Oral Answers to Questions

Richard Fuller Excerpts

Tuesday 11th January 2022 Commons Chamber

[George Freeman]

I have had meetings with the hon. Member since she raised this issue previously. We are in the process of allocating—I repeat—the biggest ever increase in science and innovation funding for a generation. Once that process has been completed, we will begin to allocate the money throughout the country. The hon. Member has made a powerful intervention on behalf of that cluster, which I am going to come up to see. There is an exciting cluster of companies in the York, Harrogate and east of Yorkshire area.

[Richard Fuller (North East Bedfordshire) (Con)]

The Minister is absolutely right about the overall success of the Government’s life sciences strategy, but he will be aware of the chilling effect on UK manufacturers, including one in my constituency, of the outcomes of the coronavirus test device approval process. I know the Minister is a believer in agile regulation, so will he conduct a review, with the UK Health Security Agency, to understand what lessons can be learned to assist UK manufacturers in future?

[George Freeman]

As per usual, my hon. Friend makes an important point. I am not the Minister responsible for the vaccine taskforce, but I am already reaching out to my colleagues at the Department of Health and Social Care on that very point to make sure that in the light of this pandemic we boost our manufacturing centre as well as our research.

Subsidy Control Bill

Richard Fuller Excerpts

3rd reading
Monday 13th December 2021 Commons Chamber

[John Penrose]

My hon. Friend makes a very good point. For those of us who worry about the scale of subsidies, who take pride in ours being a relatively low-subsidy country and economy and who want it to stay that way—we do so because we care about competitiveness and people competing only on the basis of their ability to please their customers rather than whom they know in Government—that must be the right approach. That American example of how transparency can drive down subsidy levels is a good one. Incidentally, it would be fascinating to see how that applies to countries such as Spain, which have low thresholds for declarations and therefore high levels of declarations. We can follow that carefully.

[Richard Fuller (North East Bedfordshire) (Con)]

My hon. Friend is making a very useful speech, and I very rarely say that in Parliament—not about him, but generally about speeches here. Does he agree that the value of his amendments is that they would increase the number of pieces of information we have, and that the Government are missing the value of predictive analytics in considering the way in which subsidies are or are not working, as that can then be applied to other areas of Government expenditure?

[John Penrose]

That is absolutely right. Transparency is of course about trying to improve the productivity of our economy and avoiding distortions of our economy, and of course it is also about trying to reduce cronyism, but my hon. Friend is right to say that there is a longer-term benefit in that we can then tell whether the subsidies we are offering are any good: are they actually having the effect we want them to have and can we learn from that? I am afraid there is a long and ignoble history—we can all see this and cite examples from Governments of all political types and stripes in history—of politicians just getting it wrong and not learning that extra data might very well achieve something. I am afraid the old phrase that politicians are terrible at picking winners but really good at picking losers applies here in spades, and data and objectivity are essential in pricking that bubble and avoiding that happening again.

The good news is that Ministers get it: Ministers are clear about the value of transparency. They have said so to me and others. In fact, the Minister said to me in a letter earlier in December:

“Transparency is fundamental not only to the future subsidy control regime but also to good governance more widely.”

That is absolutely right. So, the principle is clear: there is no disagreement in any part of the House that this is the right thing to do.

So, why are we not doing it? That has been covered partly in Committee, but it bears being repeated here strongly and forcefully. The EU regime which the Bill is supposed to supplant has a series of transparency declaration thresholds. Everything over half a million euros must be declared; there are thresholds too for cumulative grants, which we heard about in the speech of the hon. Member for Aberdeen North, although half a million euros is the basic threshold. This Bill, however, says that everything over half a million pounds has to be declared. Unless the exchange rate has gone completely doolally in the last 10 minutes, that is a much, or moderately, higher level than half a million euros, and as a result we will in the future be declaring fewer subsidies under this transparency regime than we were in the past, in spite of the fact that Ministers have rightly said transparency is absolutely essential and a core principle with which we all agree. We are not delivering on the central principle on which everybody agrees, and that is why I have tabled basically three groups of amendments. They do three things, some of which we have already heard about; the hon. Lady summarised them nicely, so I will not go through the detail again.

The first group addresses amounts and says, “Look, we shouldn’t just say we have to declare anything over half a million pounds; we should be much more transparent than that.” If we are really serious about trying to be world-class about this issue, let us knock three zeros off that number: let us go for £500 instead. What have we got to hide? What have we got to be scared of? Why do we not just put it all out there and let people see? That would be transformational, for the reasons I have just described.

Oral Answers to Questions

Richard Fuller Excerpts

Tuesday 16th November 2021 Commons Chamber

[Lee Rowley]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for the question. We were disappointed, as he was, by GKN Melrose’s decision. Ultimately, such decisions are for individual companies, but we realise the significant impact on his community and are working with the local community to try to find alternative ways to support employees in the area.

[Richard Fuller (North East Bedfordshire) (Con)]

The Minister knows that one of the best ways to promote the onshoring of manufacturing jobs and production to the UK is to shape regulation to support enterprise. What steps has his Department made to take forward the recommendations of the Prime Minister’s taskforce on innovation, growth and regulatory reform?

[Lee Rowley]

We know regulation has a critical part to play in ensuring that we get the frameworks right for long-term investment and support. My hon. Friend will know that one of my colleagues who was appointed alongside me was an author of that report, and the Secretary of State and I, and all Ministers, will continue to review what we can do to improve regulation over the long term.

Nuclear Energy (Financing) Bill

Richard Fuller Excerpts

2nd reading
Wednesday 3rd November 2021 Commons Chamber

[Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)]

rose—

[Richard Fuller (North East Bedfordshire) (Con)]

rose—

[Greg Hands]

I will make a little more progress.

RAB is a tried and tested method that has successfully financed other large UK infrastructure projects. The introduction of a special administration regime will prioritise the plant’s opening and continuing to operate in the unlikely event of a project company’s insolvency. That will protect consumers’ investment in the plant and ensure that they realise the plant’s benefit. Members should know that this legislation is not specific to one project, as I have already said, and could be applied to nuclear projects across Great Britain.

Income Tax (Charge)

Richard Fuller Excerpts

Thursday 28th October 2021 Commons Chamber

[Edward Miliband]

My hon. Friend is completely right and I will come to that point in a moment. The Government will no doubt have all kinds of excuses, but this is a sin of commission, not just omission, in the sense that the Government are actually doing things to make the problem worse.

The problem is that the Chancellor could not bring himself to admit any of this yesterday. Here is the issue: it is not just that he did not say any of this, but it is like the Government actually believe their own rhetoric, and the Budget is the result. Yesterday we saw raid upon raid on the living standards of working people: council tax hikes, hidden in the Budget document—not announced by the Chancellor; a stealth raid on the self-employed worth £1.7 billion over the coming five years—not announced by the Chancellor; and of course the national insurance hike on ordinary families confirmed.

Maybe I am a bit old fashioned in this respect, but let us remember that this is a direct breach of the promise that every Conservative Member made to their constituents at the general election. What did they call it in their manifesto? Alongside a picture of the Prime Minister—drawing on his long and unblemished record of truth telling and candour—it said:

“My Guarantee… We will not raise the rate of income tax, VAT or National Insurance.”

I look forward to them all explaining at the next general election why they have broken that promise. The hon. Member for North East Bedfordshire (Richard Fuller) is nodding. Perhaps he would like to explain why they have broken their promise.

[Richard Fuller (North East Bedfordshire) (Con)]

I have been goaded into intervening by the right hon. Gentleman, who asks a very direct question. I think the honesty will be that we will say that we wanted to protect the public finances, and that post covid, given the choice of either borrowing more money or asking those with the broadest shoulders to bear the burden to cover those costs, we decided that we should do the latter.

[Edward Miliband]

It is certainly not those with the broadest shoulders who are being affected, and I thought the reason that the Government raised taxes was for social care. It is yet another guarantee from the Prime Minister that is not worth the paper that it is written on.

The IFS tells us this morning that taxes will be £3,000 more per household than when the Prime Minister came to power. As my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds West (Rachel Reeves) said in her excellent speech yesterday, this is about the choices that the Government are making. Also buried in the Red Book is that the Chancellor saw fit to cut taxes on the banks by more than £1 billion because he was so worried about the burden they were facing, just like last year when he made the choice to cut stamp duty for second home owners because he was so worried about them. He was obviously less concerned about the burden of higher energy prices facing millions of British people, because he refused to cut VAT on fuel as he should have done.

In a way, the most shameful part of the Budget is the Chancellor’s refusal to reverse his £1,000 cut to universal credit, which hit 6 million families. For all the smoke and mirrors, this morning we know the truth about universal credit. According to the Resolution Foundation, three quarters of families on universal credit will be worse off, even after the changes to the taper. It says that the taper changes

“will be overshadowed by last month’s £6 billion cut to entitlement: three-quarters of families on UC will lose more from the £20 cut than they gain from the Budget changes. Even if we also take into account the…National Living Wage, the poorest fifth of households will still be an average of £280 a year worse off overall.”

The fact that Conservative Members were wildly cheering a policy yesterday that sees millions of working families far worse off shows, I am afraid, that they do not get it either.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kwasi Kwarteng]

I was not making a personal attack on the hon. Gentleman’s role. If he had listened to what I said, he would know I was not commenting on his record as an MP; I was simply saying that the tone and negativity he expressed in that particular intervention in this debate did a disservice to his constituents. I was making a specific point.

[Richard Fuller]

To bring my right hon. Friend back to what the Opposition spokesperson, the right hon. Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband) was saying about the haste with which money can go to support my right hon. Friend’s plan for energy-intensive industries, is this not the same Labour Front Bench that was urging my right hon. Friend to give money to a business that is now under review by the Serious Fraud Office? Is my right hon. Friend’s prudence not therefore wiser than the rashness of the Opposition Front Bench?

[Kwasi Kwarteng]

That is a very good intervention. Labour Front Benchers were urging that £170 million from the UK taxpayer be given to a business that we now know has been recapitalised, has money from private creditors and is still operating. It would have been a disaster to sign away £170 million directly in the way they urged.

In conclusion, the Budget is a blueprint for a stronger Britain: a country where those with innovative ideas will get the support they need to turn them from dream to reality; a country where those whose talent is nurtured and whose skills are honed will get support, ongoing interest and strong engagement from the Government; a country where those who do an honest day’s work will receive a decent wage. We have every right to be confident about our future. We have listened to the litany of woe and despair for too long and, as my right hon. Friend the Chancellor said yesterday, we are optimistic and excited about the future of our country. Only a week ago at the global investment summit, people from across the world were desperate to invest in the UK; they believe in their bones that the UK is a great place to do business.

--- Later in debate ---

[Richard Fuller (North East Bedfordshire) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Stockton North (Alex Cunningham) and to hear his observations on the Budget for his constituents.

If I may, I will summarise what I believe are the views of my constituents in North East Bedfordshire. Bedfordshire is probably able to speak for much of the country. My first observation is that this was a fair Budget. In very difficult times, there was a tremendous risk that the Budget could be mispositioned, misplaced, or perhaps focus on the wrong priorities. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor demonstrated a fairness in his Budget and that, I think, would be reflected in the views of my constituents. They would also say that it was a very thoughtful Budget. Although I have not done a survey—I know that others have—I am reassured in my thoughts that the Budget was fair and thoughtful, because the latest opinion poll shows that the majority of voters think that, too. Indeed, a majority of Labour voters approved of the Budget as well.

Some measures were very relevant to my constituency. There is a great interest, for example, in support for buses, and rural bus services in particular. This is especially true in Stockfold and Arlesey, and the additional funds will be welcome. There is a great interest in and support for active travel networks—for cycling and walkways—particularly in the new developments between Sandy and Potton and Biggleswade, and for additional resources for special educational needs provision. There is a lack of SEN provision in my constituency and I look forward to working with Central Bedfordshire Council on a proposal so that we might benefit from that additional funding.

On balance, my constituents would also say that taxes are too high and that they need to come down. Looking at the Budget report, it was interesting to see what this Government are doing. Some reports say that there has been some largesse in spending, but if we look at the period of spending from the 2020-21 out-turn to 2024-25, we see that, in real terms, current expenditure is pretty flat. It is into the investment side of public services where this Government are putting additional resources. Before the pandemic, public expenditure as a percentage of our overall economy stood at 39.8%.Yes, it has grown now to what I would suggest is an unsustainable 53.1% of the economy in 2020-21, but by 2024-25, it will go back down to 41.9%. We will be on the right trajectory to get back to where we were before the pandemic, but with an emphasis on investment rather than current expenditure. Those are worthy points to make and support the fact that taxes will come down, as the Chancellor has said.

Every Budget must be presented within the context of what is going on, and none more so than this one. We are coming through the covid period and through the Brexit transition. Even today, a French Minister has said that the only thing the British understand is force. That is unwelcome language. We do not want to have opposition from France or from any other member of the EU, but there will be issues about the Brexit transition that will affect the economy. We have spoken a lot today about climate change, but not so much about the changing relationship with China and what that does to supply chains. The other contextual factor is the OBR forecast itself. It is ambitious in its forward growth projections in the near term. All of those issues provide the context for the Budget.

What we should really focus on is the purpose of the Budget. One of the great advantages of being given the honour to return to Parliament as the representative of North East Bedfordshire was to support our Prime Minister in setting our country’s strategy post our departure from the European Union. That, ultimately, is the purpose of this Budget; it is to marshal the talents and the resources of our people to create a successful, global Britain on this new international basis. This Administration under this Prime Minister have the opportunity to become one of the great reforming Administrations of our country. The purpose of this Budget is to provide the confidence to investors, to the public and to the Government themselves that they can take those major steps to ensure the long-term strategic success of our country in that new direction. I think that it does that very well indeed in very difficult times.

It is important though that we cast a critical eye over some aspects that have the potential to knock the country off course. The first is on capital markets. The Bank of England has indicated that it has intentions to stop repurchasing and quantitative easing when interest rates hit 0.5% and then potentially to start restricting the money supply by making additional repurchasing if interest rates hit 1%. That could have a significant impact on the cost of Government borrowing, which is why the Government are right in this Budget to chart a downward course.

On labour markets, we should remember that the United Kingdom with its flexibility has one of the best labour markets in the world, in large part due to reforms undertaken by Conservative Administrations, but the Government must make sure that they achieve their increases in productivity targets.

We should also cast a critical eye over public sector efficiency, particularly in relation to health. If I could say also to the Minister that a further critical eye should be cast over the accounting of public sector pensions, which has been the subject of many questions. We went through tremendous changes in public sector pensions a decade ago, but as the Institute of Economic Affairs paper pointed out just last week, there is much ambivalence and discretion over the way in which the Government are currently accounting for public sector pension costs. The estimated under-reported cost is of the order of £57 billion. That is not a slight accounting error, but a very major difference in costs, which is caused by the way that the Government sort out how they account for public sector pensions. It is worth their looking at that seriously and it is worth consideration by the Treasury; I hope that they will look into it.

Let me close on three points. First, as the Chancellor said, the Conservative party has demonstrated that it is the party of public services, although I would say that that is demonstrated not by how much is spent, but by the quality and efficiency of the services delivered to the public.

Secondly, the Conservatives are the party of low taxes. That must mean that the Chancellor will fulfil his promise—I believe he will—to reduce taxes, because taxes are too high and an unsustainable burden on enterprise. However, we all have to recognise that any tax reductions in this Parliament will mean that choices will have to be made, and they should be focused on improving the efficiency and enterprising part of the economy.

Thirdly, the Conservative party is the party of work. As I listened to Opposition Members, I reflected on the questionable negativity of the Opposition to many of the measures that have dramatically changed the importance of work in this country over the last decade. It was the Conservatives who introduced the living wage. It was the Conservative party and the coalition that did so much to increase the personal tax allowance. It was the Conservative party and the coalition that did so much to reform the benefits system that was a restriction on people’s willingness to work. It was the Conservative party that introduced the universal credit system. And it is this Budget that has introduced the taper relief at the original level that was set by my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith).

All those points indicate that this was—as I think the people of North East Bedfordshire believe—a fair, thoughtful and reasonable Budget.

Employment and Trade Union Rights (Dismissal and Re-engagement) Bill

Richard Fuller Excerpts

Friday 22nd October 2021 Commons Chamber

[Richard Fuller (North East Bedfordshire) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North (Gavin Newlands), who, through his commitment to his own Bill and through the amity he has shown to his colleague the hon. Member for Brent North (Barry Gardiner), who is bringing forward similar legislation today, demonstrates that he has a keen commitment to dealing with this problem. Although, as I will outline, I have a different approach to how we should tackle it, I believe the principle is shared across the House.

It is a shame that the hon. Member for Brent North chose the time I stood up to walk out of the Chamber—I shall not take it personally, whether or not it is personal. I wanted to commend him for the way in which he presented his argument and case today. He has undoubtedly done a tremendous amount of research and gained tremendous understanding about this issue, and in taking so many interventions from Members on both sides of the House he demonstrated that he was prepared to debate, understand and move forward. I will return towards the end of my contribution to how we might continue the progress of this amity between the hon. Members for Paisley and Renfrewshire North and for Brent North and my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Laura Farris), who outlined a substantial alternative approach and a better one to achieve the goals that are shared across the House.

It was a shame, and perhaps a disappointment to the hon. Member for Brent North, that what was the oratory of Cicero from him descended into the mosh pit of Westminster debate with the contribution from the shadow spokesperson, the hon. Member for Bradford East (Imran Hussain). It was a metaphorical head in the hands moment for the hon. Member for Brent North, but he did endear himself to many on the Government side of the House with his contribution. He was at one moment in danger of talking out his own Bill. Ironically, the fact that, unusually, there was a statement today gave him some latitude to come to a close.

I wish to pick up on two points the hon. Gentleman made. First, he said that his Bill would make the UK the best place to work, but the UK is already the best place to work, in large part due to measures that this Government have undertaken, particularly in their commitment to the living wage and in continuing the progress on reducing the gender pay gap by ensuring that there is enhanced reporting by boards about the treatment of employees. This Government are continuing to make the UK the best place to work, not least—I say this as much of this debate relates to actions that took place during the covid period—with the exceptional response of the Chancellor to support businesses through the furlough programme and other UK Treasury measures. So I gently make that point to the hon. Gentleman.

[Chris Stephens]

The hon. Gentleman and I share a passion for American football, but may I ask him why, if he believes the UK is the best place to work, the Government have not yet responded, formally, with legislation, to the Taylor report of four years ago on unscrupulous working practices in the UK?

[Richard Fuller]

That is an interesting point. Unfortunately, I am not a member of the Government. The hon. Gentleman probably wants to direct that question to those on the Front Bench. I am familiar with Matthew Taylor, who, apparently, is back in the news this week with a different hat on telling the Government what they should or should not do, and I am not sure whether I agree with him in that particular case.

The hon. Member for Brent North also said that the Bill was about better regulation, and that perhaps gets to the nub of the difference of approach between those on the Labour Benches and those on the Government side of the House. Our approach is not about making better regulation, but about making better business. We understand that in doing that, Government and others can take a variety of tactics and approaches to achieve a shared objective.

Let me point Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, because I want to refer to a couple of pertinent examples from last year. This debate largely relates to an exceptional time and an exceptional practice, both of which remain exceptionally rare. For those who have quoted many statistics, let me just add a comment from the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development. It said that the

“use of ‘fire and rehire’ remains low”

despite the “upheaval of Covid.” It was covid that created those exceptional issues for people. The part that was exceptional and that differentiated companies’ response from the one during a different time of distress, the 2007-08 financial crisis, was that the Government themselves had stopped commerce. This was not just a matter of overcoming financial considerations—the shortage of access to capital to support a business or a downturn in demand in the economy—but a direct intervention of the state, both in this country and in Europe and across the world, which said, “No, you cannot do business”. When we frame legislation, it is important to understand that, if the context for that legislation is primarily driven by such an exceptional event, we are wise to be very cautious indeed about what we put on the statute book for fear that it will have uses in less exceptional times that perhaps we cannot foresee today. That is one of the primary reasons why I will not be supporting the Bill in a vote later today.

Let me reflect on what was on the minds of companies at that time. My hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake) talked a little bit about his broad experience, but I want to talk specifically about what was going on this time last year. Before coming to Parliament, my career was substantially in venture businesses. The businesses to which I still have relations would be covered by the provisions of this Bill. They are largely in the categories of businesses larger than microbusinesses, but they are all businesses for which the availability of cash and the support of capital, both shareholder capital and of loans, are always treated very seriously and quite tightly to achieve growth.

Growth is those companies’ main objective. They do not have a cushion of resources to fall back on, so when the exceptional events of covid and the closedown of the economy occurred, the amount of pressure on their boards and senior executives was beyond exceptional. There was the responsibility to understand where on earth money was going to come from to support ongoing operations. There was their duty of responsibility to make sure that they were not trading fraudulently because of insolvency concerns about the business. There was a desperate search for loans, and an approach to shareholders to gain additional liquidity through additional investment. Many senior executives voluntarily cut—and in at least one instance eliminated—their pay during that period. There was a tremendous focus on employees, and primarily on employee safety.

Let us all remember that the experience of covid was not a shared common experience for everyone in the country. There are those of us in the country, such as Members of Parliament, who were facilitated to continue to take 100% of our pay, to have 100% certainty of employment, and to have the opportunity to work from the safety of our own home, but there were many others who were facing: cuts in their pay, a 100% certainty of the loss of their business and the requirement that, if they wanted to stay in employment, they had to go to work. For any Member to say that senior executives and company boards were not intently focused on ensuring the safety and security of their employees does a gross disservice to what companies were going through.

Boards and senior executives were substantially challenged to make changes. In the process of looking at all the alternatives that could maintain the survival of the company, they would have due regard to the law at the time. As my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury stated, one of the issues with the existing legislation is that companies will defer putting all their cards on the table, including the option of fire and rehire if that is one of their considerations. Perhaps we can make some change in that regard that would be helpful for companies and employees.

Companies would also have due regard to maintaining the solvency of their business. To do that, consideration has to be given to what a company will do to manage its costs in the year ahead. If it is looking to access capital, loans or additional equity, questions will be asked by the banks, creditors and shareholders about what it is doing to manage their future costs. It would be a deterrent to gaining the investment and support needed to maintain the business if it was unable to outline what angles and opportunities it was investigating to reduce costs.

For many of the executives in business with which I have worked, consideration of employees is front and centre in their mind. It is exceptionally difficult for them to balance in their own heads the idea that, “I know I need this additional capital,” with, “I want to make sure I can protect the employees and the skills that I have within my workforce.” In my experience, most people involved in business who are entrusted with authority would undertake measures covered by the Bill only as a last resort, if ever.

[Geraint Davies]

The problem is that the hon. Gentleman is conflating the extraordinary situation of the pandemic, when the Government, to their credit, intervened with furlough, loans and other measures, with a normal situation when a business needs to adjust to economic pressure. That is what we are talking about today—a Bill that, to a certain extent, limits fire and rehire so that it is not the first but the last resort. I feel that he should support it.

[Richard Fuller]

I understand where the hon. Gentleman is coming from, but I do not think the facts of history indicate that what he suggests is the right approach. The truth is that throughout the period of the last Labour Government it was not seen fit to bring forward such legislation. As I mentioned earlier, there were no calls for it when we went through a severe financial crisis, although there was widespread fire and rehire. It is precisely because there was an exceptional event last year that I am conflating that with this legislation. In my view, the Bill has been stimulated by that experience but will sit on the statute book for the future of more regular business, though I am not sure what that will be.

Furthermore, there is a little confusion about the intent of the Bill, which perhaps the hon. Member for Brent North can help to clarify now he is back in his place. Many of us have seen Labour MPs—socialists—campaigning to outlaw fire and rehire, and one would anticipate that many of them have turned up today to vote to do that, yet we heard from the Bill’s sponsor that it does not do that. It got so confusing that the shadow Front-Bench spokesman, the hon. Member for Bradford East, urged hon. Members to “support fire and rehire”. Between those on the Opposition Benches who say that they want to ban it, the promoter of the Bill who says that his Bill does not ban it, and the shadow Front-Bench spokesman who wants us to do more of it, I wonder whether they know what indeed they are doing.

[Barry Gardiner]

rose—

[Richard Fuller]

Perhaps the hon. Gentleman can clarify.

[Barry Gardiner]

I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s good humour. The Bill does not ban fire and rehire, but we want—I think all hon. Members want—to end it as a tactic. That is the point. When people say, “Let’s end fire and rehire,” they mean, “Let’s end it as a tactic, as a bad practice used by disreputable employers to do the wrong thing.” I hope that that clarifies it.

[Richard Fuller]

I am very pleased that the hon. Gentleman is back. He is showing the steps that he is taking to create consensus. I think he will find that as we move forward, perhaps with an alternative approach. I would gently mention that only on 6 May this year 145 of his colleagues signed a letter to the Prime Minister urging that fire and rehire be outlawed, and he must accept that his proposal must be a severe disappointment to them, given what he has said today.

There is an important reason why I would urge the hon. Gentleman to continue his journey, perhaps towards a code of practice approach. For me, and I think for many, the work of business, the work of capitalism, is a good for society. Capitalism is good. Capitalism creates. Capitalism creates higher wages, better skills, stronger businesses and a more global Britain. It is through capitalism that this country has grown the strength to provide public services for so many of our people. It is through capitalism that we have been able to have the highest increases in wages for the lowest paid that we have had for decades. It is capitalism that gives hope to people who want to start their own business. It is capitalism that is going to close the gender pay gap and the discrimination against people based on colour, because capitalism seeks out talent. It is upon the captains of capitalism—the women and men who lead our businesses—who understand how to get that great concoction of people and investment to create wealth and security, that we should be entrusting the responsibilities to act ethically and responsibly.

In my view, that purpose is best accomplished through a code of practice that works with the best grain of business rather than against it.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

My hon. Friend’s points on capitalism were not totally accepted by those on the Opposition Benches. I think we all concede that capitalism is at times not perfect, but has the alternative ever been shown to work anywhere?

[Richard Fuller]

Certainly not, which is why Labour Members are on the Opposition Benches, and the Conservative party, which supports working people, is in government.

I should like to say a few more words about the detail of the Bill and to support some of the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury.

[Anthony Browne]

The shadow Front-Bench spokesman said earlier that various European countries were ahead of the UK, citing Germany, Spain and Ireland. I actually agree with him—they are ahead of the UK in unemployment. In Ireland, unemployment is 50% higher than in the UK. In France it is twice as high. In Germany it is three times as high. Youth unemployment in Spain is about 30%. It is a real tragedy for young people. Does my hon. Friend agree that there is a connection between the flexible labour market and the low unemployment in the UK?

[Richard Fuller]

Well of course I do. Who would not agree with my hon. Friend? He will accept that, should we as a House decide that the better approach is through a code of practice, that places great responsibilities on boards of directors and chief executives to abide by that code of practice. It is a better approach. When pressures require extraordinary measures to be taken, time is critical, and everyone is busy—not just within the business, but the advisers and so on, too. That is why the legal approach proposed by the hon. Member for Brent North would in those circumstances be too bureaucratic, not flexible enough and would end up with a worse outcome for employees than is his honourable intention. A code of practice gives those entrusted to make those decisions the right set of things that might otherwise miss their attention. Directors are absolutely aware of their responsibilities under certain aspects of law, but also of their responsibilities under a code of practice.

[Sam Tarry]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is beyond belief to think that a code of practice is enough? We are talking about firms such as Clarks, where workers who make kids’ shoes are currently on strike. It was recently bought up by a Hong Kong-based private equity firm. Are such firms going to pay any attention whatever? It is just the same as BA. Its parent company IAG had £3.5 billion in the bank and it did not pay any attention even to British laws at that particular time. It was trying to circumnavigate them. It seems to me that a code of practice will not even be worth the paper it is printed on. Does he agree?

[Richard Fuller]

The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point. I am not particularly aware of the particular circumstances to which he has spoken, but the intention of the suggestions of my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury is that there would be some form of power behind that code of practice to encourage businesses so that we can eliminate those limited examples where companies are misusing fire and rehire. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would like to speak to the junior—sorry, the Minister, my hon. Friend; I should never call him junior, he is very senior. The hon. Gentleman may wish to raise that point directly with the Minister, if he has not already.

In closing, I say to the hon. Member for Brent North and the SNP spokesperson that through their diligent efforts, they have raised an issue where some measured change is required. The hon. Member for Brent North might find that the approach of my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury is a better approach, but with the dignity with which he has proposed this Bill today and the way in which he has shown his willingness to speak to others, there is no dishonour in proposing and pushing something if ultimately there is a different way for us to achieve that objective.

Draft National Security and Investment Act 2021 (Monetary Penalties) (Turnover of a Business) Regulations 2021 Draft National Security and Investment Act 2021 (Notifiable Acquisition) (Specification of Qualifying Entities) Regulations 2021

Richard Fuller Excerpts

Wednesday 20th October 2021 General Committees

[Paul Scully]

The commencement date for both statutory instruments is 4 January, which is the same date as the full commencement of the National Security and Investment Act 2021. If Members will indulge me for a couple of minutes, I will first remind the Committee of the purpose of the 2021 Act and why it is vital for the UK’s national security. The UK economy thrives as a result of foreign direct investment. Over the last 10 years, more than 665,000 new jobs have been created as a result of over 18,000 foreign direct investment projects. I am sure the Committee agrees—indeed, the House has demonstrated its assent by passing the legislation—that an open approach to investment must include appropriate safeguards to protect our national security and the safety of our citizens.

The 2021 Act provides the Government with updated powers to scrutinise and intervene in acquisitions to protect national security, as well as to provide businesses and investors with the certainty and transparency they need to do business with the UK. The Act establishes a call-in power for the Secretary of State to scrutinise qualifying acquisitions and a voluntary notification option for firms that wish to gain clarity on whether the Secretary of State will call in their acquisition, and, subject to these regulations, creates mandatory notification requirements in 17 sensitive sectors where it is considered that national security risks are more likely to arise.

The draft National Security and Investment Act 2021 (Monetary Penalties) (Turnover of a Business) Regulations set out how the Secretary of State will calculate a business’s turnover when calculating monetary penalties resulting from non-compliance. We generally expect compliance with the 2021 Act to be high and the need for the Secretary of State to issue monetary penalties to be rare. It is important that the Act comes with sufficient deterrents to non-compliance. This SI is laid under the delegated power in section 41 of the Act. Sections 32 and 33 create offences of completing a notifiable acquisition without approval and failing to comply with an interim or final order. Both these offences can result in the imposition of a monetary penalty.

The maximum fixed penalty that can be imposed on a business for an offence under section 32 or 33 is the higher of 5% of the total value of the turnover of the business and £10 million. The maximum amount per day for a daily rate penalty that can be imposed on a business for an offence under section 33 is the higher of 0.1% of the total turnover of the business and £200,000. With these regulations, we have ensured that global turnover is taken into account when calculating the total turnover. No efforts to get around the penalties will be successful, for example through changing accounts approaches. These are important and well-balanced regulations, necessary for the effective functioning of the 2021 Act.

I now turn to the draft National Security and Investment Act 2021 (Notifiable Acquisition) (Specification of Qualifying Entities) Regulations 2021—in likelihood, the SI of much greater interest to the House and noted by the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee as an instrument of interest.

[Richard Fuller (North East Bedfordshire) (Con)]

On a point of clarification about the definition of “turnover”, certain foreign investments will be acquiring businesses with debt in possession or that have very little revenue but a significant amount of intellectual property value. When it comes to appropriate penalties, what is the consideration given to those two particular circumstances?

[Paul Scully]

We have spoken to businesses to get the balance right. There are clearly complexities in these issues, and those will be determined in terms of the enforcement powers. We have decided that the figure and the impact we have calculated around that is the right balance to strike.

The notifiable acquisition regulations specify descriptions and activities of qualifying entities, the acquisition of which must be notified to the Secretary of State as a notifiable acquisition. Acquisitions in the scope of mandatory notifications that are completed without the Secretary of State’s approval will be void and therefore have no effect in law.

Net Zero Strategy and Heat and Buildings Strategy

Richard Fuller Excerpts

Tuesday 19th October 2021 Commons Chamber

[Greg Hands]

I absolutely agree with the hon. Gentleman on working with workforces. The commitment to net zero is a huge, country-wide endeavour and we must carry everybody with us. May I perhaps suggest that he has a word with the trade unions, because they have been extremely critical of Labour’s official policy, which is to get to net zero by 2030? As I have mentioned, the GMB has said that nobody thinks that 2030 is a “remotely achievable deadline”. Another said that it would be a huge upheaval, leading to job losses in the industry. I agree with what he has to say, but perhaps he might have a word with those on his Front Bench as well.

[Richard Fuller (North East Bedfordshire) (Con)]

The transition to net zero emboldens politicians to use ambitious rhetoric, but they cross their fingers that the reality of implementation will be as planned. That is because, as my right hon. Friend knows, he is dealing with tremendous amounts of uncertainty over the fact that chosen technologies may not work or may be superseded, that anticipated unit cost reductions may not be achieved and that the first-mover advantage may result in heavy costs but illusory or temporary sources of competitive advantage. Can he advise me on what his Department is doing to calibrate correctly the extent of the use of taxpayers’ money, the extent of additional levies on business and the extent of additional burdens on householders in the achievement of his strategy?

[Greg Hands]

Mr Speaker, as a former Chief Secretary to the Treasury, you can imagine that I take a strong and ongoing interest in exactly that sort of question. We at BEIS have those discussions with the Treasury and the whole of Government all of the time to make sure that the plan here is both achievable and affordable and that it will be realised to enable us to meet all of those targets that we have set ourselves. I am looking forward to interacting with my hon. Friend on any specific concerns that he may have going forward, but his question and his points are the sorts of things that are very much on our minds.

Advanced Research and Invention Agency Bill

Richard Fuller Excerpts

Report stage & 3rd reading
Monday 7th June 2021 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Flynn]

I cannot imagine why so many people have withdrawn, given the exciting topic that we are going to discuss here this evening. I will speak to amendment 1 and in favour of all the following amendments and new clauses in the name of myself and my honourable colleagues. Of course, the context for what we are about to debate has changed markedly from this morning and, indeed, much of the last week. For the avoidance of any doubt, my colleagues and I were very much in favour of new clause 4, and while the Government may have not been defeated today, their card has certainly been marked.

To the matter at hand, which is of course the Advanced Research and Invention Agency. Much of what I seek to say will repay repetition. Many of the points were covered on Second Reading and in Committee, but I feel it is important that we cover them again, because, despite the concerns that we have expressed on these Benches and that have been echoed by the official Opposition, the Government have not sought at any stage to amend the Bill up until this juncture. That is something of a missed opportunity. The reality is that across the Chamber, nobody is criticising the ethos of the Bill or the aim of the Bill to try to improve the UK’s standing in relation to this specific topic, but we feel that the Government can and should be going further.

The first matter on which that is fairly obvious is the lack of a mission, a purpose, a raison d’être for the Bill. There is no clear mission for ARIA as it stands, despite much to-ing and fro-ing on this topic. The Government have been clear on their reasoning as to why they do not want that to be the case, but I find it extremely regrettable, when we know there is a climate emergency—hopefully everyone across the Chamber is in agreement on that—that the Government still refuse to make the climate emergency a core purpose of ARIA to ensure that meeting our net zero targets is the aim of this agency.

[Richard Fuller (North East Bedfordshire) (Con)]

On a point of clarification, could the hon. Gentleman tell the House whether there is no mission for ARIA, or is it just that ARIA does not have the mission he has just outlined?

[Stephen Flynn]

That is an interesting point that. I believe it is regrettable that there is no set mission. The mission should be to combat climate change and to meet our net zero targets.

--- Later in debate ---

[Richard Fuller]

I was not on the Committee, but there is a fundamental point here. I recall from the debate on Second Reading that the objective of ARPA is to think beyond what is normally thought about. The issue about the climate emergency is that we know it is a problem. We know that there are multiple solutions in multiple areas, which people are already working on. We also know that there is tremendous commercial interest, from the point of view of people investing in relation to the climate emergency and companies that are trying to sell products in that area. To what extent does the objective that the hon. Gentleman proposes fit that “beyond beyond” mission that I thought was the original purpose of ARPA?

[Stephen Flynn]

I think it absolutely fits that point. Of course, there could be new solutions that we are not aware of at this moment. On Second Reading, the hon. Member made a similar point, and I said that he should not be so narrow in his view of climate change because to meet net zero we need to operate in a vast landscape. The Government do not seem to be acknowledging that through ARIA. To repeat myself, I believe that that is a missed opportunity.

The Government will point to their energy White Paper and point to the 10-point plan, and perhaps they will point to the North sea transition deal in terms of their aims in relation to combating climate change. That is fair and reasonable, but—notwithstanding the arguments we might have on those points, of which there are many—it does not mean that we stop there, particularly in the year of COP26. I urge Government Members to reflect on that as we move forward in the debate.

That covers amendment 1, which we hope to press later, but we have tabled other amendments. Perhaps the clearest, and the one that needs to be debated in this Chamber, notwithstanding what I have already said, relates to scrutiny—the fact that the Government have sought to put ARIA outwith the Freedom of Information Act 2000. It is no longer going to be applicable to public procurement regulations. That is simply unacceptable and there is no justification for it.

I listened closely to what the Minister had to say in that regard in Committee and on Second Reading, and I have read on numerous occasions remarks made in relation to that point by those on the Government Benches, yet I simply do not understand the logic of why they are doing this. From looking at DARPA, we know that there are 40-odd freedom of information requests—40-odd for DARPA, which is on a scale vastly superior to that of ARIA—yet the Government still seek to move away from that scrutiny. From a public perspective, that does no one any favours. I am sure that, if the Government had their time back, they might do things differently, because ultimately this benefits nobody. All it does is create more clouds of suspicion around what the Government’s activities are.

That ties in with our amendment 2, which relates to cronyism and the need to avoid it. The Government’s record and reputation over the last year and a half have been deplorable. The hon. Member for North East Bedfordshire (Richard Fuller) shakes his head, but that is the reality. There is a reason that his Prime Minister is so disliked and distrusted in Scotland: it is what we have seen over the pandemic—not just from the Prime Minister himself, but from his Ministers and friends, the donors, and the family members who have benefited from contracts. What we do not want to see—what we cannot see—is ARIA becoming a vehicle for that to happen. Our amendment would clearly stop that.

On FOI and procurement regulations, the Labour party has said something similar to us, just with a lot more words. It is within the Labour party’s gift to do so, although I am not quite sure why it did not just agree with us. It can do so on occasion; we will not take it personally.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chi Onwurah]

I thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, because that is exactly the point to which I am going—to the amendments. Just to say that the funding for coronavirus research, which is the kind of world-beating or leading research that we would hope ARIA will be looking at, has been cut by 70%, which will kill the project. A Government happy to withdraw support for vital research projects across the globe are not a Government who wish to act in the best interests of science, the country or the world.

On ARIA itself, we have many serious concerns. We recognise the need for new mechanisms to support high-risk, high-reward research in our science sector, and as such ARIA is a step in the right direction. ARIA can transform our scientific landscape and we can build an institution that furthers our societal aims for decades to come, but we have concerns, which our amendments seek to address, about the lack of direction, strategy and accountability in the Government’s current proposals. Without such improvements, we fear that the agency could be used to pursue vanity projects disconnected from the public interest.

The first major issue with the Bill is the absence of a mission for ARIA, which has already been raised. What is ARIA for and what is it working towards? Labour’s amendment 12 would require ARIA to have a specific mission for ARIA’s first decade, and we want that mission to be climate change.

[Richard Fuller]

I am very grateful to the hon. Lady for reverting to items that are in order today. On amendment 12, she mentioned that that should be the “core mission”. The hon. Member for Aberdeen South (Stephen Flynn) talked about its being part of a bigger whole, but it is still a relatively small amount of money. Does the amendment mean that that is the only mission? Essentially, when she says “core mission”, what she means is the only mission and the agency cannot do anything else other than that for 10 years.

[Chi Onwurah]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for seeking to aid Madam Deputy Speaker in determining what is in order. I am not sure whether that was necessary.

On the hon. Gentleman’s intervention, I fail to see why he thinks that pedantry can make up for a lack of argument. Climate change is a core mission. We are not seeking to hem in the agency with absolute linguistic barriers for what exactly should be done, but we want it to have a direction. We want to know where it is going and what it is seeking to do. The core mission, as I intend to set out in detail, will be climate change. I do not intend to limit its interpretation of climate change, but I will set out the reasons why climate change will be its core mission.

--- Later in debate ---

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

No. 10 on the speakers’ list has withdrawn. No. 11 is not here and Nos. 12 and 13 have withdrawn, so I call Richard Fuller.

[Richard Fuller]

It is a surprise to be called so early, but it is nevertheless welcome. I was not on the Public Bill Committee, which I know will have been a sadness for all its members, but for me it was of particular sadness because for the future of our country and most other countries, the way in which we nurture and promote innovation is crucial. Although this is a small Bill that generally has wide support across the House, it is rather important that we get it right. It is therefore important that today we debate some of the issues on which the Committee was not able to reach a full conclusion.

Innovation is crucial for our success, and I hope that the Minister and the Department will move on from the fact that we have innovation to look at ways in which we can promote the implementation of innovation, particularly through the removal of barriers and the promotion of competition, so that we can see the fruits of this investment in tangible economic and social success for our country.

Looking through the amendments, I would group them into three areas that it seems were not fully resolved in Committee: first, the extent of oversight; secondly, the issue of purpose or mission; and, thirdly, appointments. On oversight, although each of the proposed steps might be worthy, each of them is also an impediment. If there is one driving value that I hope we have for the Bill at this stage, it is to have the courage to enable this new and additional form of innovation investing to have the freedom to grow and do what it wishes to do.

If, at some point in the future, we find that the programme has gone off the rails somewhat and gone beyond what we know, it would perhaps then be useful for us to put more bureaucratic layers on top of it, but we certainly should not do so from the outset. If we do that from the outset, essentially we are killing the idea in its entirety. It is so easy for us here to say, “We really believe in this, but we would like this or that.” It is quite natural, as protectors of taxpayers’ money—that used to be a role of this House, but sadly it is one that has been lacking for about 40 years—that we want to take that responsibility seriously and to be thorough, but with this Bill we have to accept that if we are going to take that step, we have to put trust in this group. I would be interested to hear what other Members, particularly the hon. Member for Blackley and Broughton (Graham Stringer) with his long experience, have to say about whether this is the right step. I will come back to that point later in respect of appointments.

On the issue of purpose, the Labour Front-Bench spokesperson, the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central (Chi Onwurah)—I know she has a strong and real passion for science, and I have listened to her speak up for science over a number of years, so I know her intention is right—has tabled an amendment saying that the core mission should be about the climate change goals. The SNP spokesman, the hon. Member for Aberdeen South (Stephen Flynn), who opened the debate, similarly said that we should focus on the environment.

It is important to ask what impact it would have if we made the environment the focus. We currently have $30 trillion-worth of environmental, social and governance assets in the world. The Bill is proposing to add a flow of approximately $1 billion a year, or 1 in 30,000 of the assets that are already there. In terms of where moneys are flowing, this year’s flow of ESG in the private sector is about $130 billion to $140 billion. If we were to make the environment the core mission, we would essentially be tossing £800 million on top of an enormous pile of assets that is already there and an enormous additional inflow this year that is already happening. By its very nature, we would be doing the thing that we are not supposed to be asking ARIA to do, which essentially is to do what everybody else is doing. The whole purpose of ARIA is to do those things that other people are not doing. I feel that it is a mistake to say, “This is a really important mission—aren’t you terrible for not saying that we should focus on it?”, rather than “There are other missions—there is a bigger mission out there that perhaps we as politicians do not have the insight to understand.” That is the whole purpose of setting up ARIA, because with our bureaucratic fingers and our tiny political minds we just are not able to think of those things. It is worth our while considering that, so I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend the Member for South Basildon and East Thurrock (Stephen Metcalfe) that it should not have a mission. The whole purpose of ARIA is to do those things that other people are not doing. I feel that it is a mistake to say, “This is a really important mission—aren’t you terrible for not saying that we should focus on it?”, rather than “There are other missions—there is a bigger mission out there that perhaps we as politicians do not have the insight to understand.” That is the whole purpose of setting up ARIA, because with our bureaucratic fingers and our tiny political minds we just are not able to think of those things. It is worth our while considering that, so I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend the Member for South Basildon and East Thurrock (Stephen Metcalfe) that it should not have a mission.

UK Steel Production: Greensill Capital

Richard Fuller Excerpts

Thursday 25th March 2021 Commons Chamber

[Kwasi Kwarteng]

That is a fair question, but the hon. Lady will appreciate that the assets in Scotland relate particularly to aluminium smelting, whereas in England and Wales their job is really focused on the steel industry. None the less, we are looking at all options to see what we can do to sustain these crucial jobs.

[Richard Fuller (North East Bedfordshire) (Con)]

An acquisition strategy based on supply chain financing arrangements, plus a future receivables derivative scheme, plus an additional month’s cash-flow, and a liberal mix of state guarantees has the characteristics of a potential Ponzi scheme. Has my right hon. Friend been able to ascertain the facts here, or is this an issue for investigation by the Serious Fraud Office?

[Kwasi Kwarteng]

My hon. Friend raises very serious questions about the business model, which I am not prepared to go into now. What I will say is that, in the first two months of my tenure as Secretary of State, I have pushed forward audit reform as a big issue. A consultation on it is under way. It is issues relating to things such as Greensill capital that show how necessary it is for us to reconsider what we are doing on audit reform and to have the best standards in the world.