The Government’s Productivity Plan

Michelle Thomson Excerpts

Tuesday 28th February 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Wright]

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

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

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

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

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

[Michelle Thomson (Edinburgh West) (Ind)]

In this place, we habitually compare our productivity with that of the G7, but I recall a debate on this matter around this time last year for which I did some research into medium-sized countries such as Norway, where productivity levels are significantly higher than in any of the G7 countries. Is the hon. Gentleman going to explore how the scale of those medium-sized countries could be a factor affecting productivity?

[Mr Wright]

I am going to talk about scale in relation to the size of firms, as opposed to the size of nations, but the hon. Lady makes an important point.

This is not a dry and dusty economic treatise. I am talking about real, unsatisfactory productivity growth across the UK that is affecting the living standards of the constituents of hon. Members on the Committee and of Members across the whole House. That is why the Committee wanted to examine the Government’s productivity plan. This is not about dragging London and the south-east back; it is about moving the regions and nations closer to the economic performance of the capital.

The distinctive structure of our economy could also be acting as a drag on our economic performance. About four-fifths of our economy is made up of services, which is higher than in any other G7 country. It is clear that the service sector has driven the economic recovery since the downturn in 2008, but in the main the sector tends to have lower productivity than manufacturing. Moreover, in the past 30 years, we have seen a shift in the nature of jobs in this country. For every 10 middle-skilled jobs that disappeared in the UK in the 1990s and the first decade of the 21st century, about 4.5 of the replacement jobs were high-skilled and 5.5 were low-skilled. In Ireland, the ratio was 8:2 in favour of high-skilled jobs; in France and Germany, it was about 7:3. The nature of our economy and our skills set means that our major economic rivals are moving away from us and going higher up the value chain than we are. That is clearly having an adverse impact on productivity and living standards.

In addition, Britain is a nation, if not of shopkeepers, then certainly of small businesses. That is a great thing. In the 21st century, the number of businesses in the UK has increased by an average of 3% per year, to reach 5.5 million, which is 2 million more businesses than in 2000. However, the proportion of firms that employ people has fallen in the same period from about a third of companies in 2000 to around a quarter today. Micro-businesses—those enterprises employing fewer than 10 people—account for 96% of all businesses in the UK. The domination of small businesses in our economy has implications for productivity levels. They are unable to take advantage of economies of scale, they are more likely to face difficulties in accessing finance for new product, for process development or for scale-up activity, and they may find it difficult to find the time not merely to fulfil existing orders but to identify opportunities and secure bigger contracts for domestic and export markets. Those companies cannot afford armies of procurement and export teams.

--- Later in debate ---

[Roger Mullin (Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath) (SNP)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr Wright) and his Committee on their sterling work in this area. I was particularly intrigued by his opening remarks about the nature of these estimates debates and their weakness. I was reminded of my experience when I was faced with the House for the first time after being elected back in May 2015. I walked around and found all these peculiar signs, such as for the Vote Office, where the one thing we cannot do is vote. The one thing we are unable to do in estimates debates is scrutinise the estimates properly. That certainly needs to be addressed in the longer run.

I was also taken by what the hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington (Chris White) said about the importance of innovation for productivity. It reminded me of an old teacher of mine, Professor Tom Burns, who, in 1960, wrote a book along with Graham Stalker called “The Management of Innovation”. How many years ago is that? It is a long, long time ago—57 years. The lessons of back then, when Professor Burns was talking about the growth of Marconi in Scotland, are just as relevant today in respect of what is involved in innovation. He argued that two main types of skills or knowledge needed to be deployed, and therefore developed in society. The first was the ability to have what he called “analytical skills”, which we might relate to STEM subjects and other quantitative skills. We need the ability to analyse problems and weaknesses, be it in technology, social fields or whatever, but that is not enough—we all know that we can analyse problems. Everyone in this House might agree what the level of unemployment is, but we would have different recipes to deal with it. So as well as having analytical skills, he said society had to be good at developing creative skills. That might be through “simple creative thinking”, as we could call it today, but I believe he was thinking more widely about how we bring decision-making and judgment skills to enhance the capacity to meet new types of challenges.

The other thing that Professor Burns mentioned drew on what happened in Scotland in the 18th century, at the time of the Enlightenment, and the ideas produced there. His argument was that not only did we have some uniquely brilliant individuals but, for the first time, we had the effective networking of people and of ideas. We were not building false barriers between people, be it by subject or geography. We should reflect on that today as people too often get stuck in professional silos, with ideas not being shared and networked enough. The possibilities therefore do not come to fruition in the way that they might.

The final thing that Professor Burns said in this book of 57 years ago was that we needed circumstances in which people valued and encouraged the “application of novelty”—in other words, experimentation. We all know that if that is done well, it will inevitably lead to a failure rate, so risk taking, as we would call it today, has to be part of the recipe. One thing that Governments of all hues are very bad at doing is putting in place policies that recognise that although we are going to generate some things that might fail, that is worth it, because we will generate other things that are a great success.

[Michelle Thomson (Edinburgh West) (Ind)]

My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. I concur with what he is suggesting about entrepreneurs—our wealth creators—being given both the framework to succeed and the framework to fail. Does he agree that this is about looking at not just our innovation structures, but at more systemic issues such as banking? When a small business does fail, it is often hauled over the coals and loses absolutely everything, so we fundamentally need to change some of the ways in which we do business in this country.

[Roger Mullin]

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Michelle Thomson (Edinburgh West) (Ind)]

It is a pleasure to take part in this debate. I commend the hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr Wright) for his contribution and for his leadership of the Select Committee. I reiterate a point that he made: the productivity plan, “Fixing the foundations”, was published in July 2015. We should step back and think about the radical changes we have seen since then, because it is ever a moving target. We have a new Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, a new Prime Minister, a new Cabinet, an industrial strategy Green Paper and, fundamentally, a new relationship with the EU. In terms of the estimates, it is indeed a moving target. There is a real challenge in the macro relationships of how we get policy provision to guide us going forward among all that shifting.

Obviously the most important of those changes is Brexit, and how the Government respond to it will be crucial for the future of any industrial strategy or productivity plan. Prime Ministers come and go and Departments get renamed, but leaving the EU is the sort of event that is going to take massive energy to achieve anything positive. Worryingly, the rhetoric I have heard so far does not fill me with a great deal of faith. We are undermining some of the noble intentions of the productivity plan and industrial strategy. Putting up barriers will have an impact on productivity. I am in no way convinced by some of the grandiose sentiments along the lines of, “If everything doesn’t work out, we can always revert to World Trade Organisation rules”—most people do not seem to be aware that the fundamental work of revising and agreeing schedules is a massive amount of work in itself.

It is probably not a surprise to my colleagues here that I will focus briefly on Scotland, as is my wont in every BEIS Committee as well. A good job has been done with productivity in Scotland. We are now at the point where our output per hour is much the same as the UK average, and that has happened over the past 10 years. We have managed to close the large gap, but, as has been commented on previously, we are, frankly nowhere in terms of the wider UK. I managed to dig out the statistics that I quoted last year and the research that I had done in the House of Commons Library, which showed that Norway’s productivity was 77% ahead of the UK, and that continues to shock me.

The analysis paper of the respected think-tank, the Fraser of Allander Institute, on the impact of Brexit suggests that Scottish productivity will be negatively affected by leaving the European Union. To me, that is absolutely fundamental. Ending the free movement of people and thus reducing labour mobility is a fundamental issue for us in Scotland, and it cannot be overstated. One impact could be reduced inward investment, which could affect higher productivity.

Commitment 55 in the productivity plan report calls for a continuation of

“the long term decarbonisation of the UK’s energy sector through a framework that supports cost effective low carbon investment.”

The industrial strategy Green Paper then adds to that by calling for an upgrade in infrastructure and a delivery of affordable energy and clean growth. However, from my point of view, this Government are actively undermining these laudable aims by selling off the Green Investment Bank with undue haste. I understand in principle why one might want to capital raise, but I remind the Minister that the Green Investment Bank is quite clear that it does not need to capital raise until 2018. Furthermore, in terms of the nature and the type of projects that have been selected to address market failure, I now have a concern that there will continue to be a gap. Yes, market failure has been affected, and even blocked, by the introduction of the Green Investment Bank in some areas, but it has yet to be addressed in other areas.

[George Kerevan]

Is my hon. Friend aware that Macquarie Bank wants to buy the Green Investment Bank for the brand name, so that it can exclude competitors from taking part in local authority environmental investment schemes? Selling the bank will mean less competition in environmental investment, which in turn means reduced productivity in the long run.

[Michelle Thomson]

I am aware of that, and I have had conversations with the Minister, Macquarie and the Green Investment Bank. The fundamental concern is that, potentially, Scotland risks losing an asset in terms of the headquarters in Edinburgh. Despite the assurances of the preferred bidder—let us call it Macquarie—I will be watching this matter very carefully, because there is a risk that we will lose head office functions and the board. Going back to my hon. Friend’s point, it is building an infrastructure that enables productivity and these kind of things to succeed. If we put in public capital investment and we then do not get the value from it, that seems to me to be short-sighted and misguided. Equally, without the firm commitment to maintaining jobs in Scotland, all the productivity plans and industrial strategies in the world will not address the regional disparities that we see in Scotland, especially if we promptly roll away all these things.

On carbon capture and storage, we have spent £100 million on two competitions to try to kick start this new technology. We heard yesterday on a BEIS Committee day trip to Edinburgh that that is very difficult, and I accept that. As my hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Roger Mullin) commented, we must be prepared to take risks to drive things forward for future gain. We accept that £100 million has been spent, but if we do not press ahead with some of these proposed projects, our country could once again lose its competitive advantage, and we cannot rule that out and forget about it.

I am most concerned by some of the narrow-minded views that have been exhibited in some of the debates around Brexit. They have a pervasive narrative that sounds isolationist and deeply disappointing when it comes to the wealth of opportunities of renewable energy. For example, a new interconnector between Scotland and Norway will soon allow the transfer of wind power and hydro power between the two nations, allowing them both to cut their emissions. This is not the time for retrenching and retreating. Construction has also started on a new 1 GW interconnector to France, further demonstrating our inter-dependence with our European neighbours.

Let me move away from energy and quickly dwell on some of the other issues that have been most affected by Brexit in the productivity plan. The first is the issue of international students. In the BEIS report on the productivity plan we said:

“We recommend the Government does not allow migration pressures to influence student or post-study visa decisions. It is illogical to educate foreign students to one of the highest standards in the world only for them to leave before they have had an opportunity to contribute to the UK economy.”

I have a story from my constituency of Edinburgh West. A remarkable young man, Mr Olubenga Ibikunle, won a substantial sum of money to do a PhD in civil and coastal engineering. As soon as he completed his course, he was turfed out. The level of his ground-breaking research, commitment and dedication to self-improvement means that he is exactly the sort of person that we would like to keep in Scotland.

The Prime Minister refused to consider removing students from net migration targets when she was in front of the Liaison Committee. I hope that she will reconsider her position, because international student numbers are already beginning to fall as evidenced by the latest immigration statistics. We cannot allow our position as a world leader for international students to be eroded by a dogmatic fixation on an arbitrary target of tens of thousands of migrants.

[Kirsty Blackman]

Obviously, Scotland’s higher education sector is a huge success story and does fabulous work. The Smith Commission explicitly mentioned that we should be looking at the possibility of a post-study work visa in future for Scotland. The UK Government have announced that they might consider that for some universities in the south of England, but that does not help universities in my constituency, or in the constituency of my hon. Friend.

[Michelle Thomson]

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. Part of the problem could be solved by devolving those powers to Scotland so that we can protect our own higher education sector.

We have also heard this month from the chief executive of Innovate Finance, Lawrence Wintermeyer, who told the BBC that

“Brexit has had a chilling impact on investment.”

Investment is vital to industrial strategy and productivity. Wintermeyer backed up his statement with figures that show venture capital investment in FinTech firms, which is vital for my city of Edinburgh, has dropped in the UK from £970 million in 2015 to £632 million in 2016. In objective 12 of the productivity plan, the Government used Innovate Finance’s investment figures as a measure of success.

Finally, the productivity plan wanted to

“help deliver a Europe that is more dynamic and outward focused...by accelerating the integration of the single market, completing trade agreements, and improving the quality of regulation.”

[Roger Mullin]

That is a good idea.

[Michelle Thomson]

Yes, indeed. It was a sensible aim at the time and it is one that Scotland still supports. I hope that the Prime Minister takes serious note of the Scottish Government’s proposals to keep Scotland in the EU. She could then come back to us having had substantive discussions of what is contained in the paper. Obviously, we would formulate a considered response, but Scotland regards the proposals as vital. We are committed and dedicated to growing our economy, creating wealth, and increasing our productivity, but we cannot do it on our own and we need help. We are ambitious and we want Scotland to grow, and we say to the Government: do not hold us back.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

--- Later in debate ---

[Jeremy Quin]

Indeed.

[Michelle Thomson]

I hope we can agree that it is due to the successful joint working of the BEIS Committee and the Work and Pensions Committee that this afternoon we have seen Sir Philip Green agree to pay £363 billion into the pension scheme.

[Jeremy Quin]

I also heard the figure of £363 million. I, too, hope that it may be a tribute to the work of the Committee and, in particular, the joint Chairs of the inquiry. However, having taken part in that investigation, I take nothing at face value. I hope the hon. Lady will forgive me if I do some proper research before saying how happy I am. I hope there will be grounds for happiness, particularly for the pensioners involved.

In his introduction, the hon. Member for Hartlepool quoted Paul Krugman:

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

It is rare that I concur with the éminence grise of economists on the Opposition Benches, but on this—uniquely, perhaps—I think the hon. Gentleman is right. I hasten to add that there are two clauses to that sentence. The first is, “Productivity isn’t everything”. I agreed with the interventions made, which I will dwell on for a minute, by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (John Redwood) and my hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick) regarding employment. We have to start with the realisation that where we come from economically could be a lot worse.

Many of us will recall vividly the impact of the dreadful recessions of the ’80s and ’90s in which homes were repossessed, factories were laid waste and there was mass unemployment. It has been bad enough this time around. We are still facing the challenge of rebalancing our fiscal position, but coming through the 2008 financial crisis—the worse since the 1930s—we have had some stellar successes. We have grown the economy since 2010 faster than any country in the G7 other than the United States. We enjoy the highest rate of employment on record; households with no workers are at the lowest level for 30 years. Youth unemployment for those who have left education stands at less than 6%.

It seems strange that I am saying this but, yes, I greatly admire the French and French productivity. We have much to learn and do, but I would rather be here debating a plan for improving our long-term productivity than standing in the Assemblée Nationale trying to defend high rates of youth unemployment. A distinguished economist and a distinguished statistician—even if he cannot count up to 57—are both in the Chamber, and I hope they will forgive me for saying that whenever something is referred to as a “long-term problem” by an economist, it normally means that they find it hard to measure in the short term.

Great trends in productivity are easy to spot, especially after the event. Instantaneous judgments are still worse, and forecasting is less easy. Before tackling what we should be doing better, we should keep an eye on where we are currently. This recession was very different from its predecessors. Although it was not always adhered to—there are some ghastly, scandalous examples, some of which have been highlighted by the hon. Member for East Lothian (George Kerevan—there was, by and large, a policy at the top levels of banks to practise forbearance, and by Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs on troubled businesses. This, combined with base rates at low levels, provided the lifeline through the recession for many firms.

This also went with the grain of how businesses wanted to operate. Businesses could remember how frustrating it was in the ’80s and ’90s to fire highly trained, experienced and loyal employees, only desperately to try to re-recruit the same individuals two or three years later. They wanted to avoid those problems this time. It is a tribute to employees and unions that there was a recognition that constrained wage growth would enable more people to stay employed through the recession. The legacy is clear. We have not had the increase in unemployment that has helped to flatter the productivity growth of many of our competitors. I am glad of it because a labour force that has retained its skills and its practices is a vital asset.

High rates of employment are a boost to the UK while being negative for our productivity. We are not, of course, alone in having high rates of employment. The hon. Member for Hartlepool referred to the German economy, which is some 20% more productive than ours, despite similar rates of employment. My only note of caution about Germany’s incredibly impressive productivity performance is that we are talking about two very different economies.

Germany’s economy has an unrivalled capacity to produce capital goods that are hugely in demand from emerging markets going through a strong growth period, underpinning already firm foundations in that economy. But there is a caveat. My hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Chris White) also mentioned the German economy. I spoke regularly in my prior employment to German businesses and opinion formers, who were acutely aware that, although they were producing hugely sought after assets of huge value at the current phase of economic expansion, they looked to our economy and our ability to deliver on services and tech, as potentially the drivers of the next phase of economic development.

I do not for one second suggest that we should rest on our laurels, especially as the two most productive sectors in the UK—financial services and, looking at the hon. Member for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman), North sea oil—have suffered most in the past decade. It goes without saying that we need to broaden and drive the overall success of the economy, but we should not dismiss too readily the strength of the platform from which we start.

The Government’s productivity plan is a solid document that has been made even more solid by the 10 pillars of wisdom in the industrial strategy that was published earlier this year. I will pick up three broad themes within it: infrastructure, people and finance. As the House will be aware, we have one of the most congested road networks of anywhere in the G7. I welcome the targeted investment announced by the Government in the autumn statement. Infrastructure spend has two benefits. The practical one is shifting goods from A to B, but there is also a psychological benefit on people’s ability and interest in spending and investing in the private sector. In both contexts, I welcome the decision on the third runway at Heathrow, and the ongoing delivery of Crossrail, which each have a psychological benefit way ahead of the immense direct practical benefit.

It may sound strange that, as a Member of Parliament proud to represent a Sussex seat, I also endorse what the Government are doing on the northern powerhouse. Anyone who has taken more than a slight look at the extraordinary extra housing numbers required in Mid Sussex and focused on their implications, and anyone who has endured the congestion on Southern rail—when it is running—or tried the M23, would know why support for a balanced growth in the economy is a general point right the way across the UK.

Our people are our country’s most important asset, just as they are any company’s. A fair point that was picked up in the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee report is the importance of parity of esteem between university students and those who choose more vocational routes. I am delighted that the institute for apprenticeships will be up and running in a few weeks, providing vigour and scrutiny to the courses being rolled out as part of the apprenticeship levy. Alongside that, I welcome the Government’s continuing commitment to the Catapults, and their boost to research and development—both new ventures. Assisting in the key phase between product development and launch is to be welcomed. It is the biggest boost to R and D at any stage since 1979—a good year. This is the right point in the cycle to be making that investment. However, in the long term, Government investment to support economic growth, proportionate and appropriate though it is, should not be seen as an end in itself. It can be dwarfed by the available capital in corporate coffers looking for a home. Government investment can oil the wheels and improve tax efficiency, as it is doing, on R and D.

Patient capital, which is incredibly important—I look forward to the report—must be encouraged, but it is to the private sector that we must really look to take up the challenge and invest. The sector knows that it will be doing so with a Government who are on a path to long-term fiscal sustainability, who are driving up education and training standards and, as they have shown with Heathrow, are prepared to take difficult decisions to boost our infrastructure.

Now is the time to invest in the UK economy. Nissan, Facebook, SoftBank and Google are all showing the way. UK companies should continue to take up the gauntlet. We have a good economic platform. Now is the time to invest; it will not only be our productivity growth rates that benefit.

Green Investment Bank

Michelle Thomson Excerpts

Wednesday 25th January 2017 Westminster Hall

[Michelle Thomson (Edinburgh West) (Ind)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the sale of the Green Investment Bank.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Owen; I have not done so previously. I have sought the debate as an independent MP—independent as to party and mind—in the light of considerable concerns raised about the proposed sale of the Green Investment Bank. I must signal my thanks to Macquarie and to the Minister for recent meetings. I look forward to another meeting with the Green Investment Bank tomorrow, and then another with the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee in the near future. Thanks are also due to the Environmental Audit Committee for the report of December 2015; to the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas), who tabled an urgent question; and to members of the quality press, such as Aimee Donnellan, for ensuring that the matter gets the scrutiny it deserves.

The Green Investment Bank is one of our success stories and has supported 30 green energy infrastructure projects up to the end of 2015-16. Profits were up to £9.9 million in the last year, and the bank committed £770 million to transactions during the 12 months of 2015-16, taking the total capital committed to £2.6 billion. The imperative of a green agenda remains, and our resolve must be increased in the light of President Trump’s threat to step back from previous Paris climate change commitments. Our ambition associated with a green agenda is high, particularly within the Scottish Government, but can the Minister confirm that Macquarie is the preferred bidder, or will he continue with the ridiculous pretence that he cannot mention its name?

Why sell, and why now? I want to make it clear that given my business background I understand why privatisation can be attractive to a business in terms of access to capital and to provide certainty as to future funding. I can also see why being released from state aid rules may be perceived as a benefit. On the other hand, I was struck when a Tory Member commented to me, while the right hon. Member for Tatton (Mr Osborne) was Chancellor of the Exchequer, “If it isn’t screwed down, sell it.” I am also struck by the fact that the Green Investment Bank does not expect to need to borrow until 2018-19. The report of the Environmental Audit Committee quotes evidence from E3G that

“the Government has failed to make a compelling case explaining the rationale behind, or consequences of its decision to sell a majority share of the GIB”.

So why now?

I would like the Minister to confirm whether any financial rewards will be given to the board, executive or senior team on a successful sale of the GIB. Will the chair, Lord Smith of Kelvin, remain in his post after the sale and, if so, for how long? The model of packaging up elements of a business for sale to release capital is well understood—I regard the use of the term “asset stripping” as somewhat emotive in this case—but the real point is that the UK taxpayer has provided the funds to bring it to where it is today, but it will not be the UK taxpayer who gets the return on investment.

It is clear from other privatisations that the UK taxpayer did not receive the value they should have done; I therefore question whether that can happen with the Green Investment Bank. The New Economics Foundation in its report “We Own It” notes concerns about future profits versus short-term cash in the continued great British sell-off, whether it is a question of losses incurred as a result of the Royal Mail privatisation or Eurostar. Can the Minister confirm whether full value will be obtained for the UK taxpayer on the sale?

I move on to some more specific considerations. The headquarters is currently located in Edinburgh, but it is not just the location of the brass plaque that marks the HQ—it is the functions of governance, legal services, risk and compliance, comms, finance and business development that really determine where that crucial control lies. The jobs associated with those functions tend to be higher quality. I will be monitoring closely to see whether jobs will be maintained and also whether the number will grow and their quality is maintained. Will the Minister confirm what guarantees he has obtained that the HQ will remain in Edinburgh? What assessment has he made of any proposed new structure and any potential impact on the quality of jobs and functions retained in Edinburgh?

State aid rules—the so-called additionality considerations —disallow projects that could be funded under conventional routes. That means that the projects funded tend to carry more risk but, if successful, more reward. I am concerned about the risk appetite of the bank after sale. A business that focuses purely on the bottom line will tend to gravitate towards more vanilla projects, which are easier to package and sell for financial churn but are a loss to the sort of research and innovation that, we are told, the UK Government want to ensure more of with their new industrial strategy Green Paper. The Minister notes in answers to written questions that the market failure that the inception of the GIB sought to address has now been corrected, but market failure in all areas will not be addressed if encouraging innovation is not at the heart of what the GIB does.

Scale is also a consideration. Will a privatised GIB support smaller projects, such as the specially designed loan to finance a switch to low-energy street lighting in Glasgow? Will Macquarie back that type of small-scale investment? It is only £6.3 million, but will save more than 18,000 tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions over the next 18 years.

What considerations have the UK Government given to an altered risk appetite after sale? Have the UK Government made any assessment of the potential impact?

I would like to consider the issue of protecting the green purpose of the bank. Responding to criticism, and acknowledging that criticism, the UK Government have put in place a so-called golden share with a worthy and notable set of trustees. In theory, that should give us a level of comfort, in that the trustees must agree to any change of purpose as defined by the five green purposes—but the very purposes themselves carry risk. They are extraordinarily high-level; the question has already been asked whether fracking—yes, fracking—could be carried out while still ostensibly meeting the green purpose tests.

I would now like to briefly consider UK control. The GIB has already undertaken a number of its transactions via private equity-type funds.

[Roger Mullin (Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath) (SNP)]

Notwithstanding some of the excellent work that the GIB has undertaken, is the hon. Lady concerned, as I am, about the use and involvement of limited liability partnerships? They are currently the subject of a review and have been involved in criminality in many parts of the world. It is not only the GIB—there are some instances where it is alleged that Macquarie has been involved in projects that have used them.

[Michelle Thomson]

I am happy to support my hon. Friend on that point. I also note the valuable work he is doing around Scottish limited partnerships. I hope he has great success in that.

The limited liability partnerships used to date by the GIB may indeed be UK-domiciled and registered for tax purposes, but the point is—we cannot forget this—that if the underlying funds or owners are controlled offshore, the UK taxpayer loses the benefit of that tax take. What level of UK control and benefit will there be after sale? What will be UK-based in the wider supply chain? To what extent will the project management and/or technical experience be based in and benefit the UK?

[Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)]

I congratulate the hon. Lady on securing this important debate. In the context of Brexit, and the very likely loss of funding from the European Investment Bank, would she agree that now it makes less sense than ever to be selling off the Green Investment Bank, because it is precisely that kind of bank that can give us the additional benefit of full UK control and fill the gap that will be left by the likely loss of EIB funding?

[Michelle Thomson]

I am extremely happy to acknowledge that point, and I agree; I suspect the hon. Lady may have read the next section of my speech. She has absolutely hit the nail on the head.

I was discussing what reinvestment would be made in the UK economy after any asset sales. How much influence fundamentally would the so-called golden share have if much of the activity is controlled outwith the UK? I am not expecting the Minister to answer all those questions, but they are part of wider consideration of what we are doing when we invest our UK taxpayers’ precious money and build the bank, then sell it without looking under the covers at what is happening as part of the commercial process.

Finally, on the preferred bidder, there are justifiable concerns about the company’s intentions. Concerns have been raised about its approach to refinancing and debt, particularly in former public companies such as Thames Water. Jonathan Maxwell, the chief executive of Sustainable Development Capital, makes a case for his consortium, which includes the state-backed Pension Protection Fund, as the best alternative to meet the Government’s goals for the GIB. Would that be a better fit for our wider concerns about the green agenda and to encourage the growth of green, particularly in the light of the threat that Brexit poses to the wider economy?

The UK Government have used a smokescreen of commercial confidentiality, so that proper scrutiny by this Parliament cannot take place. However, it is the UK taxpayer who provided the capital to set up the bank and who could lose out in a sale, without proper scrutiny. We, the UK taxpayers, currently own the GIB and we, the hon. Members from across the House who represent our constituencies, need to assure ourselves that the sale represents real value at present.

The concerns were succinctly summed up by Nils Pratley, writing for The Guardian:

“But what if Macquarie thinks GIB is worth more dead than alive? What if it pays £2bn for GIB, liquidates most of the assets at a handsome profit and then decides the capital is better deployed elsewhere?”

What assessment has the Minister made of a sale making it more likely for the UK to meet its Paris climate change obligations? If he has made that assessment, will he make it available?

[Dr Daniel Poulter (Central Suffolk and North Ipswich) (Con)]

I congratulate the hon. Lady on securing the debate; her last point was key. Under the Paris climate change agreement, a pan-European solution was being looked at for this country to meet our climate change commitments and reduce our carbon footprint. Given the consequences of Brexit, is it not all the more important that we preserve the assets in this country that will help us independently to meet the commitments under the Paris and previous climate change agreements?

[Michelle Thomson]

I absolutely agree, and I sum up by asking: is this the right time for a sale to anybody in the light of Brexit, when the focus fundamentally must be on innovation and positioning ourselves to take advantage of key growth sectors?

[Several hon. Members rose—]

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Hurd]

Regarding the first point, the conversations with the preferred bidder about their future commitment are ongoing. That just reflects the fact that we take that matter very seriously. This is not a case, as I think was suggested, of the Government simply wanting to raise some money, getting the bank off the balance sheet and then off into the hills we go. The issue of the future commitment of any new owner to future investment that will help us to move further and faster along in the transition to the low-carbon economy—a transition that is central to the industrial strategy—is a very important part of the consideration of the bid. That is why, working through Lord Smith and the board, we are taking time to look each other in the eye and say, “Is this enough?” That is the situation we are in.

On restructuring, I think I was pretty clear when answering the last parliamentary question. We agreed some reorganisation in partnership with the GIB to facilitate private capital into certain assets. I make the point—which, again, is a point of principle and needs to be asserted—that there was almost a suggestion during the urgent question debate that the GIB should somehow not be free to sell anything or to bring in private capital. That is completely wrong, particularly when the evidence is that there are buyers for assets that are reaching some maturity. Given what the GIB was set up to do, I do not think that it should be in the business of competing with private capital to invest in assets. It serves no policy purpose to hold on to assets that are valuable to others if that money can be recycled into new investments. That is the critical thing.

Lots of assertions have been made about asset stripping. The Government have no interest in selling to an asset stripper. We want to know about investment in the future; it is okay to sell, so long as there is a commitment to reinvest in future. The GIB portfolio—under any ownership, including public ownership—should not be preserved in aspic forever. It has to be a dynamic organisation, and it should be free to realise capital from packaging assets and to do things that a nimble entrepreneurial organisation, which is what it is, should be free to do.

[Michelle Thomson]

rose—

[Mr Hurd]

Out of courtesy, I give way to the sponsor of the debate.

[Michelle Thomson]

I thank the Minister for his comments, but I need to press him on my specific comment about the risk appetite and the nature and type of projects. I fully accept and understand increased access to capital, but I made a specific point about the risk appetite that I hope the Minister will move on to.

[Albert Owen (in the Chair)]

Order. Before the Minister responds, I should say that we only have a few minutes remaining. If interventions are long, we will not get as much as we want out of the Minister.

--- Later in debate ---

[Michelle Thomson]

I can do that quickly, Mr Owen. I thank hon. Members for their contributions, including the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West (Joanna Cherry) and the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas), who always adds depth to our debates. I also thank the hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Dr Whitehead) . I make particular reference to the hon. Member for East Lothian (George Kerevan) and his key points—I gently suggest they have not been addressed—on dealing with market failure and systemic issues with infrastructure investment. He made a very clear and compelling point.

I also note that the Minister conceded that he is being led by Lord Smith, who is a worthy gentleman and chair of the board. The Minister, however, is ultimately responsible and accountable for ensuring value for the UK taxpayer and the wider framework of the all-important green agenda—

BHS

Michelle Thomson Excerpts

Thursday 20th October 2016 Commons Chamber

[Jeremy Quin]

The hon. Gentleman, as so often, reads my mind. If he is a little patient, he will hear me make a similar point later in my speech.

On the period during which very generous dividends were paid, directors cannot be expected to have the gift of prophecy, but they can be expected to understand the fundamental trends driving the underlying profitability and sustainability of their business. I am far from convinced that that was the case in this situation. The most serious questions, as raised by the hon. Members for Hartlepool and for Torfaen (Nick Thomas-Symonds), are about the corporate governance of large private companies with millions of employees and pensioners.

Unlike my feisty friend, my hon. Friend the Member for Bedford (Richard Fuller), I intended not to refer to the individuals directly concerned in the sad demise of BHS, but to focus on the more general lessons to be learned. I am afraid that I have been drawn back to the circumstances of BHS after reading the joint legal opinion produced for Taveta Investments Ltd by learned counsel last night. As the right hon. Member for Birkenhead said, the two lead QCs make a point of saying that they are friends of the chairman of TIL. I hope that their report, which is considerably longer than the report of the joint Committees that it analyses, was not unduly costly. The report basically starts by saying, “Let’s pretend this is not a parliamentary inquiry, but some other kind of inquiry. Would that type of inquiry be set aside by the courts?” Having set up an irrelevant question, the opinion produces an irrelevant answer.

[Michelle Thomson (Edinburgh West) (Ind)]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is somewhat ironic for Sir Philip, who has complained bitterly about an outcome with which he does not agree, to be able to pay handsomely for an 81-page report from two eminent QCs, given that I imagine the pensioners and employees are not, unfortunately, able to resort to such a tactic?

[Jeremy Quin]

I suppose the answer depends on the quality of the report. Frankly, having read it, I find that it contains a series of straw men that have been set up for demolition. In my view, it does not help Members, the pensioners or anyone to understand the circumstances of the demise of BHS.

To put at rest the minds of learned counsel, the joint Committees did not object to a dowry being provided on the sale of BHS, and certainly did not question its legality. However, we questioned the sufficiency of the cash and the choice of partner in the circumstances that BHS faced. We did not question the concept of a company being sold for £1. Clearly, that is a matter for Taveta Investments (No. 2) Ltd, the selling company, which received the £1. It is unfortunate that TIL2, which is ultimately controlled by Lady Green, is still paying back to Lady Green the £200 million consideration for its acquisition of BHS in 2009. This consideration was satisfied by £200 million of loan stock provided to three overseas companies controlled by Lady Green, with a coupon of 8%.

We would need a much longer debate—I am very mindful that other Members wish to participate—to draw out all the straw men contained in the joint opinion of learned counsel, but several others are produced in the context of corporate governance. A rare point on which the joint Committees’ perspective seems to be shared by learned counsel is on the—in our view, lax—governance of the sale, as was so eloquently described by my hon. Friend the Member for Bedford. However, learned counsel state that that is an irrelevance, because the shareholders in TIL could in any event provide a direction, so the directors were in no position to prevent the sale of BHS to any party. That may be true legally, but it should raise questions for this House. Learned counsel tell us that TIL is 88%-owned by Taveta Ltd, a company registered in Jersey, and 12% by six minority shareholders. We are informed that the ultimate beneficial owner of the Jersey company is Lady Green, and that under the articles, Lady Green, acting with any one of the minority shareholders, could have directed the sale of BHS at any time and on any terms.

The right to own and dispose of property under English law is absolutely fundamental, and Parliament would be wise to tread very softly, but I am concerned in this context about checks and balances—not only on the sale, but more generally. What is the value of a section 172 provision, telling directors to have regard to other stakeholders, in these circumstances? What is the role and purpose of non-executive directors, especially when the 88% shareholder is not present around the boardroom table?

To my mind, it is not appropriate for directors serving private companies to decide that they can take an approach different from what is good corporate governance, purely because they can ultimately be directed. That would make it more important, especially on major or related transactions and on honouring commitments to pensioners, that they should bend over backwards to adhere to strong and demanding codes and be prepared to call out owners if they feel actions are taken that do not have sufficient regard to other stakeholders. There are thousands of very successful large and medium-sized private companies employing millions, and for those millions, ownership should be as transparent as good corporate governance.

There are other issues, from which I fear I have been sidetracked by the legal opinion, that the House should consider. As the hon. Member for Hartlepool mentioned, corporate governance codes should be applied not only to listed companies, but to those owned privately. On related party transactions, independent valuations or independent opinions are important when such transactions exceed de minimis levels. There is the issue of the utility of the requirement to have regard to other stakeholders in section 172 and how directors can be expected to do so when they owe responsibility elsewhere. There is the question of the appropriateness of dividend payments above certain thresholds, particularly if a pension scheme is in serious deficit. I was challenged on that point by the hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Ian Blackford).

There is the issue of the requirement for courts to be cognisant of pension deficits, as well as of creditors, when considering applications for corporate restructurings and capital reductions. In private mergers and acquisitions, where pension problems may be less transparent than in the listed market, consideration should be given to compulsory engagement with the Pensions Regulator and with the trustees. For both directors and advisers engaged in sale processes in respect of a company in which the Pensions Regulator has already expressed concern and a sale is not being pre-cleared by the Pensions Regulator, all parties should be very aware of the actuality of the counterparty to whom they are selling. English law requires no due diligence to be done on the buyer—nor, in my mind, should it do so—but common sense suggests a certain wariness to be wise.

In conclusion, there are lessons to be learned from this sad story. Above all, however, we are all focused on the loss of a well-loved icon, the employees who have been made redundant and the pensioners who are rightly worried, but whose plight may yet be mitigated by Sir Philip. Such an act would, indeed, be honourable and very welcome. I understand from the radio this morning that he is, not for the first time, planning to meet the regulators in the next few days. Time will tell whether pensioners have been waiting for a result or have been made to endure a particularly poorly directed “Waiting for Godot”.

--- Later in debate ---

[Amanda Milling (Cannock Chase) (Con)]

As a member of the joint Committees that conducted the inquiry into the collapse of BHS, it is a pleasure to speak in the debate. It is also a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Westminster North (Ms Buck), a fellow member of the Committee, and my hon. Friend the Minister, whom I welcome to her place. She had a slightly different role beforehand—she was my Whip.

Before being elected to this place, I worked in business. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Bedford (Richard Fuller), I am pro-business and pro-enterprise, but not at any cost. I have been appalled by the catalogue of events that led to the demise of BHS and by what we learnt in the Business, Innovation and Skills Committee about working practices at Sports Direct. Both are bad for business and, I am afraid, both are bad for the reputation of business, to pick up the point made by the hon. Member for Westminster North.

Rightly, reputable businesses have also been appalled by both situations. The irresponsible behaviours of a few endanger the reputations of the majority that operate responsibly. That is why I fully support the position of the Prime Minister and the Government that we need to make our economy work for everyone. As she said on the steps of Downing Street,

“we’re the party of enterprise, but that does not mean we should be prepared to accept that ‘anything goes’”.

That is not, as I see it, an attack on business—far from it. There is a desire to protect the reputation of business. After all, we do not want to see the irresponsible behaviours of a few tarnishing the reputation of good business. We need to look only at the banking crisis and the resulting lack of trust in banks, from which, let us be honest, they are still trying to recover, to see the dangers of reputational damage resulting from such events.

[Michelle Thomson]

I rise to note something on the banking crisis and to refer to the Minister’s remarks earlier. Does the hon. Lady agree that, with issues such as the banking crisis and how the state deals with the continuing RBS saga concerning the Global Restructuring Group, how quickly and effectively agencies deal with the matters that we call out is pivotal?

[Amanda Milling]

The hon. Lady makes an interesting point. She has a lot of personal interest in looking at RBS and the banking industry. From my perspective, the Government have been very quick in responding to the collapse of BHS and in recognising that there is a need to review corporate governance. I will come on to that in a bit more detail shortly.

The devastating events that resulted in the tragic collapse of BHS raise several questions about whether the framework of corporate governance is satisfactory, especially in relation to large private businesses—those with large workforces and large pension liabilities. This is about protecting our economy, protecting the taxpayer from picking up the bill and, most important, our responsibility to do everything we can to protect employees.

Many right hon. and hon. Members have discussed the consequences of the collapse of BHS. They have looked at the employees and the members of the pension scheme. I would like to focus on the employees. Eleven thousand people lost their jobs as a result of the collapse of BHS. But for those people it was not just about losing their job; it was about the impact on their lives and that of their families. Many of those people have mortgages to pay and are worried about whether they can keep a roof over their head and that of their family.

--- Later in debate ---

[Michelle Thomson (Edinburgh West) (Ind)]

I would like to begin my contribution to this important debate by joining others in thanking the Chairs of the combined Select Committees and pointing out that any suggestion that their report was not a robust, detailed, evidence-led inquiry can be rebutted. It ran for months and had many sessions; the session with Sir Philip Green alone lasted for six hours.

I support the view that, from its initial purchase, Sir Philip saw the dash for cash from the business as the Green family’s primary purpose. Even in the early days, there was limited evidence of a successful retailer improving turnover or market share. I am sure other Members will continue to highlight the various ways that money was redeployed to the Green family, often away from the clutches of the UK taxman, such as by the payment of dividends and the treatment of various assets. I have no doubt that they were all entirely legal, but were they irreproachable?

We have heard much already about the nature of corporate governance. Our report describes it as having a variety of roles, including balancing

“the interests of…many different stakeholders”.

We have also heard reference to the UK corporate governance code. It states that

“one of the key roles for the board includes establishing the culture, values and ethics of the company.”

[Roger Mullin (Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath) (SNP)]

I thank my hon. Friend and all the members of both Committees. I had the pleasure of sitting in and listening to quite a lot of the interrogation and I thought it was first-class.

Despite the problems we have heard about, such as those to do with corporate architecture and regulation, does my hon. Friend agree that Adam Smith was right when he said we cannot divorce business practice from human behaviour, and that the problem here is that the human behaviour of Philip Green has undermined corporate governance and any positive culture?

[Michelle Thomson]

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. The code goes on to say in the sentence I was quoting:

“The directors should lead by example and ensure that good standards of behaviour permeate throughout all levels of the organisation.”

The code applies only to listed companies with a premium listing of equity shares, but that does not absolve a private owner from any responsibility. Time and again opportunities were missed to address the growing pension deficit and it cannot simply be argued that the deficit was a result of the global financial crisis and increased longevity. Sir Philip had accountability for addressing the deficit and could have chosen to do so on a number of occasions, as other schemes managed to do.

The QCs’ report cites many examples of the Green family’s legal rights as the majority shareholder, but says very little about the responsibilities to pensioners and employees that that brings. I am sorry, but Sir Philip cannot have it all his own way. It was a lack of judgment that allowed the pensions situation to continue, and a lack of judgment that progressed a sale to a wholly unsuitable third party.

The non-executive chairman was at pains to point out that the code does not apply to private companies, and the QCs’ report notes that the chair of the board has merely the same duties as the other directors. Legally that is true, but might I inquire as to what exactly the remuneration of £125,000 as chair of the board was for? I support the suggestion of the governing body for governance, the ICSA, which suggests reforming the code to include private companies. We have heard a number of calls for that today.

In terms of the general culture of organisations, there is always a key risk if a level of power is concentrated in just a few key individuals, there is weak leadership which chooses to surround itself with people who are reluctant to disagree for fear of falling out of favour, and there are cultural failings within the organisation that are common knowledge but remain unchallenged. We all have a duty to speak out in these cases, because by remaining silent we become complicit in the contract of the bully and the bullied.

In the case of BHS, the final decision on sale was made without the non-exec chair asking about the credentials of the purchasing company, why it was believed to be the best outcome for the employees and pensioners, or whether the third party had a credible turnaround plan—and, incredibly, they were not invited to the ratification meeting. There was only one non-exec director at the meeting: the son-in-law of Sir Philip Green, whose stated brief was to represent the interests of Lady Green.

I challenged some board members to name a time—any time—when they successfully challenged Sir Philip Green. Their response was muted. I could literally count the seconds ticking by as each respondent looked for an example.

Our report notes that

“absolute power, in business as in politics, is a dangerous thing”.

It was certainly absolute power that enabled Sir Philip and the Green family to run BHS as their personal fiefdom, to exclude independent directors from key decisions and to bully weak senior managers, and this contributed to the ultimate failure of BHS and to its ultimate failure in its duty of care to the pensioners and employees.

I shall finish by making a brief comment about the amendment. This UK legislature is already struggling to demonstrate its relevance to many people. It must be able to give a voice to people on the important issues of the day. The saga of BHS is being played out in the media, and not only recently. We have seen the success story, the “loadsamoney” parties, the knighthood, the record-breaking dividends, the decline and the eventual sale of the business. People watching at home have, with every justification, asked, “How can this be? How can an owner of a company act with such impunity in the matter of 11,000 jobs and 20,000 pensions?” Hindsight is a wonderful thing, and who among us does not recognise circumstances in which we would do things differently? I am sure Sir Philip Green regrets the circumstances now, but we are talking about a knight of the realm, and that position must surely require a higher bar of ethical behaviour.

[Joanna Cherry]

(Eningburgh South West) (SNP): My hon. Friend is making a powerful speech. Has she, like me, received dozens of emails from constituents who are concerned that Sir Philip Green should be held up as an example? I shall read out just one of the emails I have received.

“As someone in business, who takes pride in the efforts we make for our staff and customers, it’s really hard to understand why someone like Sir Philip would be allowed to retain his knighthood. Surely, we should not be placing such traits as aspirational for the public.”

Does she agree with that sentiment?

[Michelle Thomson]

I absolutely agree. Many of us will have received hundreds of letters and emails from our constituents on this subject.

It is on this point that the argument turns for me. The corporate governance code is not there to provide a loose set of rules that companies are invited to think about now and again. It is fundamentally a framework for behaviour in business. Business is not just about the bottom line; it is about providing jobs and sustaining communities, and the best businesses are based on partnership. Sir Philip Green knew for many years that BHS was in trouble and he failed to do the right thing. His actions, and his inaction, led directly to the loss of 11,000 jobs and affected the lives of 20,000 pensioners. He seems to believe that BHS being a private company negated any accountability or responsibility for the lives of people who depended on him and, ironically, who made his success.

Industrial Strategy

Michelle Thomson Excerpts

Thursday 20th October 2016 Commons Chamber

[Michelle Thomson (Edinburgh West) (Ind)]

I certainly look forward to hearing other contributions to this debate and to taking part in the Business, Enterprise and Industrial Strategy Committee’s inquiry on this important area.

In October 2015, in light of problems with the UK steel industry, I asked the then Minister if she regretted the Government’s lack of an industrial strategy. She said, “You could have had all the strategies in the world and it wouldn’t have made any difference.” I guess we can add this to the list of topics on which the new Prime Minister and the right hon. Member for Broxtowe (Anna Soubry) disagree.

I welcome the Prime Minister’s decision to implement an industrial strategy and to recognise that the fact that that is difficult does not mean we should not bother trying. A coherent and forward-thinking industrial strategy can set the foundations for economic growth and improve productivity, but only if it is done properly.

This debate will be full of questions. We need to ask what sort of industrial strategy the country requires, what the Government’s most effective levers are for improving economic growth and productivity, where Government intervention can have the biggest benefit for research and innovation, when we should get out of the way of business and when we should get involved. We also need to consider timescales, as we have heard. When can we realistically expect a White Paper or Green Paper on the industrial strategy? Will it be by early next year? We need to bear in mind that, even if we get full realisation by the end of the first quarter of next year, that will be only three years before the next general election. I reflect on the comments of the hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr Wright) that Governments have been consistently making policy and then moving away from it with the fashion of the time. Industrial strategy will be even more of a challenge, given the all-consuming task of co-ordinating Brexit at the same time.

Although we do not yet have a White Paper, we have had speeches and letters from the Secretary of State setting out some of the areas that the industrial strategy needs to cover. He has noted the need for a long-term sustained approach to policy making, as well as the development of an enduring policy framework that provides a stable and predictable environment for business.

In principle, I do not disagree. Many businesses in my constituency and beyond made long-term investment plans on the assumption that they would have unfettered access to the largest market in the world—one that is right on their doorstep. They therefore would, I am sure, appreciate knowing sooner rather than later whether their rights to trade in Europe will be equal to those of their competitors. That point was highlighted really clearly by the Japanese Government, who said:

“Uncertainty is a major concern for an economy”.

They went on to note that Japanese businesses had

“invested actively in the UK, which was seen to be a gateway to Europe.”

Investor certainty is vital. The Brexit vote has shown how incredibly difficult it is to implement a long-term strategy that is resilient enough to withstand the change in fortunes of Ministers and Governments. A focus on evidence-led policy making could provide some ballast against the constant upheaval that exists in a parliamentary democracy.

Even when there is evidence in favour of a policy, however, more needs to be done to ensure that it is, in fact, implemented. Look at airport expansion in the south-east of England. We know there is evidence that that needs to happen to support businesses right across the UK. We have research on the costs and benefits, and several options are on the table, yet we still do not have a decision on which runway to build or extend. The link between timescales, vital infrastructure and decision making needs to be recognised. We know that the decision is being delayed for political reasons. This is a prime example of political priorities getting in the way of sensible industrial policy. We could also mention here the Green Investment Bank, which is based in my constituency of Edinburgh West. As soon as it made a profit, plans were made to sell it to the private sector. Those examples do not demonstrate a long-term, sustained approach to policy making, so I hope that they are considered when the strategy is put together.

The Secretary of State has also highlighted the need to build on and reinforce the UK’s existing industrial strengths while developing a local approach to strategy—noble sentiments indeed. Given that stated commitment to localism and desire to build on existing areas of strength, perhaps he will look again at some of the mistakes made by his predecessors in government. I and many others were disappointed to see funding to reduce carbon emissions and tackle climate change scrapped or reduced by the previous Chancellor. Whether we look at the cancellation of the proposed carbon capture and storage plant in Peterhead, the cuts to efficiency schemes or the withdrawal of support for onshore wind generation, we see that the Government have demonstrated neither a local approach nor a desire to build on one of Scotland’s undoubted economic strengths.

That disregard for local and long-term policy considerations and the failure to support national and regional economic strengths have had a major impact on the Scottish Government’s attempts to harness the country’s natural advantages, in turn putting at risk plans to reach a target of generating 100% of Scottish energy needs from renewables by 2020. A milestone was reached this year when, for one full day, 100% of Scotland’s energy needs were met by renewable power. That was an exciting glimpse into a possible future that could be supported by a sensible industrial strategy from the UK Government.

Another example of short-term politics taking priority over economic needs was the cancellation of the popular post-study work visa in Scotland. This was a highly popular route for overseas graduates from Scottish universities to stay in the country. Many of the people who obtained this visa contributed a great deal to the Scottish economy and wider society. Universities Scotland conservatively estimated that Scotland lost out on at least £254 million pounds of revenue between 2012 and 2015 as a direct result of scrapping this visa route.

Scottish politicians in this Chamber have repeatedly declared that they would like more control over immigration policy in Scotland and the return of the post-study work visa. Scotland has shown its commitment to helping those in need by finding homes for a third of all Syrian refugees who have settled in the UK in the past 12 months. The long-term economic benefits of such a policy are obvious; the political will exists and the local need is there.

Finally, I just want to touch on the idea, also suggested by the Minister, of an upgrade in corporate governance. During our previous debate about BHS and Sir Philip Green, the topic of corporate governance was brought up several times. For too long, the focus of corporate governance has been on financial profit without any reflection of ethical values. Professor Christopher Hodges of Oxford University has led thinking about how improved corporate governance can lead to more ethical business practices and move everything forward.

To sum up, there is often a tension at the heart of industrial strategy between horizontal policies, which cut across all sectors, and vertical policies that focus on specific sectors. Prioritising specific sectors can see wider industry suffer, and if no sectors are focused on at all, the strategy runs the risk of being unfocused and unsuccessful. In evidence submitted to the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee, the Korean technology company Samsung said:

“In a fast-moving digital economy, the Government should not seek to direct or manage innovation, but instead should seek to create the conditions which promote innovation.”

If all other sensible ideas fall foul of political pressures, I hope that this one principle will remain.

On balance, I welcome the Government’s commitment to an industrial strategy. I hope it will not only lead to greater economic growth and productivity, but rectify some of the mistakes of the previous Government.