Oral Answers to Questions

Rebecca Long Bailey Excerpts

Tuesday 7th November 2017 Commons Chamber

[Rebecca Long Bailey (Salford and Eccles) (Lab)]

Last week, the Secretary of State repeatedly refused to confirm, when pressed by the Select Committee, that the energy price cap would be in place by next winter. Media reports have also suggested that the Government have already told energy investors that the draft legislation will be ditched if they feel the big six power firms are doing enough to tackle high bills. I therefore ask the Secretary of State, in the hope he will today provide a clear answer, whether the energy price cap will be in place by the winter of 2018 and, if not, whether the media reports are true that there is actually no intention of introducing price cap legislation?

[Greg Clark]

I can assure the hon. Lady that there is every intention of introducing a price cap, and there is consensus in the House around that. We have published a Bill and it is being scrutinised by the Select Committee. As soon as it has finished that scrutiny, we will look for an opportunity to introduce it to the House.

[Rebecca Long Bailey]

I am afraid that answer simply created even more ambiguity, so let us try a different topic. The Government scheme to deal with the social care back-payment announced on 1 November has been cited as “inadequate” by many care businesses and organisations, as it does not address the fact that many providers simply cannot afford to pay due to funding cuts, and some workers will not be paid what they are duly owed until 31 March 2019. Mencap has stated that many providers will be reluctant to take part in the scheme as they feel they will be

“writing their own suicide note”.

Therefore, I ask the Secretary of State: will the Government commit the necessary funding in the Budget to avert a crisis in the care sector, which could see many businesses struggle to survive, impacting on already fragile care services, and leave thousands of care staff without the wages they are owed?

[Greg Clark]

As the Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, my hon. Friend the Member for Stourbridge (Margot James), has made clear, and as I believe the hon. Lady knows, this is a difficult and complex issue. We completely accept the need for confidence among the providers of care to some of the most vulnerable people in society, while recognising the legitimate claim, which has been upheld by the courts, of those who have worked in that sector. Bringing those two things together requires precision and care, so that this is robust and does not create further uncertainty if it were found not to be legally possible to advance it. That is why the interim proposal has been made, but I am happy to keep the hon. Lady informed.

Smart Meters Bill

Rebecca Long Bailey Excerpts

2nd reading: House of Commons & Money resolution: House of Commons & Programme motion: House of Commons & Ways and Means resolution: House of Commons
Tuesday 24th October 2017 Commons Chamber

[Rebecca Long Bailey (Salford and Eccles) (Lab)]

The Secretary of State has articulately outlined the provisions of the Bill, so I will not detain the House for too long on its detail. Essentially, the Bill has two purposes: first, to extend the powers the Government have to implement and direct the roll-out of smart meters from 2018 to 2023; and, secondly, to establish a special administration regime for the national smart meter communication and data service provider—the DCC—in the event of its insolvency. The Opposition are not opposed to those measures in principle and will support the Bill today, but we do have a number of concerns about some of its specific provisions and about the smart meter programme overall.

Clause 1 extends the powers of the Secretary of State in relation to smart metering from 1 November 2018 to 1 November 2023. As the explanatory notes state, this is

“so he has the ability to intervene where required to drive the timely completion of the rollout of smart meters by end 2020”.

Extending the time in which the Secretary of State can intervene to ensure timely completion to three years beyond the planned completion date is something of a paradox, but I would not be at all surprised if that was the true intention because, as of June this year, only 7.7 million smart meters had been installed at homes and businesses.

The Government are committed to the installation of an energy smart meter for all domestic and non-domestic customers by the end of 2020—that is 53 million gas and electricity meters at 30 million domestic and small and non-domestic properties. We are almost two years out from the deadline, but there are an awful lot of installations to do—millions, in fact. It is true that the pace of installation has increased in the last two years by over 288%, and that is fantastic, but as research by the Centre on Innovation and Energy Demand at the University of Sussex suggests, meeting the deadline would require 40,000 gas and electricity meters to be installed each day, even on present projections. However, as installation is voluntary, the roll-out thus far has arguably been hindered by poor public awareness, and we have heard comments from hon. Members about that already.

Many would also suggest that there is an obvious lack of consumer confidence in the possible benefits of smart meters. In fact, the Government’s public attitudes tracking survey recently found that 56% of a sample did not have smart meters installed, while a further 18% had never heard of them. I will pre-empt what the Minster might say in his response: the engagement body Smart Energy GB found that 97% of the population are aware of smart meters. If that is indeed true, despite the figures in the Government’s own tracker, why are not more people having smart meters installed?

[Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)]

Does the hon. Lady agree that of those people who have had smart meters installed, 80% welcome them and would recommend them strongly to a friend or family member?

[Rebecca Long Bailey]

The hon. Lady makes an interesting point. I am sure that those who have had the meters installed are perfectly happy with them. However, my point is that there does not seem to be sufficient public awareness. Given the scale of installations required, a big push from the Government and energy suppliers will be needed to achieve that objective.

[Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)]

One issue that has been raised by my constituents who are wary of the installation of smart meters is that they are unsure whether, if they change suppliers in the future, they would have to bear the cost of their smart meters being replaced by the new supplier. Does my hon. Friend agree that it would be useful to be able to give consumers very strong assurances on that point?

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. I remind Members, to help them with their speeches, that after the current speech I will introduce an eight-minute limit.

[Rebecca Long Bailey]

My hon. Friend makes a fantastic point. Perhaps the Minister can confirm how the Government plan to expand public awareness about this. Beyond the availability and the benefits of smart meters, it is imperative to explain the benefits of the data they collect, as well as how consumers can access and use those data to bring their energy bills down.

We have already heard comments about data. I draw to the Minister’s attention the fact that Smart Consumer Alliance has highlighted to me that its research shows that

“several consumers in the UK have contacted their energy suppliers to securely interface to the data provided by the home area network functionality of their smart meter, but…in all cases this has been unsuccessful because energy suppliers often block connection to the meters, quoting technical difficulties and other issues”.

Those consumer requests were professionally assisted by academics and technology innovators in the UK with devices that are certified under the UK smart metering standard. As the Minister and the Secretary of State are aware, this data is very useful for research, enabling market competition through accurate tariff and supplier switching, intelligent heating systems, and consumer education and guidance in energy efficiency, as well as many future innovations in home energy management. However, despite the fact that consumers are struggling to access their own data, it is thought that these devices are being routinely used by the energy companies for their own data collection purposes.

On the design of the smart metering regulation and standards, as well as the justification for the cost of smart meters, the House is aware that consumer benefit was at the fore in discussions before implementing the roll-out. Indeed, at condition 49.4 of the energy supplier licence, there is the obligation to support, free of charge, requests for data. The amount of data collected by smart meters is enormous, and has a significant value for customers and those with whom they choose to share the data. It would therefore be encouraging to hear from the Minster what plans he has, in the light of the concerns I have raised, to ensure that consumers have unimpeded access to the data to which they are entitled.

I turn now to the second part of the Bill, on the special administration regime. Given the centrality of the DCC to the successful working of the smart meter system, it is clear that we need a plan in the event of its insolvency. I am therefore concerned by clause 7. As the explanatory notes summarise, the clause includes provision

“requiring the holder of the licence to raise the charges imposed on its customers or users so as to raise such amounts as may be determined by the Secretary of State and to pay the amounts raised to specified persons for the purpose of making good a shortfall in the property of a smart meter communication licensee available to meet the expenses of smart meter communication licensee administration.”

They go on to state:

“This will allow the costs of smart meter communication licensee administration to be recouped via the licence mechanism from the industry.”

The DCC is a wholly owned subsidiary of Capita plc, to which the task of providing all the communications and infrastructure for the operation of smart meters has been outsourced. However, it is not clear from the Bill or the explanatory notes why, in the event of this wholly owned subsidiary of Capita going into administration, customers and users, per se, should foot the bill, especially when they have already suffered the cost of the smart meter roll-out in their energy bills.

The Select Committee on Science and Technology estimated that the total consumer benefits of smart meters amount to more than £5 billion from energy saving and microgeneration. However, the benefits for suppliers, which include the big six energy companies and others, total £8 billion. Despite that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test (Dr Whitehead) has said to the Government, customers are estimated to pay somewhere between £130 and £200 on their bills to enable suppliers to recover the installation cost of a smart meter. In fact, when two of the big six energy companies announced price rises in February, they stated that a substantial element of the 10% increase resulted from the smart meter policy. The Government responded that they would monitor the extent to which costs were passed on to customers and intervene to make sure that customers saw the benefits.

When he sums up, will the Minister confirm what recent assessment he has made of the costs that consumers face for smart meter installation? Can he still provide evidence of a clear long-term average energy bill saving for smart meter consumers, despite the sum for installation cost recovery? What assessment has the Minister made of the possible costs involved in making good any shortfall in the property of a smart meter communication licensee that is available to meet the expenses of such a licencee’s administration? I appreciate that that is a hypothetical question and the answer is difficult to quantify, but if he has not assessed that or attempted to do so, will he confirm whether he has considered setting a limit on the cost that can be passed on to consumers? What safeguards will he put in place to protect consumers against an unfair increase in their energy bills as a result of administration expenses? Why do the costs seem to be borne by customers or users alone? Has he considered levying the recovery of such costs on any other entities that might benefit from smart meter data collection? If not, what is his rationale for not looking at those other entities?

The Minister will no doubt realise that there is invariably a risk that consumers who have smart meters installed could face an increase, rather than a reduction, in their energy bills. It would be helpful if he could provide clear assurances on that matter. Although an insolvency situation is extremely unlikely, if smart meter consumers have hanging over them the possibility that they will have to write a blank cheque for administration costs, many people will be deterred from participating in a smart roll-out.

[Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on her support for the Bill and the points that she has raised. A concern that has been raised with me is that a huge number of old-style meters are ending up in landfill. There is no need for that, because they still have value in many export markets. An enterprising company in my constituency, Meter Provida, has taken on the role of getting the old-style meters checked out and sold as exports. May I encourage my hon. Friend to put pressure on the Government during the passage of the Bill to consider enforcing compliance with the waste electrical and electronic equipment directives by companies that have old-style meters to ensure that more of them are reused?

[Rebecca Long Bailey]

My hon. Friend makes a valid point, and that is certainly something that the Opposition will take forward. It would be interesting if the Minister elaborated on the Secretary of State’s comments about the updating of SMETS 1. What will it entail, and when will it occur?

The Opposition have been clear about our concern that customers are paying for the roll-out. I fear that without adequate safeguards in the Bill, consumers may end up footing the bill for any mismanagement of the data collection regime resulting from insolvency. If that is the case, the Minister must understand the risk that this will be another example of consumer interests being shunted to one side in favour of others.

Only recently, the Government promised to knock £100 off the bills of 17 million households, but that promise is yet to be delivered on. Admittedly, following pressure, the Secretary of State came back with a legislative proposal a couple of weeks ago, but I am extremely concerned about media reports that surfaced at the weekend in which internal Government sources indicated that they might not implement the draft Bill at all. Indeed, we learned that the Government have allegedly already told energy investors that the Prime Minister’s draft Bill would be ditched if they felt that the big six power firms were doing enough to tackle high bills, and this approach has now also been confirmed by civil servants.

For the avoidance of doubt, will the Minister confirm in his summing up whether these assertions are true? If they are not, will he assure the House that no matter what pressure he, or indeed the Secretary of State, faces to shelve the energy price cap, the draft Domestic Gas and Electricity (Tariff Cap) Bill will be brought before this House and passed as urgently as possible?

International Investment

Rebecca Long Bailey Excerpts

Tuesday 17th October 2017 Commons Chamber

[Rebecca Long Bailey (Salford and Eccles) (Lab)]

The news that Bombardier and Airbus will be forming a partnership will be welcome to the thousands of Airbus and Bombardier staff who are employed in the United Kingdom, but can the Secretary of State confirm that he has received unequivocal assurances from Airbus and Bombardier about the security of UK jobs in the long term? The pairing of two cutting-edge product lines is very exciting for the future of aerospace manufacturing, but it should not be an excuse for the Government to diminish their efforts to ensure that the unfair tariffs imposed in the United States are dropped. Will the Secretary of State give more details about the further action that he proposes to take? For example, has he written to the European Commission?

Britain clearly wants to be open to investment, despite reports that the Office for National Statistics is revising its investment position downwards. However, it would be naive to allow key businesses to be at risk from people who have no interest in the long-term success of a business, its workers and its pensioners, or in the long-term interests of the British economy.

Today’s proposals are welcome, but I have some concerns. First, I am concerned about the delay in the presenting of the proposals. In the last year or so, we have seen mergers that have called into question the adequacy of our merger regime to defend vital economic interests: jobs, research and development, and the significance of the company involved to the supply chain, to name but a few. For instance, our biggest chip manufacturer, ARM, was sold to Japan’s SoftBank. ARM is one of the jewels in our crown, developing cutting-edge chip design and generating thousands of jobs, yet there was no guarantee that R and D—or investment, or jobs—would be protected in the long run. The best that our takeover regime could generate was post-offer undertakings by SoftBank for five years on some of those issues.

That is not an isolated example in the high-tech world. The UK firm Imagination Technologies was sold to Canyon Bridge just a few weeks ago, and our automobile sector has also witnessed the shortcomings of the takeover regime. PSA’s purchase of Opel and Vauxhall raised concerns about jobs and investment. Yet again, our takeover regime was unable to guarantee that those things would be protected, and this week we have heard about the risk of voluntary redundancies. My first question to the Secretary of State is this: why did it take so long, given the manifest deficiencies in the regime to which we drew his attention earlier this year?

My second concern relates to the inadequacy of the proposals. They seem to lower the threshold tests that must take place before the competition authorities and the Government can scrutinise a merger. However, those lower tests apply only to the dual-use and military sector, and to companies that are involved in the design of computer chips and quantum technology. But there are other high-technology sectors that are also in need of the same protections, including life sciences, and food, chemical and automobile manufacturing, to name but a few on a very long list of sectors and business areas that are systemically important to UK plc. These powers would have given no assurances to companies like Unilever, for example, who might try to resist a takeover and have been calling for better safeguards in the takeover regime overall.

Similarly, it is not clear how these powers would have helped in many of the cases I have mentioned where they potentially do apply. Indeed, this morning when the Secretary of State was asked whether these powers would have altered the takeover of ARM, he stated that the turnover of that firm already qualified for scrutiny so this would have made no difference.

So, finally, does the Secretary of State agree that his proposals, while welcome, on the thresholds in particular, fail to protect companies that still fall within them, and will he confirm what further action he proposes to take, because action is desperately needed?

[Greg Clark]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her response and questions. On Bombardier, I am grateful for her recognition—which I hope and think is shared across the House and certainly in Northern Ireland—that this is a very positive step forward. I have been very clear that we will continue to seek to strike out and resolve the trade dispute that has been brought by Boeing. Given what we have been doing during the weeks since the initial complaint was made, I do not think anyone could accuse the Government of being anything other than full-hearted in our attempts to resolve this, and our efforts, with our Canadian Government counterparts, to find a secure source of guarantees for Belfast have been widely welcomed this morning.

In terms of the assurances given, Bombardier and Airbus have clearly said they regard the Belfast wing operation as foundational. They expect to expand the production, which means good prospects for those jobs in Northern Ireland and the supply chain across the United Kingdom. That is extremely good news. We will continue to pursue to the point of resolution the trade dispute. The hon. Lady asked about the European Commissioner: my right hon. Friend the International Trade Secretary has discussed this personally with the European Commissioner for Trade. We will leave no stone unturned in seeking a resolution of this dispute.

On the proposals in the Green Paper on international investment, I would have thought the hon. Lady should welcome the fact that we continue to be the third-biggest destination in the world for overseas investment. One of the major strengths of our economy is that we have a reputation for dependability and openness, and it is important that we preserve that while upgrading our systems of scrutiny to make sure that the national interest is protected, particularly in the case of national security. In saying that, I note that the hon. Lady suggests that there has been some delay in so doing, but the changes we are making were changes that were not made during 13 years when the Labour party had the chance to address these matters. I hope she will respond to the consultation and welcome it.

It is right that the threshold should be dropped in order to admit small companies: everyone knows that as technology develops, smaller companies can have a critical role to play in producing products that are part of a wider system. It is right to have that degree of scrutiny. But when the hon. Lady reads the Green Paper she will see that, in addition to those initial changes, we are consulting on whether there should be a wider set of powers to require the mandatory notification of mergers in other sectors of the economy, and we make some proposals around that. It is right to consult on that, but it would not be right for every single transaction in the economy to be required to go through an administrative process when it does not pose a threat to our national interest. That is the purpose of the consultation, and I hope she will welcome it.

The hon. Lady raises the question of Unilever. One of the features of the proposed takeover of Unilever was that the company—correctly, in my view—did not feel it had the time to prepare a proper defence of itself, given the current takeover rules. Following conversations that we have had, the Takeover Panel is proposing a more substantial period in which, at the request of the target company, it will have longer to prepare that defence. That will be welcomed across the economy. This is a consultation by the Takeover Panel so we will wait for that to conclude, but I have welcomed it as a positive step forward.

Nuclear Safeguards Bill

Rebecca Long Bailey Excerpts

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

[Rebecca Long Bailey (Salford and Eccles) (Lab)]

As the Secretary of State has outlined, this Bill will provide the legal framework for establishing a domestic nuclear safeguards regime. Nuclear safeguards are essential obligations to ensure that work and materials for civil nuclear do not get transposed into work or preparations for military nuclear, and that is done under the umbrella of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. Arguably, the UK already has a perfectly good set of nuclear safeguards through its membership of Euratom, so why is the Bill needed?

The Bill is a contingency measure, as the Secretary of State has helpfully illustrated. If we are to leave Euratom, and if there is no associate membership that gives us continued nuclear safeguarding provisions, we will need to put in place a new system of safeguarding, and that needs to be to the satisfaction of the International Atomic Energy Authority. Now that takes us into rather strange territory: we have not yet left Euratom; it is not clear whether we have to leave Euratom; the House has not agreed that we should leave Euratom; and we have not put in place any parliamentary procedure for agreeing that we should leave Euratom. In effect, the Bill is based wholly on the declaration that the Prime Minister made in her letter to the EU informing it that we were going to invoke article 50—

[Greg Clark]

Is the hon. Lady saying that it is wrong for this House and this Government to prepare, in a prudent and orderly way, to maintain the excellent safeguards that we have? Is she somehow criticising that preparedness?

[Rebecca Long Bailey]

Clearly, the Secretary of State was not listening to what I was saying. If he displays some patience, he will hear a bit more about my thoughts on the Bill’s contents.

Euratom was agreed to as a body and a treaty before the EU treaty came about, and to that extent it is, arguably, separate from the actual formation and operation of the EU. That of course is the subject of fierce legal debate. It is true that its disputes mechanism does involve the European Court of Justice, and its terms include the free movement of scientists but those are specifically applied to civil nuclear activities and do not stray on to a wider canvas. Subject to legal debate, it certainly may have been possible—

[Albert Owen (Ynys Môn) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is right that it is debateable whether, legally, we have to leave Euratom. Would it not be helpful if the Secretary of State published the legal advice that he has obtained? As a member of the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee, I have heard a number of experts saying a number of things about this very matter.

[Rebecca Long Bailey]

It certainly would be helpful for the House to hear about the discussions that have been taking place between the Government’s legal advisers and the Government. The Library has helpfully provided a number of solicitors who have disputed the point that the Secretary of State puts forward. There is legal discourse going on that disputes the fact that Euratom and the EU are intrinsically linked.

[John Redwood]

Does the hon. Lady remember the long debates on the article 50 letter and the legislation to approve it? It was made very clear in those debates that we would probably have to leave Euratom at the same time and that we would therefore plan on that basis. She and many of her right hon. and hon. Friends voted for the European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Bill knowing that.

[Rebecca Long Bailey]

I earlier urged the Secretary of State to display a little bit of patience. If the right hon. Member for Wokingham (John Redwood) did the same, he might hear some of the answers he requires in the remainder of my contribution.

Subject to legal debate, it certainly may have been possible—had the Prime Minister not taken the unnecessary step of specifically including Euratom in her letter to the Commission—to retain the UK’s membership of Euratom. At worst, we could have secured a close association with Euratom that was good enough to allow the continuation of nuclear safeguarding within that amended framework.

The Opposition believe that continued membership of Euratom or a close associated status with it is possible and necessary for the efficient, continued working of a whole raft of procedures relating to the nuclear industry, not just safeguarding. We see this procedure of starting to set up identical but separate processes, instead of a relationship with Euratom, very much as a last resort or a back-up measure. We are frankly disappointed that the Government seem to be putting rather more effort into this than into seeking to maintain an arrangement with a body that does all this perfectly well, although the effort put into this Bill is also questionable. I will come to that in due course.

[Gareth Johnson (Dartford) (Con)]

Is the hon. Lady aware that the European Commission itself has said that no country that leaves the EU can continue being a member of Euratom? Is the Commission wrong?

[Rebecca Long Bailey]

The hon. Gentleman would do well to keep up. I have mentioned several times that there is a current legal discourse regarding this very issue. Perhaps he should refer to that.

[Robert Neill]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Rebecca Long Bailey]

I will just make some progress, if I may.

We have to be clear that the measures set out in the Bill are just a part of the process of disentangling ourselves from Euratom and replacing its provisions with satisfactory alternatives that allow the UK’s nuclear industry to continue working smoothly in conjunction with its international partners and not to face a cliff edge of uncertainty. Indeed, the position paper on the nuclear industry issued by the UK Government in the spring of this year lists a number of key activities of Euratom that are not covered by the nuclear safeguarding issue, but which are essential to place into a UK legislative framework if a tenable regime for nuclear power in the UK is to be created before Brexit.

One example is that we will need to reach an agreement on the international supply chain for nuclear reactors. Without such an arrangement in place, it is possible that the existing nuclear power stations such a Sizewell B will be forced to close until such time as the agreement is sorted out. The UK will need to conclude individual and separate nuclear co-operation agreements with non-EU countries such as Australia, Canada, Japan, South Africa, Kazakhstan, the United States of America and others. We will need to agree new inspections with the IAEA. The status of supply chains such as nuclear isotopes for medical treatment will need to be maintained, supplied by reactors in EU countries. There is the issue of research in nuclear technology including, importantly, the fusion research carried out at the Joint European Torus facility in Culham, which the Secretary of State has already mentioned. These are all at serious risk if a fully worked-out series of agreements is not in place to allow these activities continuous operation. Working out a way to honour our safeguarding commitments under the nuclear non-proliferation treaty is only the start of the process and we should not delude ourselves that achievement of that solves the Euratom issue. It does not.

[Mike Wood (Dudley South) (Con)]

The hon. Lady’s position seems to be that there is legal uncertainty about whether it is necessary for the UK to leave Euratom and that we should have left the issue until further in the negotiations, finding out whether we were leaving later on in the process. Would that not have just left rather less time to prepare if we did have to leave?

[Rebecca Long Bailey]

The point I am making is that there is legal uncertainty. Sadly, the Prime Minister firmly closed the door on the Euratom position, when it could have been left open. We could have passed this Bill through Parliament while questioning whether the legal position on Euratom membership was as the Commission states.

[Mr Duncan Smith]

rose—

[Tom Pursglove (Corby) (Con)]

rose—

[Rebecca Long Bailey]

I will make some progress, if I may.

The Government stated in their notes on the Queen’s Speech that the Bill to be introduced on the future of safeguarding would also

“protect UK electricity supplied by nuclear power”.

This Bill clearly does not do that, which is perhaps why that claim has been dropped from the description of the Bill. But the challenge centrally remains, and it is likely that another Bill will be necessary to protect that electricity in its entirety. Will the Minister confirm when that legislation will be introduced?

Let us assume for the time being that maintaining membership of Euratom is not possible—by far the worst case scenario. How have the Government chosen to implement their limited stab at replacing the nuclear safeguarding regime? Well, they have chosen to do so by giving the Secretary of State all the power to make the changes. The Bill contains powers for the Secretary of State, by order, to provide all the detail and fill in the dots of the legislative changes without further meaningful recourse to the Floor of the House.

Clause 1 will give the Secretary of State powers to introduce substantial amendments to the UK’s safeguarding procedures and give effect to international agreements that are yet even to begin being negotiated without any further primary legislation. Furthermore, the Secretary of State will be given the power—also by order—to amend retrospectively, and without further meaningful recourse to the Floor of the House, no fewer than three pieces of existing legislation. Not only that, but he will have the power to amend those pieces of legislation, as the Government acknowledge in their explanatory notes accompanying the Bill, based on the outcome of negotiations with the International Atomic Energy Agency that the Government accept are not complete.

We have to take on trust that the negotiation with the IAEA to which Parliament will not be a party will proceed satisfactorily, and that the Secretary of State, in his infinite wisdom, will table the necessary amendments to primary and secondary legislation that will give effect to those agreements, whatever they are. While I am on this point, will the Secretary of State confirm the progress of such agreements and negotiations, and provide details?

[Greg Clark]

I hope the hon. Lady will be reassured if she actually reads the Bill. It is clear that the power to amend the legislation that she pointed out—I hope that she can see what I am pointing out—is limited to

“consequential, supplementary or incidental provision…transitional, transitory or saving provision.”

It is not a general power. It is intended to ensure that the transposition of one set of regulations to another can be made efficiently.

[Rebecca Long Bailey]

Let me take the Secretary of State on a little journey. If he listens carefully, he might see how dangerous the scope of certain parts of the Bill might be. The explanatory notes indicate that regulations under clause 1 will be subject to the affirmative procedure only “on first use”. It would be helpful if he confirmed that that wording is actually a terrible mistake, that he does not actually mean it and that, at the very least, all legislation on the domestic safeguarding regime will be subject to the affirmative procedure.

I would never cast aspersions on the Secretary of State, but, unfortunately, his ministerial colleagues have shown that they are prepared to use their delegated powers not just to avoid parliamentary scrutiny, but arguably to legislate in open defiance of the House. In particular, I refer to the recent rise in university tuition fees. The original Act allowed any statutory instrument raising the limit to be annulled by either House. Unfortunately, the Government first prevented any vote whatever, and then refused to accept the vote of the House against the regulations. In effect, they used secondary legislation to rule by ministerial decree. They tabled the regulations the day before Christmas recess and the Opposition tabled a prayer against them on the first sitting day after that. But, despite the conventions of the House, the Government dragged their feet for months until eventually conceding the point and scheduling a debate on 18 April. Of course, the Prime Minister dissolved Parliament before that vote could be held. After the election, the new Leader of the House said that there were “no plans” to allow time for the vote that her predecessor had solemnly promised from the Dispatch Box. It was left to my hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner) to secure parliamentary time under the rules of Standing Order No. 24. In that debate, the Minister for Universities, Science, Research and Innovation tried to deny that any vote had been secured, leading Mr Speaker to intervene and tell the House:

“I had thought there was an expectation of a debate and a vote, and that the Opposition had done what was necessary”.—[Official Report, 19 July 2017; Vol. 627, c. 895-6.]

[Tom Pursglove]

To return to the substance of the Bill, which is about contingency, will the hon. Lady confirm that at 10 o’clock tonight the Opposition will vote against that contingency?

--- Later in debate ---

[Rebecca Long Bailey]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question, but we are talking about very important arguments regarding the machinery of this House. If he will let me conclude my remarks, he might learn something very important.

Eventually, we had to use an Opposition day motion to revoke the regulations. The House agreed to it, only for the Government to refuse to accept the result after telling their Members to boycott the vote. When the Government say that Parliament still has a say on delegated legislation, there is a catch, and it is a Catch-22: they can refuse time for a vote within the 40 days and then say that it is too late for any vote to count once that deadline has passed. The Bill includes a power to amend primary legislation. The Government want us to trust them with the powers of Henry VIII when, to be frank, they behave like Charles I.

On the Brexit process, we have had long lectures from Government Members about parliamentary sovereignty, but Ministers have shown in practice that they will deny and defy this House. It is ironic that, just weeks ago, the Brexit Secretary was keen to assure us that no such thing could happen in legislation such as that under discussion. He told the House:

“Secondary legislation is still subject to parliamentary oversight and well established procedures. In no way does it provide unchecked unilateral powers to the Government.”—[Official Report, 7 September 2017; Vol. 628, c. 357.]

Even as he was saying that, his colleagues were refusing to follow those procedures, rejecting parliamentary oversight and using exactly those unchecked, unilateral powers to force higher fees on students.

The Bill will give the Government similar powers. We know that they will use secondary legislation not just for technical details, but to make controversial and important policy decisions by the stroke of a ministerial pen.

[Mr Duncan Smith]

The hon. Lady is going on and on, as is her wont, about the Government not giving the Opposition enough time or opportunities to vote against their proposals. There will, however, be a vote tonight on this Bill, so will the Opposition vote for or against it?

[Rebecca Long Bailey]

I am sorry that I am boring the right hon. Gentleman, but if he listens to the rest of my contribution perhaps his question will be answered at the end. Perhaps that will keep his attention.

The job of a legislature is to legislate. The Bill is effectively a blank cheque handing that job over to Ministers. I hope that the Minister will give an iron-clad guarantee that the Government will not use those powers in that way and an ultimate guarantee to change the Bill itself. Safeguards are vital for our nuclear industry, but they are needed for our parliamentary democracy as well.

The Bill’s Henry VIII clauses are particularly worrying, for the simple reason that if the Secretary of State does not use the powers effectively, the UK will simply not have a nuclear safeguarding regime. Our legislation book is scattered with such clauses that have never been enacted, so either the status quo ante prevails or some new primary legislation renders the power irrelevant. That is not the case, however, with the Bill, because if the regime is not fully established into UK law on exit day, it will not work.

The point is not only that the Secretary of State “may” introduce such legislation, but that they have to introduce it; otherwise the regime will not work. The Government are, in effect, asking us to trust that they will do the decent thing and make it work, while conceding that the Secretary of State may not, if he or she wishes, actually do it. That certainly does not look very good from the outside looking in, because there is no status quo ante to go back on in the event that the legislation is not properly translated into UK law. We will just fall of a cliff, as we depart from our membership of Euratom.

For all those reasons, it is evident that this barely fit for purpose Bill will, at the very least, need substantial amendment even to make it work on its own terms. Indeed, we also need a wider consideration of how the UK’s advantages and protections under Euratom can successfully be replaced in a national context.

We are clear, however, that, should all else fail, of course we need a nuclear safeguarding regime for the UK post Brexit—[Interruption.] I am pleased to get cheers from Government Members. But let me add a caveat: we will need to see evidence of substantial amendment to the procedure set out in the Bill, as well as evidence that the Government are really thinking about the best post-Brexit Euratom formulation, before we can wholeheartedly commit to agreeing to the passage of this Bill on Report and Third Reading.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

Vauxhall (Redundancies)

Rebecca Long Bailey Excerpts

Monday 16th October 2017 Commons Chamber

[Claire Perry]

My hon. Friend makes a compelling case. It has indeed been a success story, but I suspect that is not much comfort for those people going home tonight and discussing this over the tea table with their families. That is why we want to make absolutely sure that this country is the place for long-term investment. We know that this has happened as a result of the sales cycle, which has been disappointing for this car. We want to make sure that longer-term investment decisions in Ellesmere Port and other parts of the industry are backed up and supported and that this is the place to keep doing business in the auto sector.

[Rebecca Long Bailey (Salford and Eccles) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Justin Madders) for securing this urgent question.

As we know, Vauxhall has announced that 400 jobs are potentially to be lost at the Ellesmere Port plant, only a few months after being bought by PSA Group. The Opposition warned at the time that Vauxhall’s UK plants and the 40,000 people employed in the wider supply chain could be significantly at risk. In response, the Secretary of State said:

“The Prime Minister and I have been engaged in discussions…to ensure that the terms of the agreement can give confidence to Vauxhall’s UK workforce now and for the future.”—[Official Report, 7 March 2017; Vol. 622, c. 570.]

Can the Minister confirm whether those discussions have been ongoing, and if so, what was their outcome? What conversations has she had with Vauxhall regarding the decision to move to a single production shift? It has been reported in the media that

“PSA made clear that future investments in the plant were on hold until negotiations on the UK’s future with the European Union had become clearer.”

Can the Minister therefore confirm whether PSA has sought Nissan-style assurances from the Government’s Brexit strategy? That has been much debated and discussed in the press, but we have not had any confirmation. If that is the case, what were those assurances and when were they given? If it is not, can she explain why the Secretary of State stepped in to support Nissan and, reportedly, Toyota, but not Vauxhall? Does she accept that such a case-by-case approach is the very antithesis of an industrial strategy and that the Government’s shambolic handling of Brexit negotiations is, quite frankly, undermining British manufacturing and all who are reliant on it?

Finally, will the Minister confirm—I am not content with the responses we have had so far—that she will give PSA and other manufacturers a clear signal today that the Government are supporting the sector throughout the Brexit process, whatever the outcome may be?

[Claire Perry]

As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said at the time, and as has been said again, the company made a commitment to keep the plant open, both at the time of the acquisition and at subsequent points. We believe that the company stands by that.

The hon. Lady asked whether there is dialogue. There is ongoing dialogue, as I mentioned in my opening remarks, with the company—we had another conversation with it today about what exactly this means—with those in the broader area supporting the workers and with the unions. It is incredibly important that we are all joined up on this.

I entirely reject the idea that we do not have a joined-up strategy when it comes to the auto sector. We have turned around a sector that was on its knees in 2008-09. Under this Government, it has been turned into one of the country’s major investment and export stories, and we continue to invest for the future. As I have said, some models will do well and some will not. Companies need to know that this is the best place to invest for the future, so that the Ellesmere port plant can continue to be, as it was in 1964, a flagship manufacturing plant and so that we can retain high-skilled jobs in the UK and in the area.

The hon. Lady asked whether we are sending a clear signal. We continue to send a clear signal to this company and others that we will stand by them as the future evolves, to make sure that we are not left in the slow lane of technological innovation, but that we lead the world. We will reassure companies as much as possible about the certainty that we require from the Brexit negotiations—namely that, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I have made incredibly clear, we should have the closest possible relationship with the single market.

Retail Energy

Rebecca Long Bailey Excerpts

Thursday 12th October 2017 Commons Chamber

[Rebecca Long Bailey (Salford and Eccles) (Lab)]

I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of his statement.

Just two years ago, the then Prime Minister criticised Labour’s energy price cap policy, saying we wanted to live in a Marxist universe. Well, we certainly are in strange political times, that’s for sure. It has taken an extraordinary amount of time to get to this stage and enormous pressure from the shadow Front-Bench team and hon. Members on both sides of the House. It is impossible, however, for the price cap to protect families this coming winter. Ofgem has indicated it would take about five months after the Bill’s Royal Assent for the regulator to enact a price cap. Owing to the Government’s dithering, the 4 million households in fuel poverty, almost 1 million of which include a disabled person, will now face another winter of cold homes or astronomical bills. Will the Secretary of State explain why it has taken so long? Labour has been consistently calling for action and clarity on the Government’s position since the election and for a price cap for several years, but even today several issues require further clarification.

First, will the Secretary of State confirm why the draft Bill, which I have just perused, does not provide any direction from him on his preferred cap parameters but instead passes the ball to Ofgem? Will it be a relative cap or an absolute cap? Will he direct Ofgem to implement a different cap if he is not content with the one it proposes following the review? Secondly, will he confirm how long he anticipates the Bill’s passage taking and whether he will take any ancillary measures to expedite the usual scrutiny process?

Thirdly, reports this morning stated that the cap would apply to 12 million households, but the Bill is not clear on the cap parameters, as I have said, and leaves much to the discretion of Ofgem. Will the Secretary of State confirm, then, why the Government have seemingly rowed back from the commitment to knock £100 off the bills of 17 million households? Surely this should be explicit in the Bill or ancillary directions to Ofgem.

Fourthly, the Secretary of State is no doubt aware that Labour would introduce an immediate emergency price cap to ensure that the average household bill remains below £1,000 a year, which would save the average big six customers £142 a year. Had the cap been in place since 2010, the average customer would have saved more than £1,000 on their bills by now. Does he anticipate, in all this ambiguity, that the final cap will go anywhere near Labour’s proposals? If not, by how much does he expect bills to be reduced, if at all?

Finally, we are discussing the need for an energy price cap in the first place only because our energy market is fundamentally broken—even the Prime Minister acknowledges that. Labour understands that the price cap is only a temporary fix and so would radically reform the market by, among other measures, creating a publicly owned, locally accountable energy supply company in every region and ensuring greater transparency and fairness in the pricing structures of the supply and wholesale energy market. Does the Secretary of State accept that a price cap, although welcome, is only a sticking plaster and that radical reform of the market is necessary?

If so, how and when does the Secretary of State propose to reform the energy market and will he direct Ofgem to do it, rather than simply calling for a review, as the draft Bill suggests? Or have we got to wait until 2020 and the outcome of such a review before we see any real action? I hope that we do see action before 2020 because the cap is only guaranteed for the next two winters. Homes and businesses up and down Britain face a bleak winter and—it seems—further ambiguity and uncertainly regarding the Government’s position on the price cap mechanism and the wider reforms our energy market desperately needs.

[Greg Clark]

If one thing would be disastrous for consumers, taxpayers and business confidence in this country, it would be the hon. Lady and her Front-Bench colleagues’ proposal for nationalised energy companies. It is not even clear how it would be paid for, but there are only three ways: taxing more, borrowing more, or expropriating assets. If that is about achieving the confidence of British business, she has a long way to go.

The hon. Lady asked about the action being taken and the required pace. I remind her that in 13 years of Labour Government not a single protection was put in place for consumers. It was the Conservative-led Government who commissioned the Competition and Markets Authority report—something that the right hon. Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband), when he had the opportunity, signally failed to do—as a result of which 4 million consumers will benefit this winter from a cap on prepayment meter tariffs, which again is something the previous Labour Government failed to do in their 13 years in office.

Since taking on this role, I have been absolutely clear, on the basis of the CMA’s assessment, that we require nothing less than the eradication of that detriment of £1.4 billion, which is why, in response to my requirements, Ofgem has announced that a further 1 million will be protected this winter, with a further 2 million to follow. I have been clear, however, that that is not comprehensive enough, and it is because I am not satisfied that we are introducing the Bill. We published it and submitted it to the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee, which I hope will give it urgent pre-legislative scrutiny so that we can reflect what I think is a broad consensus in the House that the objectives should be an energy market that works for all and, before that, protection for the consumers currently suffering the detriment identified. I hope that there will be a consensus around that so that we can proceed with the Bill.

As I said in my statement, however, it is open now to energy companies to move people off the standard variable tariffs identified as overcharging customers. Indeed, Ofgem has made it clear that it expects them to do so. They should do so now and not wait for the Bill.

Bombardier

Rebecca Long Bailey Excerpts

Tuesday 10th October 2017 Commons Chamber

[Rebecca Long Bailey (Salford and Eccles) (Lab)]

I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of his statement.

Following a complaint by Boeing, on 26 September the US Department of Commerce ruled that Bombardier had benefited from state subsidies and imposed a 219% tariff, and on 6 October it found engagement in below-cost selling and imposed an additional tariff of 80%. This decision has catastrophic ramifications for Bombardier, the 4,000 staff it employs directly in Northern Ireland and the 20,000 staff employed throughout the UK in supply chains. Not only does this jeopardise the livelihoods of thousands, but the Northern Irish economy also faces a serious threat, as Bombardier represents 8% of Northern Ireland’s GDP and about 40% of manufacturing output, so the danger to jobs, the future of Bombardier and the Northern Irish economy because of these decisions in the US is very real.

Sadly, also very real has been the apparent inaction of the Government thus far. The Opposition have repeatedly sought information from them, but we have so far been disappointed by the response—so today I will try again. First, what was the specific content of, and what commitments were made during, the Prime Minister’s and other Cabinet members’ conversations with the US Administration and indeed Boeing?

Secondly, have the Government had any discussions at all with the European Commission, specifically with the Directorates-General for Trade and for Competition, about the support that it might be able to provide? Thirdly, does the Secretary of State have any plans to target all relevant US legislators to lobby the US Administration, including the Senate Committee on Finance, the House Ways and Means Committee, the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, and those with constituency interests in Bombardier and its wider supply chain?

Given the devastating impact on the Northern Irish economy and on the already fragile Northern Irish peace settlement, what attempts has the Secretary of State made to urge the Irish Government to apply greater political pressure on the Irish caucus on the Hill to highlight the fact that this is not simply a US-Canada dispute, as the Secretary of State for International Trade has sadly already suggested? Fourthly, what attempts have the Government made thus far to provide evidence to the US independent Trade Commission that Boeing did not compete for the Delta contract and does not manufacture a comparable model to the C Series that would have matched the contract specification?

Finally, does the Secretary of State accept that this whole affair demonstrates the very real security risk of military reliance on one foreign supplier? Ministry of Defence contracts with Boeing total £4.5 billion, but is it correct, as reports suggest, that the Defence Secretary is reluctant to use that leverage because of our dependency on the company? Worse still, the Northern Ireland Secretary and the International Trade Secretary have been somewhat quiet on the issue. Are they afraid of being exposed in Northern Ireland for their failure to protect jobs, or are they so keen to score a sweetheart trade deal with the US that they simply want to wash their hands of this matter? Clearly, politics is being put ahead of the welfare of workers in Northern Ireland. I eagerly await the Secretary of State’s response to my questions, but I fear that Bombardier and everyone who depends on the firm are considered by this Conservative Government to be a fair price to pay for a post-Brexit trade deal with President Trump.

[Greg Clark]

I am disappointed with the hon. Lady’s response. If anyone is putting politics ahead of the welfare of workers, the evidence was there. She asked some reasonable questions, which have reasonable answers. I said in my statement that the European Commission had been engaged. Commissioner Malmström has been consulted, as have other member states across the European Union. As for the Irish Government, Simon Coveney, the Irish Foreign Minister, has been engaged as well. On the issue of submitting evidence to the Trade Commission in the United States, that has indeed been provided, and, in response to the initial determination, further information will be provided to make it clear that there are no grounds for demonstrating detriment to Boeing, as this aircraft does not compete with Boeing. That has been addressed in clear terms.

Engagement across Government, the Province of Northern Ireland and the island of Ireland has been consistent and unrelenting right from the beginning. I will not detail all the meetings that have been held and the calls that have been made, but they will continue—no stone will be left unturned. We have had 24 calls or meetings with the US Administration, 12 with Boeing executives, and 20 with the Government of Canada. Every day during this process, we have been engaged in getting rid of this unjustified complaint. I would welcome the support of the whole House in this endeavour. I wish to put on record my gratitude to the trade unions, which have played a very constructive role. When it comes to making the case for this action being totally unjustified, I would like to think that this House is completely united not only in looking to the importance of the Bombardier presence in Belfast, but in underlining our total determination to throw out and see dismissed this unjustified action.

Oral Answers to Questions

Rebecca Long Bailey Excerpts

Tuesday 12th September 2017 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Margot James)]

Social care providers play a vital role in supporting some of the most vulnerable people in our society, but workers in that sector should be paid fairly for the important work they do. The Government are working closely with providers and worker representatives to estimate the scale of any back-pay liabilities for sleep-in shifts, and we have temporarily suspended HMRC enforcement action while that work continues, and it is continuing as a matter of urgency.

[Rebecca Long Bailey (Salford and Eccles) (Lab)]

On 27 June, the Secretary of State failed to confirm to me that he would legislate for a price cap to deliver to 17 million customers the £100 saving promised by the Prime Minister if Ofgem did not propose such a cap. On 3 July, Ofgem announced its plans, which fall short of the Prime Minister’s promise, and later stated that a cap is really a matter for Government legislation. I ask again, will the Government now legislate for a price cap to deliver the Prime Minister’s promise?

[Greg Clark]

The hon. Lady is misinformed; Ofgem has not responded formally to my request, and it should act on the evidence presented to it, using its powers. The ball is in its court, and I expect Ofgem to do its job and stand up for consumers.

[Rebecca Long Bailey]

I am saddened that the Secretary of State is non-committal, because at the same time as we have rising prices, power distributors recently made an average yearly post-tax profit of 32%, paying out share dividends of £5.1 billion. For water, the situation is even worse, as over the past decade companies have made £18.8 billion in profits, paying out £18.1 billion of that as dividends, with Macquarie paying £1.6 billion in dividends alone, while Thames Water incurred £10.6 billion of debt, ran up a £260 million pensions deficit and paid no UK corporation tax. So I ask him: what are the Government’s plans to reform our broken utilities markets?

[Greg Clark]

On the specific point of retail energy markets, a two-year investigation has been carried out by the CMA, and it is now for Ofgem to respond. I hope it will respond and eradicate that deficit; that is the test that Ofgem faces. We have made it clear that we will rule nothing out if it falls short, but I do not want to remove the obligation on it to respond in that way. I hope that the hon. Lady will welcome our intention to publish a consumer Green Paper and that she will contribute to it. This will look across the board—across other utilities as well—to see whether the existing regulatory arrangements are sufficient.

Taylor Review: Working Practices

Rebecca Long Bailey Excerpts

Tuesday 11th July 2017 Commons Chamber

[Rebecca Long Bailey (Salford and Eccles) (Lab)]

When the Prime Minister took office last year, she stood on the steps of Downing Street stating that she was on the side of working people. Despite that rhetoric, the Conservatives have been in government for seven years and in that time have done very little for working people. They have presided over a lost decade of productivity growth. They have implemented the pernicious Trade Union Act 2016, which is, frankly, an ideological attack on the trade union movement, curbing its ability to fight for and represent workers’ interests. They have inflicted hardship on public sector workers with a pay cap that was confirmed for yet another year by the Department for Education yesterday. They promised workers on boards, but rowed back scared when powerful interests said that they were not particularly keen on the idea. And they introduced employment tribunal fees, which have made it much harder for workers to enforce their rights.

Today’s publication of the Taylor review was a real opportunity to overhaul the existing employment system in a way that would protect workers in a rapidly changing world of work. But, in the words of the general secretary of Unite, the biggest union in the UK:

“Instead of the serious programme the country urgently needs to ensure that once again work pays in this country…we got a depressing sense that insecurity is the inevitable new norm.”

Indeed, the Minister confirmed that she might not even accept all the proposals in the Taylor report, in any event.

Although the report is positive in sentiment in many areas, it misses many opportunities to clamp down on exploitation in the workplace. I do not have time to cover them all today, but I have specific concerns that the report may allow the Government to interpret references to the so-called dependent contractor in such a way as to allow them to row back on recent court victories for workers such as Uber drivers and those who work for Pimlico Plumbers.

Recent case law has suggested that a worker on a platform should be entitled to the minimum wage as long as the app is switched on and they are ready and willing to accept trips. However, the review suggests that the platform may insist on payment by piece rate, such that only an average driver, working averagely hard, will earn 1.2 times the minimum wage. That raises issues of enforcement and regulation—what constitutes a reasonable piece rate across platforms?—and it is something of a retreat from the common law position. Will the Minister confirm that the Government will not undermine workers’ rights on the minimum wage in that way? Founder of Pimlico Plumbers and Conservative donor Charlie Mullins said this morning that the report holds Pimlico Plumbers up as an example of

“best practice in the gig economy.”

This is a company that our judicial system has found to be an example of worst practice.

The report does very little to strengthen the enforcement of workers’ existing rights. Although Taylor agrees with Labour’s position on shifting the burden of proof to employers in determining self-employed status, the report does little else in that area, and it needs much more work. There is, for example, no movement at all on employment tribunal fees, which are a barrier to justice for many workers.

If the Prime Minister wanted ideas on strengthening workers’ rights, she could just have come to us. Just four of our manifesto commitments would go a long way to ending the scourge of exploitation in the gig economy: giving all workers equal rights from day one; strengthening the enforcement of those rights by beefing up and better resourcing Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, rather than imposing pernicious cuts, and by allowing trade unions access to every workplace; abolishing employment tribunal fees; and fining employers who breach labour market rights and regulations.

In the spirit of the so-called collaboration that the Prime Minister is so desperately seeking, will the Minister commit today to implementing those four simple measures, as a start? If not, will she accept that the Conservative party is not, and never will be, on the side of working people?

[Margot James]

I am glad that the hon. Lady found some positive aspects in the report on which to compliment Matthew Taylor. I appreciate that she will not have had time to read it all yet, but I urge her to do so. It contains many recommendations that will be of benefit to workers and are worthy of the greater consideration that the Government will give them.

I will not comment on each of the recommendations that the hon. Lady raised, because they are Matthew Taylor’s suggestions and, as I have said, they will be given due consideration. She criticised the Government’s record, so I would like to remind her that this Government have introduced the national living wage and presided over the minimum wage reaching its highest rate, in real terms, since its introduction. The wage increases in the last year have been highest among the lowest paid, thanks to the national living wage. We have nearly doubled the budget for the enforcement of the national living wage. We have doubled fines for companies that underpay their employees. We have banned the use of exclusivity clauses in zero-hours contracts. We have done all that against the backdrop of protecting the growth in employment, which is, at almost 75%, at its highest level since records began.

Our record is one of achievement. The hon. Lady criticises us for enacting the Trade Union Act 2016, but most reasonable people would not criticise the idea that workers who are members of trade unions should have a proper say when their union decides to take strike action. That is the primary purpose of the legislation.

It is not all a garden of roses, otherwise the Prime Minister would not have requested Matthew Taylor to undertake the report. The Prime Minister said, when she announced Matthew Taylor’s investigation, that flexibility and innovation are vital parts of what make our economy strong, but it is essential that those virtues are combined with the right support and protections for workers. The Taylor review came to understand that flexibility does work for many people, and it is clear that an agile labour market is good for protecting employment.

Oral Answers to Questions

Rebecca Long Bailey Excerpts

Tuesday 27th June 2017 Commons Chamber

[Greg Clark]

I welcome the hon. Gentleman back. What he describes as an energy price cap was launched as an energy price freeze. The problem with that was that as energy prices fell, consumers would be paying more than they needed to. That would have been disastrous for them, which is why the proposal that we have made, in response to the Competition and Markets Authority analysis, is a much more sensible approach than we got from Labour.

[Rebecca Long Bailey (Salford and Eccles) (Lab)]

As we have heard, various media outlets have reported recently that senior Cabinet members were lobbying for the Conservative price cap manifesto commitment to be dropped. Indeed, the Secretary of State’s recent letter to Ofgem was silent on the price cap element and, when questioned last week, the Prime Minister refused to confirm unambiguously that the price cap would be upheld. Will the Secretary of State confirm for the avoidance of doubt that he will implement the promised price cap, and not just stand by it, to deliver to 17 million customers the £100 saving that his Prime Minister promised?

[Greg Clark]

I welcome the hon. Lady back. It is very good to see her back in her place. I did not hear her name chanted at Glastonbury and it is probably unparliamentary to do it here, but I warmly welcome her back. I have been very clear and the Queen’s Speech is very clear. It said, in terms:

“My government will ensure fairer markets for consumers, this will include bringing forward measures to help tackle unfair practices in the energy market to…reduce energy bills.”

[Rebecca Long Bailey]

I am afraid it is not clear. The Secretary of State’s recent letter to Ofgem simply asks it to advise him of the action it intends to take to safeguard customers on the poorest value tariffs. It was not a direction to implement a price cap. Can the Secretary of State confirm that should Ofgem not take directions to implement a price cap, or if it directs a price cap that is narrower than the Conservative manifesto commitment, he will legislate to uphold his party’s manifesto commitment and, if so, when?