. In doing so, we will explore how the industrial strategy can identify, select and intervene in the most important industrial sites and sectoral clusters across the UK, making them magnets for globally mobile investment.
But this strategy—and our ambitions—can only be realised in partnership. Too often, the impact of industrial strategies has been concentrated in certain regions and not shared across communities. Businesses tell us that past plans have been short-lived, and often business have felt they were done to, rather than with, them. We will engage widely through the development of this strategy, engaging businesses, trade unions, local and devolved leaders, academics, and international partners.
To underscore this approach, I am also very pleased to announce that we are launching the industrial strategy advisory council, and have appointed Clare Barclay, CEO of Microsoft UK, as chair. Ms Barclay brings a wealth of leadership experience at top-flight UK businesses across technology, innovation and artificial intelligence. Further members will be confirmed in due course, drawn from across business, academia and trade unions to provide a broad range of skills and expertise.
Through the Green Paper, the Government are seeking the views of businesses, stakeholders and parliamentarians to inform the continued development of our industrial strategy and ensure it delivers for people and communities across the UK. I would welcome your analysis and insight, as well as the views of businesses and others in your constituencies.
The industrial strategy and growth-driving sector plans will be published in spring 2025. I will keep Parliament informed as the industrial strategy, and industrial strategy advisory council, continue to develop. I am placing copies of the Green Paper in the Libraries of both Houses.
Reforms to company law
The UK has always been a great place for overseas companies to invest and do business. The Government are committed to taking steps to make the UK a place where foreign companies can easily relocate their incorporation. A UK re-domiciliation regime would increase the ease with which companies could move their place of incorporation to the UK, minimising costs and risks that could otherwise arise from the alternative routes and ensuring that the UK remains internationally competitive. Today, we have published a report by the independent expert panel on corporate re-domiciliation, established to consider how best to implement a framework in the UK. The Government welcome the panel’s report and intend to consult in due course on a proposed regime design. A copy of the report will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses.
I can confirm that my Department will lay legislation by the end of the year that will save companies £240 million per year by removing redundant reporting requirements and uplifting the monetary size thresholds for micro-entities and small and medium-sized companies, as well as making technical fixes to the UK’s audit framework. The changes will benefit up to 132,000 companies who will move to a smaller size category, with lighter-touch accounting and reporting requirements more proportionate to their size. These changes are the first step toward modernising the UK’s reporting framework, so it is simpler and better for business, supporting the Government’s aim of having the highest sustained growth in the G7. My Department will also launch an ambitious consultation next year aimed at simplifying and modernising the UK’s non-financial reporting framework. Efforts to modernise will also include examining the potential for updating shareholder communication in line with technology and clarifying the law in relation to virtual annual general meetings.
The Government are also announcing their commitment to speeding up the process for raising share capital. The “Financing Growth” paper committed the Government to implementing the outstanding recommendations from the “Secondary Capital Raising Review”, published in 2022. The changes will be welcomed by business and shareholders and will speed up and simplify the process for companies raising new share capital, for example by reducing from 10 to seven working days the minimum time in which a company must offer new shares to existing shareholders before offering them to the wider market.
[HCWS126]