British Steel

Debate between Rachel Reeves and Greg Clark

Wednesday 24th July 2019 Commons Chamber

[Greg Clark]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his participation in the support group in support of his constituents, which has been very valuable. As I made clear, this is for the official receiver, and I do not want to get ahead of his progress. The situation is still not resolved. He has said that it is encouraging, but we need to work very carefully to ensure that it is resolved satisfactorily. In terms of audit, one of the striking things he has found, as my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland (Mr Clarke) and the hon. Member for Redcar (Anna Turley) will know, is how loyal customers of British Steel have been, in many cases confirming orders well into the future. Network Rail is one such customer, for two reasons—partly for steel reasons but partly because I believe that we should have big upgrades in our national infrastructure. I very much endorse what my hon. Friend said.

[Rachel Reeves (Leeds West) (Lab)]

I very much welcome the activist approach that the Secretary of State has taken with regard to British Steel. I also welcome the fact that no deadline has been imposed, because the most important thing is that this time we find a buyer who is going to support British Steel, invest in it and see it through to the future, unlike the previous owner. Will he give an assurance that the Government will stand by British Steel until a new buyer is found? He knows full well that if a steelworks is closed, it is incredibly hard to reopen it. I urge him to look again at a sector deal for the steel sector, which is so important for the whole industry’s future. Our Select Committee, the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee, will be looking specifically at British Steel, but also at the wider steel industry, in our inquiry in September. We will be looking both at the actions that this Secretary of State has taken, which we welcome, and at those of his successor.

[Greg Clark]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady, the Chair of the Select Committee, and I welcome the prospect of that inquiry. There is a lot to examine, and she will approach it with her usual forensic attention to detail. I very much hope that the new Prime Minister will continue the commitment that the current Prime Minister was willing to give and the authority that she has given me to act in the way that I have. She and others will hold to account the new Prime Minister and his team on that.

The hon. Lady is right; there is something special about steel assets in many respects, but one is that if they are closed down, it is very hard for them to spring back into life, so continuity is of great importance. That is one of the achievements that, together, we have been able to bring about over recent weeks.

No one is keener than I am to conclude a sector deal. It requires investment. There is an opportunity for the British steel industry to be more strategic than it has been and, as some other sectors have done, align itself to some of the products that we know will be in demand in the future, backed by research and development. That is the approach that the industrial strategy takes, and it applies in spades to steel, so I hope there will be a sector deal to reflect that.

Net Zero Emissions Target

Debate between Rachel Reeves and Greg Clark

Wednesday 12th June 2019 Commons Chamber

[Rachel Reeves (Leeds West) (Lab)]

May I start by welcoming the statement and the commitment that the Secretary of State and the Minister for Energy and Clean Growth have given to this? May I also say how proud I am to be a Member of a Parliament that continues to lead the way globally in tackling climate change? I am pleasantly surprised that the Bill I presented to Parliament yesterday has been adopted so quickly by the Government. However, I would say to the Secretary of State that if we are going to will the ends, we also need to will the means, and I urge him to go back to the reports from the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee and look again at bringing forward the target date for phasing out petrol and diesel vehicles, getting on with the demonstration projects for carbon capture and storage, improving the energy efficiency of our homes by genuinely ensuring that all new homes are zero carbon, and asking more from our house builders. If we do that, we have a chance of meeting the targets that we are now signing up to.

[Greg Clark]

The hon. Lady is a very influential member of this House, and when she publishes a Bill, the Government respond with alacrity. I will draw on the expertise of colleagues on her Select Committee, who have participated in the preparatory work that is needed to review the policy framework to support our ambition, and I dare say that her Committee will hold me and the ministerial team to account in terms of our implementation of the work that is needed.

British Steel

Debate between Rachel Reeves and Greg Clark

Wednesday 22nd May 2019 Commons Chamber

[Greg Clark]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We need to do everything we can. The situation is not entirely in the hands of the Government, because the official receiver is obviously responsible for the operations, and the trade unions and local communities want also to participate. This morning, the director general of UK Steel was asked whether he thought that the Government have done everything they can, and he said that he thought that we have. There is a recognition, which I am sure my hon. Friend will find in the sector, that we are serious about doing everything we can within our legal limits to help to give stability and a good future to this industry.

[Rachel Reeves (Leeds West) (Lab)]

This is a desperately sad day for our steel industry and those who work in it, and I am sure that the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee will want to look at what triggered the collapse of the company. The Government are now paying the wages of British Steel’s workers, which is welcome, and 25,000 jobs depend on production continuing. Will British Steel continue to take new orders under the Government’s official receiver to maximise the chances of the company’s survival? Will the Government guarantee to pay the wages and continue new production at the site until a new buyer can be found?

[Greg Clark]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady, and I would welcome her Select Committee, on which many Members currently in the Chamber serve, looking into this matter. There may be wider lessons to learn about how assets of such importance, where continuity is important, are held.

When it comes to paying the employees’ wages, we should be clear that the official receiver is responsible for that, not the Government. The Government have provided the official receiver with an indemnity, and his responsibility is to manage the business and to make a judgment about the business’s future prospects. He started today with a clear statement that the business continues to trade and that the workforce continue to be employed and to be paid. I hope that that was reassuring for the members of staff.

British Steel: EU Emissions Trading Compliance

Debate between Rachel Reeves and Greg Clark

Wednesday 1st May 2019 Commons Chamber

[Greg Clark]

I am grateful for the endorsement of my right hon. Friend, not least because in the previous Government he played the role he has ascribed to me with some deftness and success on many different occasions. He is absolutely right that agreeing to a withdrawal agreement would allow our continued participation until at least December 2020, giving us the time to put in place different arrangements, which would be in our gift. One reason we felt that it was important that British Steel should comply is that the institutions that drive compliance with emissions reductions targets should be respected. We want to send a clear signal that we expect the targets to be respected and implemented. That will take place while we are a member of the European Union and, as my right hon. Friend indicates, afterwards too.

[Rachel Reeves (Leeds West) (Lab)]

I welcome the Secretary of State’s decision. Without it, there would be huge job losses in the industry. This crisis at British Steel has been caused by the uncertainty over our future membership of the EU’s emissions trading scheme. Given that half of steel manufacturing in this country is exported to the EU, our relationship with the EU matters hugely for the future. Why did the Government allow us to get into the position where British Steel had to pay upfront for its allowances, even though we remain a member of the EU today? Will the Government confirm what the liability to the ETS will be of British Steel and other UK steel producers should we leave the EU without a deal?

[Greg Clark]

The position we find ourselves in is through no choice of the UK Government. It was the Commission that took the decision to suspend the availability of allowances. We are having constructive discussions with the Commission about the release of the allowances and that is why this arrangement is described accurately as a bridging arrangement. We want and expect to be able to have access to those allowances. Participation in the ETS is not a matter of entitlement. It is not available to countries outside the European Union without special designation, but the discussions we are having are constructive.

On liabilities and the nature of the transaction, I have written to the hon. Lady in her capacity as Chair of the Select Committee. I am very happy to follow that up and to give whatever evidence she needs to scrutinise the transaction.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Rachel Reeves and Greg Clark

Tuesday 19th March 2019 Commons Chamber

[Greg Clark]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Obviously, it is a great source of confidence to people that they can obtain a job. It is the case that employers across the country value the flexibility that having a flexible workforce gives. In fact, again, the Labour leader of Gateshead Council said that

“many zero-hours contracts employees”

on the council

“don’t want to be full time employees and prefer to consider themselves as self-employed”,

so this is a practice that is pursued right across the country.

[Rachel Reeves (Leeds West) (Lab)]

Some 1.6 million workers are paid exactly the national living wage of £7.83 an hour, and a further 3 million people are paid within 50 pence of it. In the spring statement last week, the Chancellor said that the ultimate objective of this Government was

“ending low pay in the UK”—[Official Report, 13 March 2019; Vol. 656, c. 349.]

The usual definition of a national living wage is 66% of median earnings, but the remit of the Low Pay Commission is only to get to 60%. Are the Government now committing to end low pay? If so, when?

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Rachel Reeves and Greg Clark

Tuesday 12th February 2019 Commons Chamber

[Greg Clark]

I agree with my hon. Friend that having jobs and vacancies available is the best source of security for people in this country. We have a proud record of having secured that over the past eight years.

[Rachel Reeves (Leeds West) (Lab)]

Last week, it was reported that the Government plan to bring forward legislation to commit to guaranteeing workers’ rights outside the EU. Will the Secretary of State confirm that no Government can bind their successors? As easily as legislation can be passed, a future Tory Government could take those rights away, just as this Government have done by introducing tribunal fees, passing the draconian Trade Union Act 2016 and failing to crack down on bogus self-employment. Why would Members on the Opposition Benches trust anything that the Government say about ensuring workers’ rights in law?

[Greg Clark]

The record of this Government has been to extend workers’ rights way beyond what the European Union has offered. In the UK, we have 52 weeks of maternity leave, for example, compared with a requirement of 14 weeks in the EU. This House has chosen to give rights of paternity leave and pay to fathers and partners that are not yet available in the EU. The measures that the hon. Lady knows we are about to introduce for people returning from maternity leave makes us a leader in Europe on the issue. She should be confident in the ability of this House to promote and protect workers’ rights.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Rachel Reeves and Greg Clark

Tuesday 8th January 2019 Commons Chamber

[Greg Clark]

No. This is a very important extension of the rights of people on zero-hours contracts. It is important to recognise, first, that the number of employees on zero-hours contracts remains very small and, secondly, that most of those on zero-hours contracts want to have that flexibility. Those who do not want that flexibility and prefer a longer and more stable contract will now have the right to request one.

[Rachel Reeves (Leeds West) (Lab)]

25. Only days after the Secretary of State published his response to the Taylor review, Uber was once again found by the courts to be denying basic rights to its workers. When will the Government bring forward legislation to clarify workers’ status so that they do not have to go through the courts and tribunals system to get the rights to which they are entitled?

[Greg Clark]

The hon. Lady will recognise that our package immediately introduced legislation for those rights that can be legislated for with secondary legislation. Primary legislation will shortly be brought forward for the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee, which she chairs, and the Work and Pensions Committee to scrutinise.

Good Work Plan

Debate between Rachel Reeves and Greg Clark

Monday 17th December 2018 Commons Chamber

[Greg Clark]

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his endorsement. The great reforms being made in response to, in this case, a very good report are happening at pace—we are tabling legislation this very day—but he, like me, is sometimes frustrated that the reforms do not get the attention they merit, but he gives me the opportunity to draw the House’s attention to them today.

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right about apprentices. A key part of the industrial strategy is to increase the quality and the number of apprenticeships, to which he has made a distinguished contribution. It is vital that apprentices should be paid what they are due in terms of the minimum wages. We have doubled the enforcement budget for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, and the measures we have set out—we are working very closely with Sir David Metcalf—will make sure it is clearly understood by every employer that paying the minimum wages, whether for apprentices or others, is not optional but essential if they are to trade in this country.

[Rachel Reeves (Leeds West) (Lab)]

The Select Committees on Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy and on Work and Pensions concluded that workers frequently rely on employment tribunals to enforce their rights and recommended punitive fines on employers for breaches of law. The Government are increasing the potential payouts for those who get to tribunal, which I warmly welcome, but they are refusing to reduce tribunal fees. Will the Secretary of State pledge to look at that again? Will the Government listen to Sir David Metcalf, the director of labour market enforcement, who said today that he is disappointed that the Government have rejected his recommendation of greater penalties for non-compliance in paying the minimum wage?

Will the Secretary of State tell us how many more cases need to be won against employers like Uber, Hermes and Addison Lee before the Government act, name and shame and properly punish these businesses that wrongly classify their workers as self-employed and deny them the rights to which they are entitled?

[Greg Clark]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady, the Chair of the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee, for her comments and for welcoming our increase in penalties. It is essential that we send a message that people’s employment rights are non-negotiable and that they must be paid.

We work closely with Sir David Metcalf, a man for whom I have the greatest admiration. The reason for not increasing, at this stage, the penalties available to the authorities for non-compliance with the national minimum wages is that the penalties were increased about 18 months ago. We have not ruled it out, but we have said that we will look at the effect of the increase and consider it.

The hon. Lady will be aware that a big increase in penalties for employers that persistently breach the verdicts of employment tribunals would be very welcome. Again, we will keep under review the employment tribunals regime to make sure that people have access to the justice they need, but when her Committee considers its response to the report I hope it will agree and endorse what is a substantial package that, in many ways and in many respects, goes beyond what was proposed both by Matthew Taylor, important though his contribution has been, and by the Committee. We have gone further than many people expected, which is quite right given the importance of employment rights in this country.

Nuclear Power: Toshiba

Debate between Rachel Reeves and Greg Clark

Monday 12th November 2018 Commons Chamber

[Greg Clark]

My hon. Friend is a great champion of the nuclear sector in Cumbria. It has a bright future. As he knows from the sector deal, there is investment in the supply chain and in reducing the cost of new nuclear, which will be essential if it is to compete with other sources of power. There are also great opportunities through decommissioning, not just in this country, but in selling expertise around the world. Cumbria is the centre of that expertise; it has a strong strategic role in our economy; and we will back it all the way.

[Rachel Reeves (Leeds West) (Lab)]

We are now entirely reliant on foreign investment to support new nuclear build in our country. If businesses abandon their plans, as Toshiba has done, that will affect the generation of new electricity supply and the costs borne ultimately by consumers. What is the Government’s alternative plan if foreign investors do not support the new nuclear build we need in the UK?

Energy Policy

Debate between Rachel Reeves and Greg Clark

Monday 25th June 2018 Commons Chamber

[Greg Clark]

My right hon. Friend is correct to point to the amortisation. As someone who has spent a career in finance, he is aware that in discounting the value of earnings in future generations, the great majority of the value is in the earlier years, and that has been the standard basis of the assessment made. What has not been taken into account is the prospective decommissioning cost of the proposed lagoon, which has been estimated at £1 billion. That has not been included in the analysis, but it would be a further liability for the taxpayer.

[Rachel Reeves (Leeds West) (Lab)]

I have to say that I am slightly surprised by the Secretary of State’s tone. In answer to the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey (Drew Hendry), he said that this project was “so out of kilter” with other ways of producing energy and that the costs are much higher. In that case, can I gently ask why on earth it has taken five years to come to this decision? What lessons has the Secretary of State learned from the decision-making process around the tidal lagoon project? Frankly, a lot of effort has been put into this project by business, the Welsh Government and others, and I think that many people have lost confidence in the Government’s programme for renewables because of this.

[Greg Clark]

The hon. Lady will know, as Chair of the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee, that the Government’s programme of renewables has resulted in the biggest reduction in the cost of the deployment of renewables that we have seen in this country, and that deployment has increased threefold. The success of that strategy is evident. I was asked by many Members, the Welsh Government and many businesses to make sure that every aspect that could contribute to a value-for-money case had been considered —the impact locally, the prospects for exports and the prospects for innovation—and it was right to do so and to leave no stone unturned. I think that that was the right approach, and when the Select Committee scrutinises the decision, I think it will regard the process as having been exhaustive and rigorous.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Rachel Reeves and Greg Clark

Tuesday 12th June 2018 Commons Chamber

[Greg Clark]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the question. It is a very important market. Obviously, recent oil price rises have had an impact at the petrol pumps. It is important that prices are competitive and not, as he implies, subject to rising quickly and then taking a long time to decline. The Office of Fair Trading last looked at this in 2013, but I expect its successor, the Competition and Markets Authority, under Andrew Tyrie, a noted consumer champion, to keep this under close review.

[Rachel Reeves (Leeds West) (Lab)]

Up to 200,000 customers do not benefit from the warm homes discount because they get their energy from smaller energy suppliers. Is it not time to extend the warm homes discount, especially since energy bills are going up and we are trying to crack down on rip-off tariffs?

[Greg Clark]

The hon. Lady, Chair of the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee, makes a very important point. We are reviewing whether the threshold for exclusion is appropriate; I know that she will welcome that.

Nuclear Power

Debate between Rachel Reeves and Greg Clark

Monday 4th June 2018 Commons Chamber

[Greg Clark]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. He contributed with distinction as an Energy Minister and therefore recognises that if we are to achieve not only the full cost benefits but the industrial and employment benefits, it is necessary to show that we have a pipeline that is being delivered in a steady and orderly way. If we do that, as we have done with offshore wind, in which he was instrumental, we can establish an industry that not only supplies to UK consumers at a lower cost but offers a big export opportunity.

[Rachel Reeves (Leeds West) (Lab)]

A thriving nuclear sector depends on the ability to move nuclear materials around safely and securely. At the moment, we do that via our membership of Euratom. What assurances has the Secretary of State been able to give Hitachi about our future relationship with Euratom, about nuclear co-operation agreements with other nuclear states and about the ability of the Office for Nuclear Regulation to recruit the safety inspectors we need?

[Greg Clark]

The hon. Lady will know from her involvement in the scrutiny of the Nuclear Safeguards Bill that we have made very good progress both on the proposed agreements with other nuclear countries and on our intended association with Euratom. I regard this as an area in which it is clearly in everyone’s interest to have the greatest possible continuity of the existing arrangements. That is no secret; it is known to any partner and any investor, including Hitachi.

GKN

Debate between Rachel Reeves and Greg Clark

Tuesday 24th April 2018 Commons Chamber

[Greg Clark]

I understand my hon. Friend’s concern, and a number of hon. Members have raised that point before. There are a couple of things to say about it. First, most people who have bought shares latterly during the takeover process bought them from longer-term shareholders, and one way in which a bid can be backed is for people to sell before the end point of that bid. That situation was looked at, appropriately, by Professor John Kay, who published a substantial review. His panel noted that one suggestion was that voting rights should accrue only if people had been on the share register for a specified period. The Kay review concluded:

“We were persuaded that the introduction of such provisions by legislation or regulation would involve practical difficulties and would be unlikely to achieve the intended effect.”

That was an expert review by a serious person, but of course in all circumstances such as this we keep our corporate governance arrangements under review, and I will certainly do that now.

[Rachel Reeves (Leeds West) (Lab)]

I would like to follow up on the point that the hon. Member for Telford (Lucy Allan) raised. Other countries have a rule that people must have been shareholders for a certain period before they can vote on a takeover deal. Some sort of financial transaction tax would also reduce short-term speculation in companies that leads to their being taken over in this fashion. I urge the Government to look again at the takeover code, particularly for businesses that are so integral to our industrial strategy and have received a lot of taxpayer funding, in this case for the R&D work that GKN has undertaken.

[Greg Clark]

I am glad that the hon. Lady mentions the R&D work, which is very important. The commitments that have been made on R&D, both to keeping up investment and to participating in R&D partnerships, are extremely important. She and her Business, Enterprise and Industrial Strategy Committee asked for undertakings to be given on that and a number of other issues, and were not satisfied with the undertakings that were offered. I persuaded the company to go further and obtained undertakings relating not only to national security but to R&D and the ownership of businesses, and I hope she will acknowledge that that is valuable.

On the hon. Lady’s point about differential voting rights for shareholders, I mentioned the John Kay report, which her predecessor Committee scrutinised—I think the right hon. Member for Twickenham (Sir Vince Cable) gave evidence backing the report’s judgment. I know that her Committee is correctly interested in keeping our arrangements up to date, and if she and her colleagues want to review these matters, what their predecessors said is a good example of how that can be done.

GKN: Proposed Takeover by Melrose

Debate between Rachel Reeves and Greg Clark

Tuesday 27th March 2018 Commons Chamber

[Greg Clark]

My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. I have visited the site he mentions. That situation was a breach of the indications given during the bid, which is why this regime of legally binding commitments was introduced. It is my view that such a regime exists not simply to be available in principle, but to be used in practice. The force of the law applies to adherence to those commitments in a way that sadly was not the case with Kraft and Cadbury.

[Rachel Reeves (Leeds West) (Lab)]

May I ask the Secretary of State why it took until three days before shareholders had to vote on this bid for you to write to Melrose to get some assurances, which are frankly pretty limited? It is too late in the day now for you try to drive a harder bargain—not you, Mr Speaker; you would drive a very hard bargain. The Secretary of State says it is still possible to call this in, but the takeover has been hanging over GKN and its employees and wider stakeholders for more than two and a half months now. What more information do you need to gather to decide whether to call this in? When will the Secretary of State finally make a decision on whether or not to call this in? It is too late now, isn’t it?

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Rachel Reeves and Greg Clark

Tuesday 13th March 2018 Commons Chamber

[Rachel Reeves (Leeds West) (Lab)]

The Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee has heard powerful evidence on why the Government should call in the Melrose bid for GKN on national security grounds, and the Secretary of State for Defence has written to the Business Secretary about the matter. Will the Business Secretary use his powers, before it is too late, to protect this great British engineering giant?

[Greg Clark]

I will look very carefully at the report of the Committee and that will be one of the pieces of evidence that I will seriously consider.

Domestic Gas and Electricity (Tariff Cap) Bill

Debate between Rachel Reeves and Greg Clark

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

[Greg Clark]

There already is a cap for those on prepayment meters, and that is being extended to some of those who are identified as the most vulnerable. The reason for this more general scope is that not everyone can be identified through the receipt of particular benefits—that does not comprise the whole population of those who are vulnerable—so the Bill proposes a backstop.

[Rachel Reeves (Leeds West) (Lab)]

I thank the Secretary of State for giving way and I welcome the Bill, which will do a great deal to reduce the energy prices paid by consumers. On the point about helping the most vulnerable customers, one issue that we have is that data about who those customers are is not shared with energy companies. The Cabinet Office already has a consultation on showing this data as part of the Digital Economy Act 2017, and the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy has announced another consultation. When will the Department get on and give the powers to enable the data to be shared, so that we can protect the most vulnerable customers?

[Greg Clark]

The hon. Lady makes a very important point. The statutory instrument that will allow that data sharing will be tabled shortly, before this Bill, which we hope will make rapid progress, receives Royal Assent. She is absolutely right.

I was explaining that the original RPI minus X model, which required annual reductions in prices by incumbents, was followed around the world, but with new developments in technology and practice, it is vital to keep our regulatory system up-to-date. In recent years, it has become more and more possible for suppliers to have extensive information on the habits and behaviour of individual consumers—often more information than the consumers know about their own habits, which are studied so minutely. Incumbent suppliers can identify which of their consumers do not respond to higher prices and instead display loyalty to what they might think of as a long-standing and trusted supplier. They can then penalise those customers with ever higher prices.

The CMA identified the problem and recommended that certain consumers, those on prepayment meters, should be protected from such pricing behaviour. It also recommended measures to drive up the rates of switching. The roll-out of smart meters in particular can make information that is currently only available to the incumbent supplier available to other potential suppliers, with the customer’s permission, which is what everyone wants to be able to drive up competition.

In its report, the CMA was in two minds about whether that action was sufficient, and a minority report thought that such remedies, including smart meters, would not come soon enough to eradicate this detriment quickly enough. The minority report said:

“The harm which is presently inflicted on households…is very severe…the remedies proposed for the large majority of households will take some time to come into effect. That is why…they must be supplemented by a wider price control designed to give household customers adequate and timely protection from very high current levels of overcharging”.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Rachel Reeves and Greg Clark

Tuesday 30th January 2018 Commons Chamber

[Greg Clark]

That is exactly the point that the businesses made. That is why I asked the banks to attend in person to meet those businesses, and it is why the banks gave those commitments and guarantees. It is important for Members with constituents who may be affected that the banks have made that commitment and have made a promise that they will deal individually with anyone who is so affected. The measures are on each bank’s website, but any colleague should come back to me if they experience a problem.

[Rachel Reeves (Leeds West) (Lab)]

This morning, at a joint Select Committee hearing on Carillion, we were told by the chief executive of the Financial Reporting Council that, before and after the collapse of BHS, he had asked for greater powers to regulate companies and take action before things go badly wrong. He told us that there was a lack of Government interest in making the necessary changes. In the light of the collapse of Carillion and the threat to thousands of jobs and suppliers in the supply chain, are the Government interested in taking action now?

[Greg Clark]

I do not agree with the hon. Lady. I engaged the FRC immediately, and it is very important that we and the FRC learn the lessons. We will apply whatever is appropriate that comes from those inquiries.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Rachel Reeves and Greg Clark

Tuesday 12th December 2017 Commons Chamber

[Greg Clark]

I am glad my hon. Friend mentions that, because the construction sector is one of the areas in which there are big opportunities. It has a sector deal that has been concluded as part of the industrial strategy, and representatives of the sector have said that this represents a major opportunity, especially in offsite manufacture.

[Rachel Reeves (Leeds West) (Lab)]

The Secretary of State has just touched on the sector deals the Government are agreeing with different sectors of the economy. Some of the sectors with the lowest productivity, such as retail, hospitality and social care, do not have a sector deal, yet if we close the productivity gap in those sectors, we will help boost productivity overall compared with our main competitors. What are the Government doing to secure sector deals in those sectors?

Industrial Strategy

Debate between Rachel Reeves and Greg Clark

Monday 27th November 2017 Commons Chamber

[Greg Clark]

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend, not least for her excellent work as a Minister in the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills in laying the foundations for this work, which is of benefit to every single part of the country. One of the mistakes that was made over many decades by successive Governments was not to recognise the importance of local economies in creating the right conditions for businesses to succeed. That is prominent in the strategy, and I know that she has been a particular champion of it.

[Rachel Reeves (Leeds West) (Lab)]

Industrial strategy, particularly in sectors such as the automotive sector, depends on a model of just-in-time delivery. One concern of that sector, in particular, is that things will be held up at ports if we leave the European Union and the customs union. What assurances can the Secretary of State give businesses that we will have frictionless as well as tariff-free trade after we leave the European Union? Without that, productivity will deteriorate even further.

[Greg Clark]

The hon. Lady is absolutely right about the importance of making sure that we can continue and, indeed, expand our trade, not just with the European Union but with the rest of the world. She is absolutely right that the model of the automotive sector and many other sectors requires the availability at very short notice of components and products. That is why it is very important that the deal that we negotiate should give us the ability to trade without tariffs and with the minimum of friction.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Rachel Reeves and Greg Clark

Tuesday 7th November 2017 Commons Chamber

[Greg Clark]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. The industry is aware of the firmness of our intention. It makes no sense to disrupt what has been a very successful relationship between this country and some of the home countries of those manufacturers: that is very clear in all our minds.

[Rachel Reeves (Leeds West) (Lab)]

Our successful car manufacturing sector exports nearly 1 million cars a year to the rest of the European Union. However, the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders has said:

“Brexit is the greatest challenge of our times”.

What is the Secretary of State doing to ensure that there are no costly tariffs or time-consuming customs checks in the sector after we leave the EU?

[Greg Clark]

We met the SMMT and all members of the sector to discuss every aspect of the challenges and opportunities ahead. The hon. Lady is of course right that Brexit is very much on the minds of every motor manufacturer, which is why the discussions we have had reinforced our commitment not only to secure a good deal at high level, but to make sure all the particular aspects for that industry are addressed. The industry was also enthusiastic about our clear commitment, with mounting enthusiasm being shown on the part of our partners, big and small, to invest in the future and to make sure that what makes Britain attractive as a place to locate continues to be so in the future.

Nuclear Safeguards Bill

Debate between Rachel Reeves and Greg Clark

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

[Greg Clark]

I will certainly make that commitment. One feature of the nuclear industry is that it is, appropriately, highly consultative. People from across the sector talk to each other. It is a community of experts and they take advice. We will certainly continue to do that.

The hon. Gentleman mentioned the Nuclear Industry Association, with which I have meetings and with which the Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, my hon. Friend the Member for Watford (Richard Harrington) meets regularly. The NIA has said clearly that the publication of the Bill

“is a necessary legislative step in giving responsibility for safeguards inspections to the UK regulator”.

I have been clear with the House that the Bill is a prudent and timely set of measures that does not prejudge the discussions we will have with Euratom. I regard it as a model of good order.

[Rachel Reeves (Leeds West) (Lab)]

rose—

[Greg Clark]

I give way to the Chair of the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee.

[Rachel Reeves]

The Secretary of State says that he speaks regularly to the experts in the sector and industry; can he give an example of anybody in the industry who would prefer the powers to be transferred to the ONR rather than for us to stay in Euratom? Is there anyone?

[Greg Clark]

The hon. Lady justifies what I said at the outset. The arrangements we have had with Euratom have been perfectly satisfactory, and we want to see maximum continuity. I hope she would agree, though, that it is necessary and prudent to take legislative steps so that if we are not able to conclude a satisfactory agreement—I do not expect that—we nevertheless have a world-class nuclear safeguarding regime. I would have thought she would welcome our doing that in good time and sensibly.

Bombardier

Debate between Rachel Reeves and Greg Clark

Tuesday 10th October 2017 Commons Chamber

[Greg Clark]

In my view, it underlines the importance of securing free trade not just with the European Union but around the world. The essence of a free trade agreement is that we have proper protections and dispute resolution mechanisms on which we can rely, so this issue underlines the importance of continuing free trade. As I say, it is not unusual in the aerospace sector for complaints to be made in one forum or another. I think all parties were expecting the initial determination to be as it was, and said as much. In terms of our work—we will not give up on this—we will fight to secure the legitimate future of this very important part of our aerospace sector, and we will do whatever it takes to do that.

[Rachel Reeves (Leeds West) (Lab)]

I join other hon. Members in saying that I hope this dispute is resolved as quickly as possible in the interests of everybody in Northern Ireland who works for Bombardier or in the supply chain. May I just pick up on a couple of points the Secretary of State made in his statement? First, he said that the Prime Minister had discussed the matter twice with President Trump to ask the US Government to do all they could to encourage Boeing to drop its complaint. While we welcome those sentiments, is the dispute not, in the end, with the US Government rather than Boeing, because it is up to the US Government, not Boeing, to impose sanctions? I hope the Prime Minister is also making that clear, and I just wanted some clarification on that point.

Secondly, the Secretary of State said he had

“travelled to Chicago to meet Boeing’s president and chief executive to make absolutely clear the impact”

on our future relationship with the company. Can he say a little more about what he has said to Boeing about that future relationship, which I am sure Boeing values, with our Government?

[Greg Clark]

I am grateful for the questions from the Chairman of the Select Committee. In terms of the process, only Boeing can withdraw the complaint. There is an administrative requirement on the part of the Department of Commerce to determine, initially, a complaint, hence the desire—and I think it is highly desirable—that Boeing withdraw this complaint. If it will not—and, so far, it has not—it must be determined in a completely fair and objective way. If it is, it will have no merit, and will be thrown out. Both are therefore important, but it would be in the interests of everyone in the workforce and in the country that the complaint be withdrawn so that this uncertainty can be taken away.

In terms of the points that I put to Dennis Muilenburg, who is the chief executive of Boeing, we were very clear that Boeing has a reputation in this country that was beginning to grow in a positive way through the investment in Sheffield and elsewhere, and to jeopardise that reputation and relationship by doing something that is completely unjustified is something that I do not regard as in the strategic interests of Boeing, and I said that very explicitly in terms.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Rachel Reeves and Greg Clark

Tuesday 27th June 2017 Commons Chamber

[Greg Clark]

My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. If he has the continued privilege to chair the Select Committee on Justice, I am sure that it will provide some help in this.

[Rachel Reeves (Leeds West) (Lab)]

Many businesses are particularly concerned about additional checks on trade imports and exports if we leave the customs union. Can the Secretary of State give businesses any reassurance at all that there will not be additional checks if and when we leave the customs union?

[Greg Clark]

I have always been clear, as have the Government, that we want not only no tariffs, but no bureaucratic impediments of the type described by the hon. Lady. That is one of the objectives set out by the business organisations. As she knows, the negotiations have just started, but we are clear that that is our objective.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rachel Reeves (Leeds West) (Lab)]

T1. If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

[The Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Greg Clark)]

As outlined in the Queen’s Speech, our industrial strategy will drive prosperity across the country, and in the past month we reached an important stage in that process. While we analyse the nearly 2,000 responses, we continue to make decisions that help UK-wide industries. We have announced £1 billion over the next four years for our most innovative industries, such as artificial intelligence, medicine, and autonomous vehicles. We have boosted investment in UK bioscience, such as by providing the University of Edinburgh’s Roslin Institute with some £20 million, which will not only support its research on infectious diseases but create more highly skilled jobs and cement the UK as a world leader in science and innovation.

[Rachel Reeves]

Energy security is essential for national security and for family finances. The essential Moorside energy project in Cumbria is key to such security, but with Toshiba now predicted to lose £7 billion and the French firm backing the project pulling out will the Secretary of State tell us if and when the project will go ahead and provide the assurances that industry, workers and consumers desperately need?

[Greg Clark]

We have inaugurated a new era of nuclear power through the approval of Hinkley Point C. The NuGen consortium, the membership of which has changed from time to time, is confident that that investment will be able to proceed.

Living Standards

Debate between Rachel Reeves and Greg Clark

Wednesday 4th September 2013 Commons Chamber

[Rachel Reeves]

It is interesting that the interventions from Opposition Members refer to the challenges their constituents face owing to falling living standards. It is a shame that hon. Members on the other side of the House want to talk about anything but that.

I would like to talk about a family I met this week. On my first day back from maternity leave, I visited a family in Thurrock who told me what they were up against. The father, once a partner in a thriving small business, lost his livelihood three years ago during the recession. Desperately trying to keep up their mortgage repayments, he has spent the past three years taking whatever work he could get through employment agencies, often on the minimum wage and often on zero-hours contracts. He recently found a permanent job as a driver which, topped up with evening shifts doing deliveries, gives the family a bit more security, but it falls far short of making full use of his talents and experience.

The wife abandoned her dream of training to be a primary school teacher so that she could hold on to her relatively secure but modestly paid job in retail. Their daughter is studying for university and should do well, but she worries about fees. All of them pointed to a gaping and growing disconnect between their rates of pay and the costs they face for travel, housing and other basic necessities. Under this Government, the situation is getting worse for such families—families who want to get on in life.

[The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Greg Clark)]

It is possible that the hon. Lady has said something significant: that the Labour party has dropped its commitment to the temporary VAT cut. Given that as recently as June the shadow Chancellor said that he was committed to it, what has happened since then to cause it to be dropped?

[Rachel Reeves]

The shadow Chancellor said in his conference speech two years ago that VAT should be reduced from 20% to 17.5% as an emergency measure to stimulate the economy. The reality is that since then the economy has flatlined and we have continued to argue for that, but he has also said that as the economy slowly begins to move into recovery mode—we hope that the growth over the past two quarters will continue—the emphasis should move to infrastructure investment. Were we in government today, our priority would be the £10 billion of infrastructure investment that the International Monetary Fund has called for.

Infrastructure

Debate between Rachel Reeves and Greg Clark

Tuesday 12th February 2013 Commons Chamber

[The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Greg Clark)]

I beg to move an amendment, to leave out from “House” to the end of the Question and add:

“notes that the previous administration’s final Budget planned to cut capital investment by 6 per cent more than this Government’s latest plans, in the period 2010 to 2014; further notes that this Government has increased capital plans by £20 billion at the Spending Review and at the last two Autumn Statements, by taking tough but necessary decisions to cut current spending, with a result that public investment as a share of GDP will be higher on average over this Parliament than it was under the previous administration; further notes that this Government announced £5.5 billion of extra infrastructure investment in the last Autumn Statement, including £1.5 billion for roads, £1 billion for new schools, £900 million for science and £1.8 billion for housing and local infrastructure; further notes that it has supported the largest investment in the railways since Victorian times under the High Level Output Specification; further notes that no national infrastructure plan existed under the previous administration whereas this Government has set out for the first time a multi-year long-term strategy for the UK’s infrastructure, with over 50 per cent of the Government’s top 40 projects and programmes due to be in construction, procurement or completed by the end of 2014-15; and believes that sweeping away red tape and developing new finance initiatives such as the UK Guarantees Scheme will also support up to £40 billion of extra important projects”.

I listened attentively to the hon. Member for Leeds West (Rachel Reeves), but there is little that can be said by Labour Members that should not start with an apology. Infrastructure, more than most issues, is an area of policy in which the present is haunted by the decisions of the past. By their very nature, major infrastructure projects must be planned years in advance, capital spending budgets must be allocated years in advance and private sector investment must be secured years in advance. All those things require a Government who can look ahead, anticipate the needs of the future, and make the necessary decisions in a timely fashion.

[Rachel Reeves]

Plans do need to be made for the future, so why did the Government cancel the building of 715 schools under the Building Schools for the Future scheme when they came to power?

[Greg Clark]

I should have thought that in two and a half years the hon. Lady would have learned the lesson from that. The deficit that Labour was running was greater than the deficit in any other G7 country. We needed to sort that out, and to create confidence in our economy. If Labour Members have not learned the lesson after two and a half years, what hope is there for the future?

The economic arguments advanced from the Opposition Benches sometimes purport to draw on the wisdom of John Maynard Keynes, but Keynes recommended that Governments should run a surplus in the good times, enabling spending, especially on infrastructure, to take place in the lean years.

Income Tax

Debate between Rachel Reeves and Greg Clark

Wednesday 28th November 2012 Commons Chamber

[The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Greg Clark)]

It is a pleasure to respond to this debate, not least because of the maiden speech made with such distinction by the hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty), whom I warmly welcome to the House. He spoke in a way that was assured and fluent and with a degree of geniality that I think will make him many friends throughout the House. I have one issue of contention with him. He outed himself as a fan of Cardiff City and, since they are locked in a promotion battle with my hometown club of Middlesbrough, that will be a point of disagreement between us during the weeks and months ahead.

Call me naive, but I had hoped that, during an Opposition day debate, we might have heard something—anything—about the Opposition’s policy, but sadly it was not to be. At the end of this debate, their economic policy is, if possible, even more obscure than it was at the beginning. There are four fundamental matters crucial to this debate that both shadow Ministers—the hon. Members for Leeds West (Rachel Reeves) and for Newcastle upon Tyne North (Catherine McKinnell)—failed to address.

The first could not be more basic. What do the Opposition believe to be the purpose of the 50p rate of income tax? Is it to raise revenue, to punish the rich, as the right hon. Member for Oldham West and Royton (Mr Meacher) has said, or to serve as a piece of rhetoric? We need to know, because if the Opposition are clear that its purpose is to raise money, will the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North say—she is welcome to intervene—whether they will drop their support for the 50p rate if the evidence continues to support our assessment and those of HMRC and the OBR that it raised very little indeed and would be likely to cost the public purse even more? Will she be clear—is the argument that the rate raises money the criterion for the Opposition’s support for it, or is it a price worth paying just to send a message that they want to soak the rich?

Secondly, do the Opposition accept, in the words of HMRC, that

“high tax rates in the UK make its tax system less competitive and make it a less attractive place to start, finance and grow a business”?

Do they accept HMRC’s assessment that high taxes are bad for the international standing of the country? I would be pleased to take an intervention from the hon. Lady. My hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin (Mark Pritchard) asked the shadow Chief Secretary whether she subscribed to that view, and she could not answer. Is tax competitiveness important to the Opposition? We do not know. In their view, does it matter if the UK has the highest tax rate in the G20? Is that a concern or not? Does it make a difference to British competitiveness? The last time the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Owen Smith) was asked he said, “I don’t know.”

The third issue is whether the Opposition agree with the former Chancellor, the right hon. Member for Edinburgh South West (Mr Darling), who said that this measure should be only temporary. We have had no clarity on that from Opposition Front Benchers.

The fourth matter that the Opposition need to consider, given that they regard this tax as being so crucial—so totemic—that they wanted to call this debate about it, is whether they will send a clear message that they would restore it if they came to power. Again, we have silence. Let us bear in mind that we are now in the second half of the Parliament, and the time for posturing and procrastination is over. The time has come for the Opposition to tell the country what they would do in government—or do they simply not have the courage to face up to the need to be straight with the British people? I strongly suspect that this will be one of the last occasions when we debate the 50p tax rate as it gets shuffled off to the retirement home of meaningless gestures that the Opposition no longer have time and use for.

Labour is, to its core, the party of tax and spend, and, to be fair, it takes a very consistent view of both sides of the equation. With regard to spending, it is always a matter of “How much?” and not “To what end?”—of inputs, not outcomes; of the number in the headline on the press release, not what is achieved with the money. On taxation, too, for Labour it is all about the price tag—the headline rate, not the revenue actually raised, nor, indeed, the amount of tax that the wealthy actually pay. The top rate of tax paid by the rich in all but the last month of the previous Government was lower than what they pay now. The top 1% of earners now contribute over 27% of income tax revenue—far more than they did under Labour—and the effect of this year’s Budget is to take from the richest five times what they gave through the reduction of the 50% rate.

Of course, the tax system that we inherited from the previous Government was a mess—a typically socialist tangle of tripwires and loopholes which, as my hon. Friend the Exchequer Secretary made clear, we are taking action to close. Too much of the money made under the previous Government was in keeping with the ethos of the previous Government—short term, reckless and unsustainable; the boom before the bust. In future, if there is money to be made it will be done in the responsible way, through real enterprise and real innovation. As we seek to rebuild a productive economy on the ruins of Labour’s cardboard economy, this is the worst time to punish the producers, innovators and entrepreneurs on whom our future depends.

[Rachel Reeves]

If the Government are doing so well on the economy, why has it shrunk over the past year, and why is Government borrowing now rising, not falling?

[Greg Clark]

The hon. Lady will be aware that the record structural deficit in the G7 bequeathed by the previous Government has been paid down by a quarter.

As we seek to rebuild our productive economy, Labour Members know all about the power of the headline figure—that is why they have made such big play of the top rate of income tax. It is interesting that the shadow Minister was more familiar with the opinion polls than with the cost of this measure to the economy. If they think that it plays well to the gallery, then how do they think it plays to those who might or might not want to invest in this country, and who might create the new private sector jobs that a financially exhausted public sector can no longer pay for?

For our part, we want to create an economy in which those who prosper most are those who are best at creating wealth for all. That will require moderate tax rates, properly enforced, and the long, hard slog of tax reform and simplification. As in so much else, we have chosen the difficult path but the right one. Today’s debate provides further proof that Labour has made the opposite choice. As always, the politics are cheap but the consequences would cost our country dear.

Question put (Standing Order No. 31(2)), That the original words stand part of the Question.