Honesty in Politics

Martyn Day Excerpts

Monday 23rd October 2023 Westminster Hall

[Mrs Sheryll Murray (in the Chair)]

Before the debate begins, I remind Members that the motion is on a general topic. The normal rules about criticism of or accusations against Members of either House are not affected. I remind colleagues of the rules in “Erskine May” paragraphs 21.21 and 21.24 and, in particular, that “Erskine May” paragraph 21.21 makes it clear that it is not in order to try to evade those rules by quoting someone else’s words. I call Martyn Day to move the motion.

[Martyn Day (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (SNP)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered e-petitions 561730 and 576886, relating to honesty in politics.

Both petitions call for it to be a criminal offence for MPs to mislead the public or to lie in the House of Commons. I am delighted to see you in the Chair today, Mrs Murray, and equally delighted to lead this debate on behalf of the Petitions Committee. It is perhaps a pity that such major events are being discussed in the Chamber, or we would have had a larger attendance.

On a home visit just the other week to Blackburn, West Lothian, my constituent Glenn told me that

“the problem with Parliament is that it filled with”

a shower of “lying B’s”—Members can fill in the blank for themselves, but they will get the picture. In politics, public perception is everything, and even more so when the public are rightfully scunnered by the actions of some bad apples and by the non-correction of genuine mistakes. Addressing the issue is therefore crucial for all of us if we want to restore public trust in our democratic processes.

The Petitions Committee had to request a revised Government response to the first petition, “Make it a criminal offence for MPs to mislead the public”, because the Committee did not think that the Government’s original response directly addressed the petition’s request. The Government’s revised response stated categorically that the Government

“does not intend to introduce legislation”,

citing the MPs’ code of conduct and the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards as suitable substitutes. However, I met with the Constitution Unit, the Institute for Government and Full Fact ahead of this debate, and we all agreed that those are not appropriate mechanisms to deal with the problem of MPs’ misleading the public or lying in Parliament. That the Government had to be asked for a response that actually addressed the petition’s request is an indication that this issue was not given due and proper consideration. I hope that today’s debate will correct that, and that agreement can be reached on how we achieve a mechanism that alleviates the existential high public concern over MPs’ misleading Parliament.

Both petitions are now closed, and over two years have passed since the Government responded to them. I will refer to the responses further during my speech, but it is appropriate at this early juncture to state the obvious: events have passed relating to this matter since the responses were given. Indeed, I will discuss one of those events at length to demonstrate how the current Commons procedures hinder accountability for MPs who mislead or lie. It will be interesting to learn whether the responding Minister agrees with the Government’s historical responses, or whether the passage of time and related events have since been given due consideration.

By way of background, it is relevant to note that this debate was originally scheduled to take place on 6 June 2022. However, it was delayed by the related event that I will discuss: an investigation by the Committee of Privileges on a matter referred to it about the conduct of the former Prime Minister and Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip, Mr Boris Johnson. It concerned whether Mr Johnson misled the House of Commons and whether, in its nature, his conduct

“amounted to a contempt.”

That is an important word to which I will return very shortly. I raise the Privileges Committee’s inquiry because its investigation of six gatherings between 20 May 2020 and 14 January 2021 at No. 10 Downing Street, during Mr Johnson’s residency, substantiates the petitioners’ concerns, even though the gatherings were not public knowledge when the petitions were started in November 2020 and April 2021.

I recently met Mr Baccas, the creator of petition 561730, entitled “Make it a criminal offence for MPs to mislead the public”. I asked him what led him to start the petition more than a year before the allegations that covid rules had been broken in No. 10 emerged. He told me that it was due to the lies that had been told in relation to Brexit, and that he had been influenced by the failed legal challenge on the ground that Mr Johnson had

“repeatedly lied and misled the British public as to the cost of EU membership.”

I am spotting a pattern here.

Mr Baccas believes that if an MP “intentionally or recklessly” does not speak the truth or misrepresents facts, they should face sanctions in the same way that other public servants would. It is simple: as public servants, MPs should face tangible accountability. Mr Baccas further believes that this would improve the quality of our politics, and I am inclined to agree with him. He shared his disappointment at what he described as the Government’s “expected response” to his petition, and revealed that his intention had been that the anticipated response would put on the record, and thereby highlight, the poor quality of UK politics. I agree that the response reflected the poor quality of our politics currently.

Mr Baccas added that he understood it was not in the Government’s interest to face sanctions for misleading people. I believe that self-interest should not be so apparent, given that the Government are supposed to serve the country and that MPs are elected to serve their constituents. Mr Baccas agrees, pointing out that it is in the interest of voters that MPs are expected to tell the truth due to the impact they have on other people’s lives. He believes that MPs are guardians of the morals and standards that create a civilised society, and that they should set an example to which the population aspires. In Mr Baccas’ own words:

“If MPs cannot be relied upon to maintain those standards, why should the electorate maintain them? The passive attitude towards dishonesty in politics opens the door to the breakdown of civilised society.”

Who can argue against improving the quality of our politics? I thank Mr Baccas and all the petitioners for making today’s important debate possible.

After allegations emerged about the Downing Street gatherings in December 2021, Mr Johnson proceeded between then and May 2022 to make over 30 statements to the House of Commons about compliance with covid rules and regulations in No. 10. The Committee of Privileges concluded that Mr Johnson’s statements “misled the House”, and it shared its provisional conclusions with him on 8 June 2023, inviting him to make further representations. That led to Mr Johnson announcing his intention to resign the next day, with his resignation being confirmed three days later. The fact that he made a statement ahead of the Committee’s final report being published on 15 June, knowing that the Committee would not be able to respond publicly, is significant. Indeed, Mr Johnson’s conduct on 9 June was considered

“in itself a very serious contempt”.

That brings me back to the importance of the word “contempt”. It strikes me that, in this context, the word is important for two main reasons. First, the House of Commons initially referred the matter to the Committee of Privileges to consider whether Mr Johnson’s statements amounted to a contempt. The reason for doing that is that, in parliamentary terms, the word refers to a contempt of privilege, which describes any act that might disrupt Parliament’s work. Additionally, the Committee’s final report used the word repeatedly, indicating its thoughtful consideration, and concluded that:

“Mr Johnson’s conduct was deliberate and…he has committed a serious contempt of the House.”

When the final report came to the Commons for debate on 19 June, the word “contempt” was again used multiple times by Members of different parties. On that day, I joined 353 other Members in approving the Committee’s findings. This is an opportune moment to thank all members of the Committee of Privileges for their diligent work in producing its final report. To be clear, the Committee found that the work of the House had been frustrated by the highest office of Government, and the House of Commons agreed with its findings.

The second main reason why the word “contempt” is important is that the seriousness of the findings is not reflected in the consequences, given that expulsion from the House is the worst penalty a Member can face when they do not speak truthfully in Parliament. Being expelled from the House pales in comparison to the penalties for committing a contempt of court, which can see someone going to prison for up to two years, getting a fine, or both. Being expelled from the House pales in comparison to the legal framework for coronavirus restrictions and fixed penalty notices, some of which amounted to thousands of pounds that ordinary members of the public had to pay.

Let us bear in mind that a false statement made in court amounts to perjury, or lying under oath—a crime treated with great seriousness because the very foundation of the legal system depends on trust and credibility. Let us remember that in many cases perjury leads to justice being perverted. The very foundation of democracy also depends on trust and credibility. Democracy must not be perverted, especially by those who have been entrusted to defend it. Why should lying in Parliament not be treated with the same seriousness?

Contempt is usually associated with legal jargon and is defined as disobedience to or disrespect for the rules or orders of a court or legislative body. The House of Commons is not a court, but it is a legislative body that debates and passes new laws, and changes existing laws as required. The Government introduce most plans for such laws and the Government actively seek public comment on some of the legislative change that they wish to pursue. For that reason, the Government should be cognisant that in this case the rules are perhaps reversed, and the public is asking them to

“introduce legislation to make lying in the House of Commons a criminal offence.”

Why should they not comply with such a reasonable request? After all, it is the collectively held will for the common good that forms the political legitimacy of the social contract and determines that we should all live by a common rule. Why should introducing legislation to make lying the House of Commons a criminal offence be opposed? Or is it indeed a case of one rule for them and another rule for everyone else?

Both petitions are clear that trust, truth and honesty are crucial elements in a modern democracy and that lying in Parliament should carry the same penalties as lying in court. I agree with the sentiments of the nearly 244,000 people who felt compelled to sign the petitions. As Members take an oath before they can take their seat in the House, just as anyone does ahead of appearing in court, the same principle should be applied to this legislative body as in a court.

Let us look again at the Government’s response, which states:

“Once elected to Parliament, all MPs must abide by the seven principles of public life which form the basis of ethical standards expected of holders of public office. These are set out by the Committee on Standards in Public Life and are: selflessness, integrity, objectivity, accountability, openness, honesty and leadership.”

Honesty is there, but should truthfulness be introduced as an eighth principle in public life just for the avoidance of doubt?

The MPs’ code of conduct states,

“Members have a duty to uphold the law”

and it is part of the parliamentary commissioner’s job to oversee the code of conduct. Despite the Government’s response citing the MPs’ code of conduct and the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards as suitable substitutes to legislation, it is noted in the code of conduct’s procedural protocol that

“The Commissioner cannot investigate allegations solely about breaches of the Seven Principles of Public Life.”

Will someone please enlighten me as to what sense these myriad procedures make? We have only to look at the length of time between public concerns being raised about Boris Johnson misleading the public and his referral to the Committee of Privileges to see that

“the hurdles to achieve this are very high.”

As the director of the Constitution Unit points out,

“In any less extreme case even triggering an investigation to examine the facts might have proved politically impossible.”

Would it not be more straightforward to make lying in Parliament to be an offence?

The UK Government should take the number of petitioners that want legislative change as a clarion call that legislative change is not just desired, but necessary. We must never forget that we are elected by people across the UK to represent their interests and concerns, not our own. We must never forget that as MPs our primary privilege is that we are elected to serve our constituents, not ourselves. We must also never forget that one of our duties, as laid out in the MPs’ code of conduct, is that we should act on all occasions in accordance with the public trust placed in us. At the very least that must mean being truthful.

It is a sign of the backwards nature of the Westminster system that in February 2022, after both of the petitions had closed and it was obvious to many that lies had been told, the then SNP Westminster leader, my right hon. Friend the Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Ian Blackford), was forced to leave the Chamber for telling the truth. At the same time, the then Prime Minister, who happens to be the guardian of the ministerial code, was able to use his position to spread misleading information and rebuke facts through lies, without recourse or accountability. The hon. Member for Brent Central (Dawn Butler) was also ejected for calling Boris Johnson a liar—she was expelled for telling the truth. This madness places a stain on both Members’ parliamentary records for getting it right. Can the Minister put on the record whether either Member has even received an apology?

When the House of Commons’ rules eject Members from the Chamber for calling out dishonesty, the rules are clearly not working. Parliamentary privilege grants Members the right to speak freely without fear of legal liability or other reprisal, but that privilege has been abused, and that abuse goes against our code of conduct with little repercussion. We should grab the opportunity to examine the challenges and complexities of this matter and come together to find a solution that works. Legislation should be brought forward that prevents the trust between Government and those who are governed being further eroded. It should be done at the earliest opportunity, so we can move the backward nature of this Parliament forward.

--- Later in debate ---

[Martyn Day]

We have had a good and wide-ranging debate. We have probably only scratched the surface of what could have been said. We have heard, basically, that it is very difficult for Members who genuinely wish to correct inadvertent mistakes to do so, and it is nigh-on impossible to hold people who deliberately mislead Parliament to actual account. There is no ultimate sanction other than the electorate at the ballot box, and that is not a proper sanction at all.

There is definitely something that we need to do if we are to restore public faith in our democratic processes. We have to send a message that honesty is not out of fashion, and the debate we have had today has helped to do that. We have got to ensure that there are repercussions when people wilfully mislead Parliament, and I hope the Minister will reconsider his position.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered e-petitions 561730 and 576886, relating to honesty in politics.

Oral Answers to Questions

Martyn Day Excerpts

Wednesday 12th July 2023 Commons Chamber

[Kemi Badenoch]

I agree with my right hon. Friend. It is important that people know where to go for help when they have experienced domestic abuse. The Government are providing police and crime commissioners with dedicated ringfenced funding for at least 900 independent sexual violence and domestic abuse advisers and will fund an additional 100, bringing the total to more than 1,000 by 2025.

[Martyn Day (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (SNP)]

T2. The cost of living crisis disproportionately affects disabled constituents who are reliant on specialist diets and equipment and now face increased food and energy costs. Will the Minister confirm what cross-governmental action the Government can take to better support disabled constituents with those additional costs?

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mims Davies)]

The Government recognise the challenges for disabled people and those with health conditions. The £150 disability cost of living payment should be seen as one part of the overall package. The benefits calculators on gov.uk will help people to claim the wider benefits that are out there—that is just one of the payments.

Oral Answers to Questions

Martyn Day Excerpts

Thursday 22nd June 2023 Commons Chamber

[Oliver Dowden]

My hon. Friend is right to highlight the matter. The situation is precisely why we rolled out the new heat health alerting service in conjunction with the Met Office on 1 June. As climate change continues, we are developing cross-Government working to ensure that we are resilient to the new challenges.

[Martyn Day (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (SNP)]

It is not just red-headed, fair-skinned folk like me who suffer during the UK’s increasing heatwaves. I note with envy that, across Europe, many countries have introduced maximum workplace temperatures, and I wonder whether this country could do the same. Will the Minister look at implementing such a scheme?

[Oliver Dowden]

I am very sceptical about adding further regulatory burdens to business. I think most businesses are incentivised to make sure their employees have a safe and appropriately cooled place to work, which is the appropriate way to proceed. However, we are working across Government, and through things such as local resilience fora, to make sure businesses are properly advised on the appropriate steps to take.

Infected Blood Inquiry Update

Martyn Day Excerpts

Wednesday 19th April 2023 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

I call the SNP spokesperson.

[Martyn Day (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (SNP)]

May I put on record my gratitude for advance sight of the statement, and for the work of the infected blood inquiry? I suspect there will be a considerable amount of consensus in the House on this issue. Over the years, I have been appalled at the personal testimony that I have heard from my constituents about 40 years of struggle, and the realisation that this scandal could have affected any one of us. It is a tragedy that simply should never have happened, and it has been made worse by decades of delay, first in preventing further use of contaminated factor products and identifying victims, and then in delivering compensation.

As we know, the infected blood scandal took place before devolution, while healthcare in Scotland was the responsibility of the UK Government. Financial powers to deliver compensation still lie with Westminster. It is therefore entirely appropriate to have a scheme delivered by a central body, as recommended by the inquiry. Over the years, too many delays and denials have impacted victims and their families. Sir Brian Langstaff is spot on when he says in the interim report—we have heard this a couple of times already, but I make no apology for repeating it—that:

“Time without redress is harmful. No time must be wasted in delivering that redress.”

It is therefore imperative that the recommendations to widen the interim compensation payments are carried out, and that should be done before the final compensation scheme is set up. Will the UK Government accept the inquiry’s recommendation that interim compensation payments are widened and delivered without delay? Finally, when will the compensation system’s independent chair be appointed, and can we have a detailed timescale for that?

[Jeremy Quin]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comments and for his welcome for the concept of a central body. That was not an area of dispute, but there was a slightly difference emphasis in Sir Robert’s report and Sir Brian’s report regarding whether the payments should be delivered locally through each of the four schemes or through a UK scheme. The hon. Gentleman is right to say that this happened in the ’70s and ’80s, long before devolution, and there is a clear recommendation from Sir Brian, which I am glad he endorses.

The hon. Gentleman raises two points about the interim compensation payment being widened and there being no delay in its implementation, and about the appointment of individuals. This all depends on the Government’s response to each of the recommendations—he will accept that—but a number of things could be done to speed up the process. If we were to agree with Sir Brian’s recommendation to have an arm’s length body, there are mechanisms whereby individuals could be appointed on an interim basis, prior to the ALB being formally constituted. All that is in the mix as we work through our response to the report.

Oral Answers to Questions

Martyn Day Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd March 2023 Commons Chamber

[Mr Baker]

No, not at all. I confess that I thought the hon. Lady was going to ask me about the Bill of Rights provisions in the agreement itself, but she ought to know that the parties have been working together towards that Bill of Rights and it will need consensus to deliver a framework in Northern Ireland. Of course the UK continues to be committed to the ECHR.

[Martyn Day (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (SNP)]

7. Whether he has made a comparative assessment with Cabinet colleagues of the potential impact of the Windsor framework on economic competitiveness in (a) Northern Ireland and (b) the rest of the UK.

[Kirsten Oswald (East Renfrewshire) (SNP)]

10. Whether he has made a comparative assessment with Cabinet colleagues of the potential impact of the Windsor framework on economic competitiveness in (a) Northern Ireland and (b) the rest of the UK.

[The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Chris Heaton-Harris)]

The Windsor framework restores the free flow of trade from Great Britain to Northern Ireland through a green lane, guarantees Northern Ireland businesses unfettered access to the UK market on a permanent basis, and offers a whole host of other benefits.

[Martyn Day]

The Prime Minister described Northern Ireland as

“the world’s most exciting economic zone”,

being in the UK market and having access to the European market. Does the Secretary of State agree with that assessment? If he does, does that not mean that the rest of the UK’s nations are at a disadvantage, being less exciting for only being part of the UK market?

[Chris Heaton-Harris]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for acknowledging what a good deal the Windsor framework is. As the Prime Minister has said, Northern Ireland will now be in the unique position of not only being part of the UK internal market—the fifth biggest market in the world—but enjoying the EU single market. As part of the UK, Northern Ireland’s businesses and consumers are able to benefit from the new trade agreements that we are able to negotiate and the new UK regulatory regime for trade and services that we can have outside the European Union.

Oral Answers to Questions

Martyn Day Excerpts

Thursday 16th March 2023 Commons Chamber

[Jeremy Quin]

Departments select places for role relocations using workforce and locational analysis, as well as many other factors, which I am sure would include those referred to by my hon. Friend. As she knows, DEFRA already has 550 full-time employees in Devon and nearly 2,000 across the south-west more widely. I know from previous experience as a Minister that she is a fantastic advocate for her constituency and I am certain that she will continue to make her case.

[Martyn Day (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (SNP)]

Yesterday, I joined striking PCS workers on their demonstration, some 130,000 of whom were on strike for better pay and conditions. Irrespective of where in the UK civil servants have been relocated to, their pay and conditions are still determined at Westminster, leading to industrial action across all four nations. When will the Government finally deliver a pay uplift reflecting the work of civil servants throughout the UK?

[Jeremy Quin]

Individual Departments determine the pay and conditions for their civil servants. There are ongoing discussions with officials. I also met members of the PCS in January. We want to get a resolution. We want to get people back to work, but no one is helped by the current range of industrial action that hits some of the most vulnerable people in our society.

Oral Answers to Questions

Martyn Day Excerpts

Thursday 2nd February 2023 Commons Chamber

[Oliver Dowden]

As a fellow Hertfordshire Member of Parliament, I share my hon. Friend’s concerns about the disruption to travel, particularly for commuters into London. That is precisely why our manifesto committed to bringing forward minimum service legislation. We are passing that legislation through the House in the teeth of opposition from Labour, and the reason for doing so is to ensure that our hard-working constituents can get on with their lives and livelihoods.

[Martyn Day (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (SNP)]

T4. This week, the Government passed draconian anti-strike legislation while we saw the largest public strikes for over a decade. Does the Minister agree that instead of vilifying public sector workers, it is time the Government got around the table with the unions and negotiated a resolution?

[Oliver Dowden]

Ministers get around the table with unions all the time—the Education Secretary did precisely that earlier this week—but Ministers also owe a duty to hard working people in all four corners of our nation to ensure that minimum standards of public services are upheld for their safety, and we will continue to pursue legislation to that effect.

Oral Answers to Questions

Martyn Day Excerpts

Wednesday 25th January 2023 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

I join my right hon. Friend in praising his local council for ensuring we build homes in the right places so that our young people can fulfil the dream of home ownership. He is also right to say that this Government will always protect our precious green spaces. The recent changes in our planning reforms will ensure that we can protect the green belt everywhere. His local community and others will benefit from those protections as we keep our local areas beautiful.

[Martyn Day (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (SNP)]

Q14. UK in a Changing Europe reports that, at the end of 2022, 60% of voters said their cost of living had increased and 38% said that their personal finances had been negatively affected by our not being a member of the European Union. The Office for Budget Responsibility forecasts a 4% reduction in GDP, only two fifths of which has already happened, so surely the Prime Minister will agree with me, the electorate and the experts that Brexit has served only to exacerbate the cost of living and economic challenges facing these islands?

[The Prime Minister]

Russia’s illegal war in Ukraine and the impact it has had on energy supplies has nothing to do with Brexit. What we are doing is ensuring that we can support families with those cost of living pressures. That is why we provided £900 of support this winter for energy bills, and that is why we are increasing the national living wage to record levels. We will continue to stand behind Britain’s families until we can bring inflation back down to where it belongs.

Health and Social Care Update

Martyn Day Excerpts

Thursday 22nd September 2022 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I call the Scottish National party spokesman, Martyn Day.

[Martyn Day (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (SNP)]

Let me start by welcoming the Secretary of State to her new role and thanking her for advance sight of her statement.

There is no doubt that the NHS, in all four nations, is facing an incredibly difficult winter, with possible rises in covid infections alongside winter illnesses and increases in slips and falls, all of it while recovering from the dire effects of the pandemic and, now, an energy crisis. An inflation-busting uplift is vital to getting our health systems back into good shape, enabling them to get through this winter and support those in need. It has been estimated that the cost of living crisis will add £3.7 billion a year to the cost of social care alone, with far higher rises across the NHS generally. How does the Secretary of State justify her Government’s prioritising of bankers and tax cuts for the rich at a time when investment in public services is more essential than ever, and will she support the SNP’s call for an NHS uplift greater than inflation?

[Dr Coffey]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his welcome. I think that one of the benefits of the United Kingdom is our ability to learn from each other, even with a devolved NHS. For example, we are borrowing, or copying, the pharmacist elements, and we will enact those in this country too. As the hon. Gentleman will know, owing to the Barnett formula the amount per head of population for the Scottish NHS is considerably higher—the health money passed over—but it is at the discretion of the Scottish Government to decide how to use that money to help patients.

The hon. Gentleman will be aware of our ongoing challenge: we want to work together as a United Kingdom in tackling global pandemics, and I look forward to working in preparation for that. He will also be aware that we accepted the recommendations of the independent NHS Pay Review Body in making our own pay recommendations. Let me pursue an example that he has just highlighted. When the Prime Minister was on the doorstep of No. 10 Downing Street she wanted to talk about growing the economy, because it is vital for us not to have managed decline, which would be challenging for the United Kingdom as a whole.

Obviously the Prime Minister was already minded to ensure that we had a generous package in respect of energy bills, but one of the tasks that confronted me and on which I worked was ensuring that that was extended to businesses and the NHS, and we have made it happen. One of the biggest concerns with which I was presented when we arrived was the possibility that people’s inability to afford energy bills would worsen the situation. I should like to think we have already addressed that, and today I have explained why it is important for us to focus on the ABCD to ensure that patients, too, receive the service that they deserve.

Oral Answers to Questions

Martyn Day Excerpts

Wednesday 7th September 2022 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend is right. Many of my constituents, too, rely on heating oil for their fuel. We need to make sure that we are looking after everybody in this very, very difficult winter that we are facing.

[Martyn Day (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (SNP)]

Q5. Hon. Members may be familiar with the work of Bo’ness firm Ballantine Castings, an iron foundry in operation since the 1820s that in recent years has done much work around the parliamentary estate. Without the protection of an energy price cap, this specialist SME is witnessing unaffordable costs, with bills rising from £13,000 to £120,000 per month. Heavy energy users face a disproportionate burden and clearly need more support than other businesses. What will the PM do to protect our strategically important and energy-intensive industries?

[The Prime Minister]

I very strongly agree with the hon. Gentleman that there are strategic industries that use a lot of energy. We need to do all we can to help them become more energy-efficient, but we also need to make sure that they are able to remain competitive in the global marketplace. That is certainly something that the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy is looking at in preparing this package.